The myth of neutrality
Offline It seems like most atheists who frequent internet discussion boards or chatrooms like to maintain a position of neutrality. This is like a sacred cow, such that if any theist wants to tell an atheist what their position is, the atheist will automatically say "No! You do not understand what atheism is!" Despite this, I will attempt to make a fair generalization:
The main tenet of New Atheism is this: We respond to evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. We do not have to prove that God does not exist. You have to prove that God exists.
This is affectionately known as the myth of neutrality.
Facts are, atheists are universally committed to a worldview. The worldview hinges on the following principle:
Either there is a possible world where God does not exist, or there are no possible worlds where God exists.
The outright assertion that God does not exist is covered in both disjuncts. Even if the atheist has no knowledge of modal logic (which most do not), s/he is adhering to this principle without even knowing it. Even if you endorse one disjunct and not the other, the rules of propositional logic dictate that the entire statement is still true. If the atheist says that he disagrees with both disjuncts, then he is no longer an atheist since the only alternative is that God exists in all possible worlds, which would entail God's existence in this world.
If you have come to accept this principle, then you did not do so from a position of neutrality. You have already accepted that presuppositionalism is false. This was not simply accepting that presuppositionalism may be false. This was an outright denial of presuppositionalism. Therefore, the burden of proof is actually on the atheist to justify (1) why presuppositionalism is false, and (2) how it is possible that God does not exist. At this stage, the atheist usually reveals his somewhat dogmatic commitment to metaphysical naturalism. Accordingly, the existence of God had to have been subordinated to some other ethos acting as guiding post for assessing what only may be the case vs. what is the case.
All I ask is that atheists drop this whole facade of neutrality and just admit that they simply find their presuppositions to be more tenable. The burden of proof isn't just on the theist. The burden of proof is on both sides. We both have to present our worldviews. And I dare say that if the atheist worldview cannot be defended, then theism is automatically vindicated. God either exists or does not exist. There is no in-between.
- Login to post comments
And we should take this same 'neutral' view about the flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, Thor, Santa Claus, etc...? Do you? You believe these should all be debated like some 50/50 proposition of being true? Or would you consider any adult who seriously believes in them and orders their lives around this belief dangerously delusional?
The fact is this 'neutrality' you believe in is entirely a function of cultural bias. Because the Christian version of 'god' is so widely accepted and indoctrinated into society, you think it deserves this 'neutrality' respect. You are the one not being neutral because of cultural bias.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
What I stated was that you do not take a neutral view. All I'm asking is for atheists to stop saying stuff like, "The burden of proof is on the theist to prove that God exists!" Well, yes it is. But the burden of proof is also on the atheist to justify how it is possible for God not to exist, since they already accept a worldview which grants the falsification of presuppositionalism. To claim that the theist is the only one with the burden of proof is essentially claiming that the theist operated from an equal position but found God using the atheist's standards of evidence, thereby presupposing that the atheist's methodology is the only one coming into play. The atheist needs to justify his own methodology and metaphysics, and a good starting point is to acknowledge that your rejection of God was not from a neutral perspective.
As far as the FSM, Zeus, Thor, and Santa goes, this is what Greg Bahnsen referred to as the "crackers in the pantry fallacy". You are presuming that you would determine the truth of God's existence in the same way you determine that of anything else, i.e. we find out if the statement "there are crackers in the pantry" is true in the same way we determine the truth of the statement "God exists", which is a category error. To determine if Santa exists, we simply travel to the north pole and see if anybody is there. If we travel to Mt. Olympus and do not see anybody, we can determine that Zeus does not exist. God, on the other hand, is not at any one particular place, so you cannot travel anywhere and determine that God does not exist if you do not see him there. Santa and Zeus also have physical bodies, while God is immaterial. Material things require a beginning to their existence, since matter taking on any sort of form requires a cause, whereas God is eternal and has no cause. Therefore, you can evaluate Santa and Zeus scientifically but you cannot do the same thing with God.
Your spiel on "cultural bias" is a genetic fallacy. You are presuming that because we know how a belief originates, that belief is therefore false. It is also wholly inaccurate. The average laeity does not understand God in the same way apologists do, since most have never studied theology or philosophy. Many of them take on a secular lifestyle and gravitate towards a view of "spiritualism". Christianity is generally shunned in academia through hidden opposition. Professors get to decide which questions are worthwhile or which options are serious, and s/he will select class material which is concomitant with the worldview that s/he particularly espouses. This is probably the most subtle form of secularization and results in people not directly attacking Christianity, but adopting a more moderate view towards religion and metaphysics, mostly under the banner of relativism. You are the one who has actually been brainwashed, not us.
First of all, Zeus and Santa Claus could have moved. Going to the North Pole or Mount Olympus and not finding them would not disprove their existence. They could be anywhere. They could have been abducted by aliens. Invisible ones.
But more importantly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is immaterial, just like your "God". He only chooses to assume the form of spaghetti sometimes. He is perfectly capable of disappearing from physical existence. So he cannot be sought out in the same way that your god cannot be sought out. If you were to search every square inch of space in the seemingly infinite universe, and failed to find the FSM, he could still be real. So, based on your reasoning, if I should believe in God because I can't disprove him, then shouldn't I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too?
No. I shouldn't believe in God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because the inability to disprove their existence doesn't make their existence at all likely.
But still, even if it weren't for these facts, there are plenty of ways to disprove the God of the Christian religion. It is not possible that the following are all true:
1)God is omniscient.
2)God had one plan for his creation.
3)The talking snake foiled that plan.
God would have always known that his plan would be foiled, therefore this would have to be the plan in the first place. An omniscient being cannot make a plan without accounting for everything that will happen. He would know better whether he wanted to or not. Or, alternately, if he wanted to not know, and was able to bring this condition about, he would no longer be omniscient.
Moreover, an omniscient being cannot change his plans, because he would always have known what his plan would be. (He cannot actually make plans, for the same reason.)
So God, as described in Christianity, cannot exist.
However, there are still plenty of other religions that I cannot disprove as of yet. So since you think that means you should believe in them, you'd better make up your mind.
edit: I apologize for the enlarged text, I cannot seem to correct it.
Do you intentionally miss the point? The point, Zeus and Santa Clause are not in the same category as the Christian God. Proving the existence of the former has nothing to do with that of the latter. It's like saying that you would prove the truth of crackers in the pantry in the same way that you would prove the law of conservation of energy. If you want to go the nihilistic rout, then we cannot prove anything. For example, even if we see your great grandmother's corpse, that does not prove that she is dead. She could be sleeping and the coroner could be lying to you. The point was regarding category errors. If you are not interesting in addressing the actual issues, then there is no reason for me to dialogue with you.
You are going the nihilistic rout again and interpolating random things into the conversation. Are you actually trying to suggest that God is proven in the same way as everything else? Was any of this stuff re: the FSM actually said by Bobby Henderson, or are you just saying random things in order to bring the discussion into a dialectical stalemate?
And I never suggested that you should for those reasons. What I did say was that if you are going to evaluate whether or not God does exist, then you have to apply different criteria than you would for Zeus, FSM, Santa Clause, and the like. Are you actually going to disagree on that point? If so, then you clearly have no understanding of the Christian God.
Ohhh, interesting. Let's hear.
This is true.
I've never heard a Christian apologist say that God had "one plan" for his creation. We do not know anything about God's intentions. He may have one plan, two plans, or five plans. We have no idea.
No. The talking snake did not foil God's plan. Your theology is entirely off-base. God's sovereign will ordains everything, including the events in Genesis (Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2). You are conflating a violation of the law of God with actually going against God's plan. Nobody can go against God's will, whatever that may be.
His plan was never foiled.
Okay. I'm still waiting for your proof that God does not exist.
?
I have no idea what you just said.
Omniscient simply means that God has all knowledge. Where in that does it follow that God cannot intend to do something? You are essentially claiming that action necessitates a lack of knowledge and I'm not quite seeing how this is the case.
I don't quite see how that follows. You've made a false assumption that, first of all, God had a plan and it was ruined by one of his creatures. This is false. Second, you presumed that an omniscient being cannot intend to do something unless it has some degree of ignorance, which does not follow at all. Third, you presumed that God's sovereign will is restricted to one plan, which requires you to actually know what God is thinking.
I find it striking how horrible the atheist arguments for God's non-existence are compared to the theist arguments for God's existence. It is like the Saints vs. Lions.
Well some Christians certainly believe that God had an initial plan for his creation that was interfered with by the Original Sin. For instance, we were originally intended to live forever in the Garden of Eden, but then Eve was tempted and... you know how it goes.
But if you believe that God sanctions evil then that interferes with another part of God's definition: wait for it... omnibenevolence!
I don't watch pro football. Your simile is lost on me.
I can't believe you didn't anticipate that I would then point out the contradiction to his omnibenevolence. I know you've heard this argument before. I thought of it independently when I was like twelve. You must have a come back for this or you are not only wrong, but retarded.
As far as the "planning" issue is concerned, it is impossible for an omniscient being to fail to account for something in his plans, and it is impossible for him to make plans because he already knew what his plans would be. That's very simple. I'm sure you understand it.
And by "one plan" I meant his initial plan as opposed to his subsequent plan. It doesn't make a difference how you enumerate his "plans".
I can't believe you actually said it was God's will for Satan to break his law. That is awesome.
No, he didn't- but you did. You clearly know nothing about the FSM, for example.
FSM is an integrated being- actually above and beyond the Christian notion of a god (if you had learned anything about the concept).
Bobby Henderson was wrong about quite a few things; the discovery was actually quite an accident (originally meant to be silly). The noodles obviously aren't made of wheat, but represent super-strings of time-space which are curved into themselves (infinity). Unless you deny time, you can't deny the reality of the FSM- it is the nature of time and correlation itself.
The only way your god could exist, is if the FSM allowed it to- which the FSM will not do. For you see, your god is an acting god, and in order to act, one passes through time- and the FSM would have to act to allow this flow from non-existence (outside time) to existence (in it), and the FSM doesn't act (otherwise it would be an actor, like your false god, and not the nature of time itself).
Now, time may be questionable- so I may have to say I'm agnostic to the FSM. However, your god is strictly false- for if time is real, the FSM prevents your god, and if it isn't, then your god is naturally impossible anyway.
I can state the LOGICAL disproofs more elegantly and precisely than he has given reality OR unreality of time, but quite frankly, you aren't worthy of my writing them.
Your god is false.
I won't even share any of the disproofs with you because your fideistic sensibilities make you virtually incapable of comprehending them (hopefully I didn't give you too many clues above).
What's more, you're trapped in your fideistic world of presuppositionalism, and you'll never escape- and I'll see to that. You are not permitted to think critically or leave your faith. You are not permitted to truly question or doubt- I deny you that. And I deny you the logical proofs that might free you.
It's really a shame for you. If you were a decent human being, I'd feel sorry for you... I might even try to help you. But as you're generally a heartless creature, it's probably best that you're trapped in such an ineffectual and false delusion. That is where I will leave you.
Laugh it up; you can't even comprehend the depth of your prison.
The silver lining is that you will die eventually. You will die, and you will not go to heaven. Nor will you go to hell- you'll rot an infinite number of times, and your lack of an eternal soul will be incredibly wonderful; what you are in the context of time remaining a pathetic stain on the sum of the minds of humanity. What of history remembers you will remember you for the lunatic holdout of ancient superstitious beliefs you are, if at all.
You will die, and your beliefs will go with you.
Then, in time, they'll come again as a new generation of idiots invents some new deity or superstition.
The tides of superstition are unending- you can be content in knowing, at least, that you're in the company of an endless stream of lunatics (a literally Infinitesimal number of whom share your god), and your Jehovah thinking not only won't be missed, it will be forgotten and reinvented in the name of Glogzor, Viplek, and an infinite number of other future gods, just as false as yours.
This is your future; the future. You can't fight it, and you can't change it- I'm not even going to give you the chance by throwing you the tools you would need to do so- as easy as it would be to answer your questions, you aren't worthy.
HARSH! But so true.
This is the second consecutive posting I've seen by you where you act like a total ass, so I'm going to start treating you like one from here on out.
That phrase you used, the "myth of neutrality," is a dumbed down version of the confirmation bias. I've seen it mentioned on a variety of wing-nut Christian websites arguing why people can't be balanced and fair.
I think what you said about atheism is true, but I'd say it a bit differently: belief proportioned to evidence, and evidence is needed to substantiate a claim. Are you seriously saying that you yourself do not agree with these tenets?
What in the fuck is a "possible world?" You failed to elaborate on it--and since I'm ignorant of the concept of possibility (discussed below), type in simple speak that a fifth grader could understand.
I don't know many atheists who argue that it is impossible for god to exist (either on this or another "possible world", with the exclusion of a god with self-contradictory traits, which may or may not include the Christian god). Do the atheists that you know believe such? Under what grounds do they arrive at the conclusion that a god is impossible?
I honestly don't get what you're going for with this statement. Sane people tend to deal with this world, not conjectures about some fictitious "possible world" to provide some form of ass-backwards support to substantiate their claim.
Emphasis mine. Modal logic? So you're saying that "most [atheists]" lack the understanding of necessity and possibility? You know what modal logic is, right?
One thing I dislike about people who have taken some philosophy classes is they pepper their statements with lofty sounding terms and ideas, when in reality they really have nothing more substantive than people who speak more plain-spoken. If you insist on dealing with modal statements, I think this one is fair: "It is possible that god exists". Now, how the hell exactly you're going to get from there to substantiating that claim is beyond me. Someone else mentioned the FSM: "It is possible that the FSM exists". It's simply possibility.
At some point the philosophical armor has to come off and you have to start providing evidence for your claims.
I do. I don't give a special treatment to Jewish myths and legends over Greek, Arab, African or any other cultures as you seem to do.
But you don't see him there because you don't believe. He exists there but only to those who believe in him first does he reveal himself.
How convenient that god can not be seen. One must believe first in order to see him.
The Christians claim that prayer can heal people. So just do a double blind experiment to prove if this is true. Where is the evidence for the Christian claims of things like a global flood 5000 years ago and all humans being descended from one man 5000 years ago? Isn't this the same as going to the North Pole and not seeing Santa?
Well you know that devil, always using tons of evidence, logic and reason to fool us into not believing. I guess we just deserve eternal torture for being this way.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
And some "Christians" also believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Can you please cite me a passage in the bible which demonstrates that original sin interfered with God's plan?
Again, Genesis says absolutely nothing about God's sovereign will.
What does "omnibenevolent" mean and where in the scriptures does it say that this applies to God?
Did you play with Barbi dolls when you were little?
Again, you have not established that God's plan was ever "foiled", you've only asserted that some Christians believe this. Can you please cite me a passage in scripture?
An omniscient being does not need to "make plans" in order to act in accordance with his will. God's "plan" is really just a colloquialism. What you are really discussing is God's sovereign will and nowhere in scripture has this ever been thwarted.
This is a clear example of an atheist who does not understand Christian theology, makes an error, and instead of admitting to his wrongdoing, continues to defend his error. This is why it is difficult for me to be polite when I am dialoging with atheists.
Sorry, my respect has to be earned. If you make errors and refuse to acknowledge them, then you will not have my respect.
Now turn this statement on you and you get what people here think of you.
I've merely observed how people here act towards Christians who actually are polite. They make one post and immediately, the mods stick the "theist" label and before you know it, they are being ganged up on by a bunch of horny little 12 year olds.
How am I supposed to be respectful towards such a crowd?
I agree in a sense. I will not be rude to you if you are polite, but you have to understand your belief system comes along with a hole bunch of sh**. You have to keep in mind many athiests on this site (myself included) came to their position through decades of research, philosophy, and self reflection. I HATE the "you just don't understand christianity properly" argument, it's garbage, and you have used it. I've read the bible and had it read to me over 10 times, I was raised fundementally Christian, I know what's in that book and what it's all about, VERY MUCH SO. You have to understand their are some real problems with Christianity, and so I will not be rude to you, but I will rude to your religion. Your religion comes with alote of problems, forget the complicated arguments for god you've over posted here over 5 threads annoying everyone. Let's assume your correct and your belief system (Christianity) is correct, we are now left with a hole sh** load of other problems the ethical rational members (including myself) of this site have also spend decades pondering.
So, remember when a Christian comes to the site posting walls of calcualtions (that seem copied) and arguing this and that about their god (who is a bat shit crazy god indeed) you would expect some hostility. What grinds my gears, is you come on here and post these arguments for the existence of a "god". But in the end you are representing the god of Abraham, who is so fucked words cannot properly discribe his fu**edupdedness and therefor your fu**edupdedness. I am in no position to de bunk complex algebra and logic problems, I have no problem admitting that. But your "end/base" position, and the story and god you represent is so rediculous I can't understand why the heck you spend so much time trying to make sense out of it. If your going to come here and demand respect, pick a better position than Christianity!!!
I say this with all due respect, I truly do respect you as a human being, and I respect your right to believe what you do. However I do not repect your belief system, I do not respect Christianity, and I do not respect the decision you have made to allign yourself with the philosophies in the bible.
Sorry, your terms are unacceptable. I will not show you any respect.
Interesting. Example ?
Well, if you have no respect for them at all, wouldn't it make more sense to just leave ?
Okay, I'm leaving.
Bye.
No example then ? Okay. Bye.
Deal!
I really hope that Fortunate_S, King of Childish Insults and Master of Smug Arrogance, has really left.
Probably not though.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Really? You should have seen the original. I went back and edited it to make it nicer after I finished.
Good chance he's just signed up for another user name, and won't be gone for long.
I have little patience for pure fideists as it is (mistaken rationalists I have more sympathy for), but this guy made *me* look like a Victorian by comparison.
Hmm, I wouldn't agree with that disjunction. Without considering any other premises, I agree that you can also have a disjunct that God exists in all possible worlds. Eventually, though, I would conclude the first disjunct, that there are possible worlds where God does exist and there are possible worlds where God does not exist.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
The only 'world-view' that atheists are committed to is that there is zero to negligible likelihood that there is a God in our Reality.
Only philosophical and metaphysical dorks waste any mental effort on the unnecessarily obfuscatory "possible worlds" style of argument.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
A logically impossible god does not exist in any possible worlds, because such a being is logically impossible.
This "God", the deity of the presuppositionalists, is logically impossible, and exists in no possible words because those worlds would be impossible worlds if a logically impossible thing existed within them (see logical implosion).
With regards to potential deities that are not logically impossible (although I would argue that the very definition of a genuine deity denotes logical impossibility, so this necessitates a change to the very definition of deity) such as a toned down version of Zues or Odin that is part of the natural world, there may be possible worlds that contain them.
Wherein you capitalized the word, though, and used it in reference to that dimwit's beliefs? No, there is no possible world where this thing exists.
Hey now, it *can* be a useful thought experiment.
I don't mean to encourage him, if he may have left the forum, but just in case he wanders back here I'm going to keep arguing with him.
So Fortunate believes in a god that is not omnibenevolent, who sanctions evil, and intended for Adam and Eve to sin in the Garden of Eden. I'm not going to find contrary scripture. Rather I'm going to concede these points. From now on I will bear these points in mind when debating with Fortunate.
Actually, this god makes a lot more sense than the conventional Christian God. This explains why there is evil in the world, and why God won't reveal himself to us. God is evil. I'm afraid I was not prepared for this and will have to take some time to prepare my rebuttal. God is evil... hmmm... not perfect...
Actually this may not be a position worth arguing against.
Maybe an evil god could exist. I never thought of that.
It does make it easier to see why FS/RT is such a prick. An evil God has to be easier to emulate.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
BBBBurn!!!
So god was happy with everything that happened?
Are you claiming that nothing that happened is recorded as not being in accord with what he intended?
Because otherwise you make a nonsense of the idea of "will".
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Unless you bleive that sin entering the world was God's idea - Rom 5:12 stands against you. Did God want sin in the world?
If he did...
Then thank God for fucking everything up for us. What a loving, just deity he is. He made a world for humans and then broke it so he could blame it on us and so he could beat up and kill his son to make it all right.
If this is the God you worship - no wonder you're a prick.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin