tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post945714729811383296..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Historical Double StandardsMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84821274611732477242010-09-14T12:50:39.617-07:002010-09-14T12:50:39.617-07:00(a) Regarding the genuinely convinced eyewitnesses...(a) Regarding the genuinely convinced eyewitnesses, Ehrman writes "[w]e can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that he soon appeared to them [...] Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, [...] it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. [Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 231.]<br /><br />(b) Regarding the empty tomb, and still focusing on the Crit. of Multiple attestation, Ehrman writes "We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus' death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb [From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Lecture 4: "Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus" [The Teaching Company, 2003].]"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81681231531686535962010-09-14T12:50:12.807-07:002010-09-14T12:50:12.807-07:00Matt McCormick: "If the historical Christian ...Matt McCormick: "If the historical Christian acknowledges [...] many historical claims of the Bible are mistaken, but they insist that the claims about the resurrection are reliable, what exactly are the criteria that separates the categories?"<br />Well Matt, ask the non-christian historians who agree with you in rejecting creation, the flood, the exodus etc., but nevertheless grant without hesitation many of the historical claims under-girding the argument for Jesus' resurrection.<br /><br />E.g. Gary Habermas writes "On the state of Resurrection studies today, I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something." (See details in Gary R. Habermas, "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?" Philosophic Christi.)<br /><br />Bart Ehrman (a NT scholar/historian at UNC) seems to be a favorite of yours (uncoincidentally, like you, he is an extremely ouspoken critic of Christianity... but no matter); here's what he says regarding the facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection.(cf. my next post)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84503623945245761862010-09-14T12:47:40.969-07:002010-09-14T12:47:40.969-07:00Matt McCormick: If the historical Christian acknow...Matt McCormick: If the historical Christian acknowledges [...] historical claims of the Bible are mistaken, but they insist that the claims about the resurrection are reliable, what exactly are the criteria that separates the categories? <br /><br />But Matt, name one peer reviewed publication in Christian philosophy or Biblical historical studies which makes such an argument for Jesus' resurrection "on the basis of the historical merits of the Bible" (whatever that means; "the Bible" is not one book, its a collection of 66 books all with different degrees of historical credibility.) It seems you presume that the case for the Resurrection is: "The historical claims of the Bible [66 books] are true etc., therefore the claims surrounding Jesus' death burial and resurrection are!". But Matt, of all the Christian professors who debate at Universities with other professors, name one who uses an argument *anything* like this. Even popular level Christian apologists don't argue this way, so what are you talking about? So far on your blog I've seen you discuss William Craig, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas and *none* of those guys argue anywhere close to this way. Even the guy who debated with you recently almost certainly didn't use this kind of argument. So what are you doing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-14727738550169682412010-09-14T12:47:08.958-07:002010-09-14T12:47:08.958-07:00I apologize in advance if these points have alread...I apologize in advance if these points have already been brought up in previous comments (which I haven't read):<br /><br />Matt McCormick: "Historical Christians, or believers who think that the quality and quantity of historical evidence we have justifies our concluding that the resurrection really happened, are inclined to take the Bible as a reliable source of information about events in history. [...] for the sake of argument, let’s accept the criteria of historical reliability that the Christian would have us apply to the Jesus case. Now consider the conundrum that accepting some, but not all Biblical claims about historical events. [creationism, flood, exodus etc.]"<br />Matt, wow. Assuming you're referring to "Crit. of Multiple attestation", "Crit. of Palestinian Environment", "Crit. of Dissimilarity", "Crit. of Embarrassment", these aren't criteria that "Christians would have us apply". These criteria are the *standard tools* of Christian and non-Christian historians alike! For example, let's focus on the first one: "The Criterion of Multiple attestation". This isn't Christian -- the radically liberal Jesus Seminar emphasizes items “attested in two or more independent sources.” [Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 26.]; Withingergon adds "[M]ultiple attestation is seen by almost all scholars as a key criterion for establishing authenticity." [The Jesus Quest, (InterVarsity, 1997) 96.], along with the liberal Paul Maier "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable. [In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter and the Early Church (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991) 197.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-38582230077784918762010-06-23T17:17:13.141-07:002010-06-23T17:17:13.141-07:00Matt not sure if you are right that the movement d...<b>Matt</b> not sure if you are right that the movement does not add to the case that Jesus existed and did what is claimed. <br /><br />At its inception the movement was persecuted including eye witnesses to the events. <br /><br />Hard to drum up life threatening support from those who were there when ... it did not happen, and they saw it ... not happen ??<br /><br /><b>Brenda</b>, I have to disagree with you dismissing <i>But as they explored the question intellectually they came to acknowledge that really what’s entailed by those religious doctrines can’t be true."</i>. My experiences are different.<br /><br />I see Christians who grow up with a simplistic Sunday school level theology finding that it does not stand up to sceptical scrutiny.<br /><br />Their situation is similar to that of a primitive tribe that eventually figures out that the giant rock they worship as god is not actually god. They have a choice, either to conclude that therefore there is no god or to conclude that god is not a rock. <br /><br />My observation is that many atheists pick the former option perhaps because as they were naive in not questioning the Sunday school Christianity as they grew up, they continue to be naive in accepting the simplistic “therefore there is no god” option. <br /><br />The intellectual case for God is more robust than the atheist case which requires among other things the sort intellectual slight of hand we see in this post where Matt has by his own omission used an acknowledged fallacy as the basis of his case. <br /><br />It is easy to attack Sunday school fundamentalist Christianity - it is a lot harder to defend the lack of intellectual rigor in the atheist case.<br /><br /><br />Sala kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61556053200535279792010-06-22T18:49:40.065-07:002010-06-22T18:49:40.065-07:00James, the texts are just about the only thing we ...James, the texts are just about the only thing we have to determine if any of these claims about Jesus are true. The fact that there is a movement that zealously followed him doesn't tell us anything about the truth of the supernatural claims any more than thousands of overwrought Star Wars fans in costumes at a convention shows that Star Wars really happened. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-49053583056158696232010-06-22T15:23:12.139-07:002010-06-22T15:23:12.139-07:00why are we trying to prove Jesus simply from the t...why are we trying to prove Jesus simply from the texts? shouldn't we be considering the movement he started? the "Chrestus" movement? the empire overthrown by his followers (if we follow Gibbon)?<br /><br />@howerymd: it's the "no true scotsman" fallacy.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579209064315916119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-54430579379409018692010-06-10T10:44:42.720-07:002010-06-10T10:44:42.720-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.DMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11389651479904502758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82851040977592086132010-06-09T08:09:34.607-07:002010-06-09T08:09:34.607-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62962881868165255012010-06-03T11:15:10.107-07:002010-06-03T11:15:10.107-07:00[cont.]
This is how religion is "true". ...[cont.]<br />This is how religion is "true". It correctly represents your inner life. This is why atheism is and should be rejected, because it invites monsters to fill the void.<br /><br />Or put round another way. Religion isn't about epistemic truth or ontological beliefs, it's about how to relate your inner psychic economy with the greater world. If that means that some people believe in a real big Other that's ok because it doesn't really affect the hunt. <br /><br /><i>"Are there phenomena, experiences we have, or other evidence that could be explained by an SF? Here the SF agnostic may say yes. She may point to internal phenomena: human consciousness, feelings of the sublime, transcendent experiences, our moral facilities, or religiousness."</i><br /><br />I have already pointed to the sublime object of ideology as a mystification of our inner life. Now I'll take a look at consciousness.<br /><br />Contrary to eliminative materialism consciousness cannot be reduced to the activity of neurons in the brain. Nevertheless, it is wholly dependent upon and arises from the brain. There is no ghost in the machine, no dualism. The mistake that dualism makes is to count the things in the world and they get to two. Materialism counts to one and I believe that Daniel Dennett counts to three (not 100% sure). The mistake is to count in the first place.<br /><br />And if consciousness is non-reducible then there may well be other instances. Climatology is one I think. The claims made by climatology are non-falsifiable and if the climate denialists had half a brain, they do not, they would focus their attack there. James Lovelock goes too far I think in his strong Gaia hypothesis but that doesn't mean he is wrong. He is just elevating a non-reducible non-falsifiable feature of the world to the level of the sublime. It's is a very human impulse.<br /><br /><i>For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the powers and principalities of the air.</i><br /><br />Atheists make the same error that fundamentalists make in taking this literally.<br /><br />I live in a galaxy of 400 billion stars, in a universe of 80 billion galaxies, in an infinite multiverse. In this multiverse my consciousness cannot be reduced to the mere activity of particle moving in lines of force. And if that is true for me then what else may there be in this vast cosmos?<br /><br />I believe I have sufficient reason to doubt the atheistic materialist narrative.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3377180546104771872010-06-03T11:14:38.669-07:002010-06-03T11:14:38.669-07:00My response to "What’s Left to be Agnostic Ab...My response to "What’s Left to be Agnostic About?"<br /><br /><i>"To be honest, I think that what happens for a lot of agnostics is that they started out believing in an OG. They were raised religious, participated in religion with their friends and family, and they even enjoyed it or found it fulfilling. But as they explored the question intellectually they came to acknowledge that really what’s entailed by those religious doctrines can’t be true."</i><br /><br />I don't think that anyone loses their religion in that way. Religion isn't about belief, science is about belief, it's about faith. I tend to agree with Hume on this. The passions come first, only later do we find the reasons for our beliefs.<br /><br />I became an atheist in the true sense when I was a child, about 17 or 18, and my reasons for it had nothing to do with intellectual doubt. It had everything to do with my father, about feeling unloved and wishing to rebel against "The Name of the Father". I then sought for and found reasons for my rebellion, but those reasons were not it's cause.<br /><br />God is "The Big Other" and it is generally presumed that it does not exist (I have my doubts) but that doesn't mean that we can just abandon our need for a big Other. We aren't made that way, it does work like that. If we reject the big Other of religion we are just setting ourselves up for a different one. Many atheists today reify science as their big Other and then acting on behalf of their new God they become the very thing they fear.<br /><br />Atheists gaze into the mirror of theism and become the monsters they see there. This is not theory for me, I have personal experience of the phenomenon. But the monster is not "out there", it is in you.<br /><br />That is how Sam Harris can calmly propose that torture is a moral good and if it should fail we would be justified in a nuclear first strike against Iran. That is how Christopher Hitchens, Trotskyite neocon and former Marxist, can claim that waterboarding isn't torture until he directly experienced it. That is how Pat Condell can spew his spittle flecked racist tirades on YouTube and still think himself moral man.<br /><br />It's called denial. What is being denied? Your relationship to your big Other. That evil monster incarnate dressed in black that you wage battle against is your Father. You've always know this is true, you have only to search your heart to see that it is so.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-40052633499547421612010-06-03T10:19:42.486-07:002010-06-03T10:19:42.486-07:00Brenda,
Sorry to hear about the abuse you've ...Brenda, <br />Sorry to hear about the abuse you've been through. I've gotten a lot of it too, although primarily from theists. I work very hard to separate the personal emotions that that stirs up from my consideration of the merits or faults of arguments. I hope you'll do the same. <br /><br />Let's be careful not to condemn by association. Greenspan, Gordon Smith (whoever that is), and Rand aren't part of the scholarly, philosophical literature on this topic. See Flew, Nielsen, in particular, and Mackie, Draper, Drange, and Martin to a lesser extent on this topic. Here's the best bibliography of atheism sources around now: <br /><a href="http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/philosophical-atheism-bibliography.html" rel="nofollow">Atheism Bibliography</a><br /><br />Again, thanks for your thoughts. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77361212907243948912010-06-03T09:58:49.640-07:002010-06-03T09:58:49.640-07:00Brenda, this is just getting down to semantics and...Brenda, this is just getting down to semantics and definitions. What Matt calls a negative atheist you are calling an agnostic. <br /><br />The word "negative" in the term "negative atheism" does not have a negating function as you imply when you reject the idea of a negative atheist because "Non non-theism is theism." "Negative" is merely one part of a two-word label, the entirety of which defines what you call an agnostic. <br /><br />Thanks for the conversation, I think I will end my part for the time being.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62345545313785967952010-06-03T09:10:05.315-07:002010-06-03T09:10:05.315-07:00Paul
"
Brenda, what are the multiple confusio...Paul<br /><i>"<br />Brenda, what are the multiple confusions, as you say, the negative atheism leads to? Why must negative atheism be rejected?"</i><br /><br />Because there is no such thing. Non non-theism is theism. The theist/atheist debate is over ontology. Agnosticism is about epistemology. <br /><br /><i>"If someone makes a claim ("There is a god." or "There is no god."), t is incumbent upon the claimant to support the claim."</i><br /><br />That is ontology. The dispute is over what exists or does not exist.<br /><br /><i>"I have no burden of proof to demonstrate "not-A" if I merely notice that "A" has not been supported (and therefore there is no reason to believe "A")."</i><br /><br />And that is epistemology. The dispute is over what we can or cannot know. Someone who rejects a knowledge claim for insufficient evidence or invalid argument is agnostic about that claim. My failure to prove A is not proof for not-A.<br /><br />When I argue against theists, and I do, I tell them that their argument is invalid or their evidence is lacking. I do not tell them they are wrong because people cannot be wrong. I do not tell them their argument is false because arguments cannot be true or false. Truth is a property of statements <i>only</i>.<br /><br />Matt<br /><i>"A negative atheist has been typically recognized in the literature as someone who lacks a belief about God or gods."</i><br /><br />Then the literature is wrong. I blame Gordon Smith as you can trace a lot of this "lack of belief" nonsense back to him. Smith was raised a religious fundamentalist and when he lost his faith he merely substituted the cult of Objectivism and Libertarianism for his fundamentalist faith. I think he was influenced by Objectivism's delusional epistemology and that this influence infected his thinking about how to categorize his atheism. He may not have originated these terms but I think he's been highly influential and that his errors have propagated out from him. Greenspan is another influential former Objectivist who dragged many down into his little cesspool too.<br /><br />If I could go back in time I think I would skip strangling the infant Hitler in his crib and look for Ayn Rand.<br /><br /><i>"I do appreciate the thought you guys have been putting into all of this"</i><br /><br />Yours is the first blog where I have been able to state my position without being abused by the filth that calls itself atheism these days.<br /><br />I've been called a cunt, a bitch and a whore. I've had my name, address and phone number published. I've had my sexuality mocked and smeared and spat upon.<br /><br />By Atheists, not theists.<br /><br />I'm a little ticked off about that.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-70105922205071950272010-06-03T06:10:06.702-07:002010-06-03T06:10:06.702-07:00@Prof M,
Certainly definitions change over time, ...@Prof M,<br /><br />Certainly definitions change over time, but I think that the dictionary definition of agnostic as oppossed to perhaps a common defition of agnostic is a reasonable approach. Dictionary.com defines agnostic as "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."<br /><br />In this sense an agnostic is an atheist. I still self-identify as an atheist because the common meaning of these words seems to vary and atheist seems to convey the closest meaning to the largest number of people of what I am. However, I agree with the defition above for agnosticism.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36510568319986988092010-06-03T05:57:02.242-07:002010-06-03T05:57:02.242-07:00Matt, thank you, I was trying to express what a ne...Matt, thank you, I was trying to express what a negative atheist is, and your explanation of it in your post immediately above this one matched what i was trying to say.<br /><br />Brenda, however, apparently rejects the idea of negative atheism.<br /><br />Brenda, what are the multiple confusions, as you say, the negative atheism leads to? Why must negative atheism be rejected?Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-20154531563060361772010-06-02T21:21:02.229-07:002010-06-02T21:21:02.229-07:00I do appreciate the thought you guys have been put...I do appreciate the thought you guys have been putting into all of this, however. For the record, I think agnosticism about God is a cop out. At this point, given all the substantial problems that have been enumerated for so many different God hypotheses, and given the overwhelming evidence we have that there are no exceptions to ontological naturalism, I suspect that the only people who still claim to be agnostics are actually closet or wannabe theists. <br /><br />See: <br /><a href="http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/perpetual-motion-machines-and-argument.html" rel="nofollow">Perpetual Motion Machines and an Argument Against Agnosticism</a><br /><br />and<br /><br /><a href="http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whats-left-to-be-agnostic-about.html" rel="nofollow">What's Left to be Agnostic About?</a>Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23331331384368131162010-06-02T21:12:35.393-07:002010-06-02T21:12:35.393-07:00Well, I'm not sure if I can help out. I don&#...Well, I'm not sure if I can help out. I don't really understand what, if anything you guys are talking about. It seems to me that both of your approaches to the question of the burden of proof or what the true nature of atheism are suspiciously a priori and off the mark. A negative atheist has been typically recognized in the literature as someone who lacks a belief about God or gods. That would include agnostics, in the classic sense, and positive atheists. It seems to be that it would be a perfectly reasonable starting position for someone to claim to be a NA and then not be willing to budge off of that until they heard some compelling evidence in favor of theism. Depending on their situation, positive atheism could be a perfectly reasonable starting position too. I'm a positive atheist about the existence of magical invisible elves living in my walls who produce electricity for my appliances. And the burden of proof, it seems to me, would be on anyone who claims they are real. <br /><br />But the burden of proof for any claim doesn't exist in a vacuum. Epistemic standards, scientific knowledge, and the cultural background have a lot to do with who is typically expected to explain and how much. The way I figure it, it's always better to understand more, consider more evidence and counter evidence, and to be treating all beliefs as actively defeasible. And that includes the concepts you guys seem to be appealing to for authority. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74650161963752688192010-06-02T20:14:48.607-07:002010-06-02T20:14:48.607-07:00Matt, help me out here?
I'm trying to make a ...Matt, help me out here?<br /><br />I'm trying to make a distinction among atheists in terms of the burden of proof.<br /><br />If someone makes a claim ("There is a god." or "There is no god."), t is incumbent upon the claimant to support the claim.<br /><br />But someone is not making a claim when they determine that another has not supported their claim ("A"), and therefore there is no reason to adopt the claim. That is different from making a positive claim ("not-A") that is the opposite of the original claim. I have no burden of proof to demonstrate "not-A" if I merely notice that "A" has not been supported (and therefore there is no reason to believe "A").Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76075282057598354402010-06-02T14:52:21.988-07:002010-06-02T14:52:21.988-07:00Theism is the doctrine or belief in the existence ...Theism is the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.<br /><br />Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God.<br /><br />Agnosticism is a denial or doubt of knowledge of the existence of God<br /><br />Skepticism is doubt about the truth of something.<br /><br />Skepticism is the true default position, not atheism.<br /><br />Atheism is not a lack of belief as that would include skeptics, agnostics and newborn babies in it's definition. This is clearly unworkable as it leads to multiple confusions. There is a difference between saying, “I do not believe P” and “I believe not-P.” The claim that Atheism is a lack of belief must be rejected.<br /><br />In Matt's link I would say that I believe in Methodological Naturalism but I reject Eliminative materialism. The Chinese Room, What Mary Didn't Know and Blockhead effectively refute it.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-66085333600803073442010-06-02T13:18:06.653-07:002010-06-02T13:18:06.653-07:00Some of these terms as they have typically been us...Some of these terms as they have typically been used in the literature and their definitions are useful here. In particular, see negative, positive, wide, and narrow atheism:<br /><br /><a href="http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/know-your-godless-heathen-positions.html" rel="nofollow">Know Your Godless Heathen Positions</a><br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-49159267734420995612010-06-02T12:42:13.070-07:002010-06-02T12:42:13.070-07:00Paul, I think those are the same thing. The secon...Paul, I think those are the same thing. The second logically follows the first if we judge all things to the same standard. That second type of reasoning is the same reasoning used to not believe in witches, Santa, ghosts, vampires, the Easter Bunny, etc. We all believe (based on that idea) that "There is no Santa" so what's wrong with believing (and saying) "there is no god?"<br /><br />It seems there is a cognitive dissonance between saying there are no ghosts or yeti or Santa and saying there is no god. Why should be treat one with a different epistemological standard than the other?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11674765291216235256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29141790218839328822010-06-02T12:14:14.369-07:002010-06-02T12:14:14.369-07:00By the way, Brenda, have you heard of this distinc...By the way, Brenda, have you heard of this distinction, too? Some atheists make a claim (there is no god), and some atheists merely say that theists have not demonstrated their claim that there is a god. The latter atheists make no positive claim about god, they merely evaluate theists' claims as lacking, thus leading to no belief (in god).Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78655279407053605832010-06-02T11:19:49.644-07:002010-06-02T11:19:49.644-07:00Brenda, I agree with you as long as you would agre...Brenda, I agree with you as long as you would agree to the distinction between atheism as a concept (which is like non-stamp-collecting) and atheism as it is practiced, which is not like non-stamp collecting. I think there are very good reasons why atheism is not practiced like non-stamp-collecting, by the way. <br /><br />But I wish that everyone would keep this distinction in mind, it would eliminate a lot of confusion.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58458395652405642912010-06-01T23:34:38.289-07:002010-06-01T23:34:38.289-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11674765291216235256noreply@blogger.com