So you reiterate that the position you're arguing against is that atheists don't have to provide evidence for God's existence because they are not making a positive claim. So far so good. It's good to remember this at this stage.
No, what i am arguing against is that the Atheists shifting the burden of proof onto the Thiests . Arguing that their claim is negative, and negative claims require no justification. This is an extremely inaccurate position. Even within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, negative claims are studied, analyzed and evaluated. Several scientific studies reach negative conclusions and they justify such using evidence.
Many scientific papers are published solely to provide evidence for a negative conclusion that is against previously held conclusions and theories. If an atheist argues that negative claims require no justification, then they are in disagreement with much of the peer-reviewed academic literature who all require evidence to substantiate negative conclusions.
Secondly exposing the fact that some Atheists use defense mechanisms like Agnostic Atheism , which some fall back on when confronted after they make claims relative to God which they can't prove.
Now this paragraph is a classical example of a strawman argument. First of all, you're readjusting the atheist's position here by means generalising what type of statement the typical atheist makes. This type of readjustment is not permitted in philosophy. Secondly, testimony has no bearing on falsity or the truth of the position you're arguing against. Hence the anecdotal evidence from "everyone on this forum" is irrelevant. You've to attack the argument itself.
First of all that is not a straw man argument because i am not misrepresenting someones argument either. I am not generalizing by saying all atheists or using anecdotes as my premise to my argument as i put ''If'' as in case.
Surely it would be incorrect ''IF" you were to claim that no atheists makes claims against God.
Secondly. You didn't deal with the point i was making. That if Atheists make a claim against God they have to provide evidence and if an Atheist for examples states ''There is no proof of evidence against God'' to this a Theist can just state ''There is no evidence for the non-existence of God''.
Now this paragraph just runs on the strawman fuel created in the preceding paragraph. You're pretty much arguing against statements that you yourself have made at this stage, masquerading it as the position you're arguing against. But by your own admission in the first paragraph this is not what you intended to argue against. The statement "It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence" is perfectly valid from a rationalist's viewpoint because rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered rational.
I don't think you know what a Strawman means since you are using it very incorrectly because you affirmed what i was saying but just worded it differently to make it appear as if the Atheist argument is more plausible. What i essentially did was flip the argument
Kind like stating for example ''It is not rational to believe that God does not exist , because there is no evidence for the non-existence of God'' is perfectly valid from a rationalist viewpoint because rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered.
Do you see how all you are doing is shifting the burden of proof and committing fallacies.
The reason why i reverse the argument against the atheist is not to frustrate them or discourage intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the deficiencies in their reasoning skills.
The counter argument doesn't work for rationality because the absence of any evidence is enough to warrant a rejection of the statement on the atheist's behalf. Don't confuse truth with rationality: the atheist would remain rational but might be wrong. This is a good distinction to remember. It also fails to acknowledge that one might only cast rationalist judgement while suspending the metaphysical judgement in which they will simply shrug off the second statement. So even if you were granted the false rationalist position you have given, you would have still achieved nothing.
But that wouldn't make you Atheist but Agnostic. Anyways you can just reverse the argument and ''Becaus there is absence of any evidence to support the belief that god doesn't exist'' You see it doesn't warrant any dismissal or rejection because that would violate the fact that ''We don't know''.
Like i stated before when i replied to
@Jujuman and
@You using Chamberlains argument.
''Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place.
Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base. One would think from purely a logical perspective that the starting point for any investigation should have focused on the "cause" or the "first cause", even if the exact nature of that cause necessitate waiting. After all we know next to nothing about nature of gravity but use it extensively as a cause in order to understand everything around us.''
Overusing the word ''Rationality'' will not make anything you say sound more rational or logical. What kind of psuedo-intellectual mumbo jumbo is this.
Less rhetoric and more coherent arguments aimed at the substance of the opponents argument.
This realisation is never achieved because, for one, to put colourfully, you're a critic of your own art at this stage; and for another, because you got what the rationalist position would be wrong. So both the method and means are misguided here. Also, this further provides proof that you really don't know much about the burden of proof. It operates as a construct that protects arguments from descending into the chain of claims upon claims you're trying to create here.
Rationalist, Rationalist, Rationalist bla bla bla
. Repeating Rationalist/Rationality over and over or using ad hominems is not an argument nor is it a valid rebuttal.
Walahi You are are a psuedo intellectual
you don't make any argument or address my points. You just repeatedly emphasize that your standing is correct and that somehow makes it automatically correct by default
Again, you would do much better just to concentrate on the argument here instead of painting the position you're arguing against in a certain way as a way of aiding your own attack. This has been a constant theme throughout your post. You haven't even at one point attacked the argument itself. As for atheists picking this line of thinking when it suits them, I address why this is irrelevant below.
Its every bit valid painting the position i am arguing against. The point of this thread was to expose the fact that creating defense mechanisms and using cop outs are intellectually dishonest and arguing against the Atheists burden of proof..
The point i am making is straight forward, if you actually care to read it instead of concocting ways to obfuscate it.
I think this demonstrates naivety for thinking it's that simple. Even if the atheists were intellectually dishonest here, why would that be an issue? If the position itself is philosophically untenable as you seem to believe, then surely the intentions of the atheist don't matter as the argument itself is refutable? The trouble is not the intentions of the atheist; it's that the position itself is as unbeatable as it gets in philosophy.
Nativity is your condescending remarks that neither attacks my points or my arguments intellectual manner. Because creating intellectual dishonest positions are invalid and exposing them is every bit as reasonable if we are going to have an plausible intellectual discourse.
Creating deceptive tactics by intentionally committing fallacies is unwarranted.
I will paraphrase myself in the opening statement.
The atheist's who follow this type of discourse are simply intellectually dishonest and there is no way to reason with these types of people.
Almost all atheist philosophers of the last century or so have taken that position when it comes to questions of existence. The fact that you haven't encountered any shows how limited your knowledge of philosophy is. The classical arguments on God's existence had a massive shift since the dawn of analytic philosophy. Now the same philosophers who have taken this approach might make positive claims when it comes to say the philosophy of morality. This is not intellectually dishonest because the question is then often concerning a particular God, where there is a basis to make such judgement. But as I've remarked on above, the intentions are irrelevant anyway.
Almost all people in the new Atheists camp of this century have taken intellectual dishonest positions when it comes to the questions of existence. Thats why i have never encountered one and says more about the so called Atheist philosophers camp then it does me.
Firstly some Atheists make claims relative to God then , falling back on their defense mechanism stating they are Agnostic Aheists, when that is trivial and meaningless. The only thing that matters is the claims you make and not your belief. If you make a negative claim against God you have to provide evidence.
Or frequently shifting the Burden of proof by postulating that the burden of proof like you just did lies solely on Theists and not the Atheists. Because the fallacious notion ''negative claims'' don't need proof which just utter rubbish and any lay-man philosopher can pick that apart in seconds.
Now you are just throwing insults. It appears you have frustrated yourself with your own argument. Regarding that atheists lack evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence, they don't have to. So your argument is moot. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient for them to not have a belief in God, or to simply suspend judgement.
I made an accusation not an insult. Its more likely you are frustrated considering the fact that you took offense to that. Atheists have to provide evidence for the non-existence of God. Because all truth claims bear a burden of proof.
'Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place.
Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base.
Lastly my argument isn't moot i could just reverse what you are saying. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient in having a belief in God or to simply suspend Judgement.
At end of the day all you are doing is shifting the burden of proof.
Scientists deal with falsifiable claims. Metaphysical claims like the one in concern here are inherently unfalsifiable. Therefore what you have written is a false equivalence. So a simple syllogism destroys your whole paragraph. Furthermore, you demonstrate ignorance as to how science works. Even if the concerned claim was falsifiable, scientist's approach wouldn't be to collect evidence trying to prove it. This is called confirmation bias. In fact, a scientist would do the opposite of what you seem to think he/she would do.
Yes it is unfalsifiable metaphysical question but how does that make disbelief or lack of belief in God more scientific then Lack of belief in non-existence or belief in God.
Its not a false equivalence there is nothing scientific about Atheism.
Furthermore something being unfalsifiable just means its outside of science, it doesn't mean its disproof or evidence of anything.
Finally, I'd like to remark on that of all the possible ways to attack atheism, you have chosen the hardest one. I've remarked earlier in this post that the position you're arguing against is very hard to beat. Ask entire theories that stood for thousands of years whose grave have been dug by the skeptics of the analytic tradition. Have you ever heard of the tripartite theory of knowledge? I would advise you to take a course in modern epistemology just to see what you're up against. The power of skepticism borders on being as unbeatable as one could get in philosophy. People whose intelligence far surpasses yours have tried and acknowledged it. It's laughably naive that you think you can argue against this.
It is a complete straw-man to think it was a attack on Atheism. If you still don't understand let me just summarize my points in one sentence.
Atheists and Theists have to provide evidence for the non-existence of God or existence of God , their beliefs don't matter only the claims they make.
Lastly what the hell are you rambling on about,
what the hell does these ''mysterious entire theories'' which you don't disclose have to do with my arguments or topic of ''Burden of Proof''. Whether you are a Skeptic or not you still have to provide evidence if you are going to make a claim about the non-existence of God.
