Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Adrift]

I think we are using different definitions of 'religious'.

I don't think my atheism leads me in directions; I think it keeps me away from dead-ends. But once the cul-de-sacs of religion have been dug up, there's still a huge range of possibilities to explore that atheism does not and cannot help navigate.

The opposite of atheism isn't "a huge range of possibilities"...it's theism. Whether you realize it or not, your atheism really is saying something about the big questions, and how you perceive so much of the rest of your worldview, just as my theism does.

I've noted that several times in Craig writings, most recently in the argument MM cited. All too often Craig argues against what 'many atheists admit' or what 'atheists typically say' - and he doesn't cite atheists who actually admit or say those things. He doesn't deal with the strongest possible criticisms of his arguments, only the simple ones he can handle. I've yet to see an article of his that dealt with the flaws I perceive in his logic, I'm always disappointed by him addressing superficial and flawed criticisms instead.

Hmm. I completely and totally disagree. It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with his work because he absolutely does deal with the strongest criticisms of his arguments, and deals with them very well in my opinion. All anyone needs to do is read his published work, or listen to his weekly podcast to see his rebuttals to the criticisms of his arguments (which, for the most part, are not original to him, it should be noted). But as far as the quote, "many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof" goes, that rings completely true to me, because I myself have run into plenty of atheists who've admitted the same thing, or who I've literally heard say that in a debate. They'll usually say something to the effect of "Now I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but..." and then they'll go into a long line of reasons why they think the theist's reasons aren't good reasons to think he does exists. There are a number of atheists I've listened to who do make a positive case for why they think that God can't exist that don't have to do with reasons why theists think he does exist, but those are usually the types who will readily admit that atheism is not a lack of belief, but a very positive belief that God does not exist.

[Adrift]

It is a description of my viewpoint.

But it's not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs, as can be seen easily from the fact that you've highlighted defn #3 of belief, while belief in God is given under definition #1, and the beliefs associated with a specific church are given under defn #2.

You have just confirmed that my viewpoint is not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs.

This seems to be a strawman argument. No one here is claiming that atheistic belief is the exact same sort of belief as religious belief (though forming atheist churches, with their own evangelists, denominational splits, and their own sort of scripture certainly doesn't help that perception). You seem to be stuck on this concept that the opposite parallel to atheism is religion. That's not the opposite of atheism. The opposite of atheism is theism.

[Roy]

I don't think my atheism leads me in directions; I think it keeps me away from dead-ends. But once the cul-de-sacs of religion have been dug up, there's still a huge range of possibilities to explore that atheism does not and cannot help navigate.

The opposite of atheism isn't "a huge range of possibilities"...it's theism. Whether you realize it or not, your atheism really is saying something about the big questions, and how you perceive so much of the rest of your worldview, just as my theism does.

I think you've misinterpreted; I meant that there are a "huge range of possibilities" within atheism, and atheism doesn't help distinguish between them, it only says that the possibilities proposed by the various religions have been rejected.

Atheism by itself can't provide a worldview, since it only eliminates one of the wrong subsets of possibilities, and doesn't distinguish between the remaining ones, including many other false worldviews. To narrow down the possibilities further requires some combination of all or some of science, philosophy, history, conspiracy theories, sociology and LSD.

Hmm. I completely and totally disagree. It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with his work because he absolutely does deal with the strongest criticisms of his arguments, and deals with them very well in my opinion. All anyone needs to do is read his published work, or listen to his weekly podcast to see his rebuttals to the criticisms of his arguments (which, for the most part, are not original to him, it should be noted).

I have read some of his published work, and I have watched some of his debates and videos, and he does not deal with the biggest flaws in his arguments, choosing instead to address either straw men or subsets of actual criticisms.

They'll usually say something to the effect of "Now I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but..." and then they'll go into a long line of reasons why they think the theist's reasons aren't good reasons to think he does exists. There are a number of atheists I've listened to who do make a positive case for why they think that God can't exist that don't have to do with reasons why theists think he does exist, but those are usually the types who will readily admit that atheism is not a lack of belief, but a very positive belief that God does not exist.

A very positive belief that which God does not exist?

[Roy]

This seems to be a strawman argument. No one here is claiming that atheistic belief is the exact same sort of belief as religious belief

Teallaura effectively did when she rejected my statement that they were different sorts of belief.

[Adrift]

I think you've misinterpreted; I meant that there are a "huge range of possibilities" within atheism, and atheism doesn't help distinguish between them, it only says that the possibilities proposed by the various religions have been rejected.

Sure, I agree a huge range of possibilities can exist within atheism (as it obviously does theism), but it absolutely does more than simply reject possibilities proposed by various religions. As a starting point, atheism guides you in answering the big questions I mentioned previously, and acts as your starting point on how you perceive the world around you.

Atheism by itself can't provide a worldview, since it only eliminates one of the wrong subsets of possibilities, and doesn't distinguish between the remaining ones, including many other false worldviews. To narrow down the possibilities further requires some combination of all or some of science, philosophy, history, conspiracy theories, sociology and LSD.

Atheism, like theism, acts as a foundation for how you go about approaching the world. So, while you can quibble about atheism not providing you a worldview, it certainly is an incredibly influential aspect of that worldview.

I have read some of his published work, and I have watched some of his debates and videos, and he does not deal with the biggest flaws in his arguments, choosing instead to address either straw men or subsets of actual criticisms.

Hmm. Well I don't know what to tell you, because I've been immersed in his work for nearly 2 decades now, and I can say without a doubt that he absolutely does deal with every criticism of his work, both the major criticisms as well as the minor, and he deals with them thoroughly.

A very positive belief that which God does not exist?

Yep. So, for instance, some materialists or advocates for scientism will posit that only physical reality can exist, which, of course, excludes concepts like the divine or supernatural.

[Sparko]

Teallaura effectively did when she rejected my statement that they were different sorts of belief.

When adrift is talking about atheists defending your belief in a debate, he is speaking about defending your position, your opinion, your viewpoint. Not a belief in the sense of a faith or religion.

[Adrift]

Teallaura effectively did when she rejected my statement that they were different sorts of belief.

I think you're misinterpreting her point. When you stated "I have a viewpoint concerning theistic beliefs. I'm happy to defend it. It's not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs" it basically comes off sounding like you're avoiding, or shunning the idea that your atheism itself is a belief. That's what I understood her to be responding to. If that's not what you meant, then you may be talking past one another.

[Mountain Man]

The fact is that atheism is quite definitely a response to theism. For someone to say, "I'm an atheist because I don't know nothin' 'bout nothin'," stretches the definition of "atheist" to a breaking point and renders the term essentially meaningless.

[Roy]

I think you're misinterpreting her point. When you stated "I have a viewpoint concerning theistic beliefs. I'm happy to defend it. It's not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs" it basically comes off sounding like you're avoiding, or shunning the idea that your atheism itself is a belief.

Hmmm. No. I'm saying that if you class atheism as a belief, it's not the same type of belief as theistic beliefs.

[Darth Executor]

Hmmm. No. I'm saying that if you class atheism as a belief, it's not the same type of belief as theistic beliefs.

It is in some ways and isn't in others. The issue is that theists accurately classify it as like in the way that matters and many atheists try to classify it as something else over a completely irrelevant difference (that one is an active belief while the other is an active disbelief).

[Joel]

And in later posts you referred to different kinds of beliefs. Can you be more specific about how you are subdividing belief into kinds?

Teallaura provided a handy reference chart

Of those three definitions Teallaura posted, the second and third seem the same to me: thinking that something is true. The first is a bit different: having trust/confidence in a person or thing.

Sure, having trust in a person is different from thinking a proposition is true. Is that the distinction you are making? The difference there is that a proposition is a constant, while a person could theoretically make any possible choices in the future, so having confidence that a person will make the right choices in the future has an additional inherent degree of uncertainty. But because the question is over the proposition of whether there exists a god, it doesn't seem that this can be the relevant distinction you have in mind.

As for having trust/confidence in a proposition, I'm not sure that's different from thinking that the proposition is true. I tend to think that the real test for whether you think something is true, is when you have to make a decision that is affected by whether the proposition is true.

One other possible distinction I can think of is that one can have varying degrees of confidence in a proposition (which is not a difference in kind of belief, but a difference in degree). Is that the distinction you are making? Are you saying that theists have a high degree of confidence that there is a God, and you have a low degree of confidence that there are no gods?

Or something else that I'm missing?

[JimL]

You have a belief about the universe and the supernatural: You believe that the universe is completely materialistic and there is no supernatural. You believe that there is no God. You believe that materialism is all that there is. You believe we have no spirit. You believe people that believe in such things are wrong.

When discussing, disagreeing, with the claim, the believed assertion, made by others, such as their belief in god, I may, but it is not necessary that I tell you what my beliefs are. Disbelieving your claim is not a belief, unless you think that belief and disbelief mean the same thing.

[Sparko]

When discussing, disagreeing, with the claim, the believed assertion, made by others, such as their belief in god, I may, but it is not necessary that I tell you what my beliefs are. Disbelieving your claim is not a belief, unless you think that belief and disbelief mean the same thing.

what are you even talking about?

If you don't believe me then it is up to me to convince you if I want to change your mind. If I don't believe you then it is up to you to convince me if you want to change my mind. If either of us doesn't want to convince the other of our viewpoint then we just go our own ways. Pretty simple, JimL. You either defend your viewpoint or go away.

[JimL]

When adrift is talking about atheists defending your belief in a debate, he is speaking about defending your position, your opinion, your viewpoint. Not a belief in the sense of a faith or religion.

And you make it sound as if we don't defend our opinions. Seriously Sparko are you deaf and dumb. For one thing, atheism is simply a disbelief in the unfounded assertion by others for the existence of god. Atheism says nothing more than that, it doesn't tell you anything about what it is that the atheist may or may not believe is true about reality. But for you to say that what atheists believe to the contrary, which is a defense of their position, never comes up in the discussion is simply ridiculous. Atheists aren't obligated to defend their position unless you are attacking or questioning said position, but what we believe comes up all the time. Perhaps you're just not very good at taking apart the atheists beliefs.

[Teallaura]

Teallaura effectively did when she rejected my statement that they were different sorts of belief.

Um, no, not really - I answered you incorrectly. I read it correctly then answered as if you were someone else arguing the 'we have no beliefs' thing. I caught the distinction on the way home long after I'd posted.