I ran across one of very many promulgations of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s positive atheism bus ads/billboards that read:
Atheist ads target valley residents at Christmas
Las Vegas, NV - Atheism has launched a Christmas ad campaign and it’s raising eyebrows
Clear Channel owns the billboards and removed that Santa version after just a few days, citing too many complaints. But two other ads, ’Reason’s Greetings’ and ‘Heathen’s Greetings,’ have been allowed to stay.
‘Yes Virginia… there is no God’ billboard
I posted a comment stating:
How long will the FFRF go on positively affirming God’s non-existence without evidence?
Is this not what they condemn as “faith”?
They are doing it this year and they did it last year:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/12/dan-barker-and-neo-pagan-atheism.html
The response was:
And.. we will continue to speak out, becoming more publicly and more vehemently opposed to this ridiculous delusion that serves only to erode rational thought, personal responsibility and the peace and security of all citizens. A more correct term is anti-theist. There is no theism involved. There is no faith involved. There was no historical figure named Jesus nor is there an invisible man living in the sky. This does not require faith to understand, only rational thought.
Agreeing (to some extent) I wrote:
Let us pray that atheists will continue speaking out as loudly and often as possible as nothing discredits atheism like having atheists express themselves.
Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist because that would require proof. Now it is simply left to “I believe that God does not exist, so it must be true.”
Keep up the good work of self-refuting atheism.
More affirmation of just believe it-ism came about:
You are right, but for the wrong reasons. As you say ” Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist”. This is true. The tyranny of the irrational can no longer be tolerated. The burden of proof rests with those making the claim. There is no more proof for the existence of a god than there is that I am the reincarnation of Mahandas Gandhi. I cannot prove it and you cannot disprove it. It’s a silly assertion with an easy and hollow defense designed to confuse the gullible. The fact that something is so unrealistic that it defies proof, both positive and negative, serves only to prove that it is unrealistic.
So I noted:
Pardon my delay as the holy days kept me happily busy and this new year is doing likewise.Interesting to learn that the neo-atheist position is that atheism is excluded from the real of making an argument in its favor.I suppose that for evidence I would begin considering this parsed essay which considers the Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God.http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible.html
Well, that was the end of it and a good example of the approach that asserts the “logic” that if you presuppose positive atheism then positive atheism must be true.
This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link
very nice....Mobile Handsets
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that if you go against common knowledge, then the burden of proof is in your hands. Common knowledge dictates that Gos does exist (though it does not dictate who He/She/It is). So if you want to claim ohterwise, then you have to prove it.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing went for the earth's shape. In the old days, common knowledge dictated that the earth was flat. Those claiming the earth was round were responsible for providing the evidence, and because they did so, they proved the earth was round.
"Well, that was the end of it and a good example of the approach that asserts the “logic” that if you presuppose positive atheism then positive atheism must be true."
ReplyDeleteAlso note the "logic" that if you presuppose theism then theism must be true.
Great logic!!! .... now I understand why the burden of proof is on theists in the teapot issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). since the teapot is not considered "common knowledge" ........ did I got my logic right?... let me take another parse at it. If the celestial teapot is common knowledge, then the burden of proof is on Russel, but since it is not, burden of proof is now unfortunately on theist side again. Hmm.... that sounds correct.
ReplyDeleteBurden of proof is an almost meaningless issue in its entirety. People only ever talk about the "burden of proof" in an attempt to justify not providing a valid reason to accept what they think. This applies to Christians and atheists alike.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned if you open you mouth or communicate in any way shape or form the burden of proof is on you. Discussions on the burden of proof are almost always just red herrings. If your too lazy to actually comprehend your opponents arguments and generalize or hand wave with simple assertions than dont expect your claim to be taken seriously.
Debate consists of convincing others to follow your line of reasoning not monologues that make you feel better about yourself or reinforce what you already believe.
Exactly why these ads are empty on reason and logic despite sounding as if they promote them. You would think those who proclaim reason and logic as primary wouldn't commit such massive logical fallacies like appeals to ignorance or ad populum (un)reasoning.
Seems to me that if you go against common knowledge, then the burden of proof is in your hands. Common knowledge dictates that Gos does exist (though it does not dictate who He/She/It is). So if you want to claim ohterwise, then you have to prove it.
ReplyDeleteCommon knowledge is an entirely subjective standard. "Common Knowledge" in Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway and Japan is that God does not exist.
The term "atheist" has developed to encompass those who assert (as the FFRF does), that God does not exist, and those who assert merely that there is no evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
My understanding is that those who assert the former claim that their assersion is warrented due to the fact that a personal God, such as the one described by the abrahamic religons, would have a noticable and measurable effect on reality. When phenomena that should demonstrate such effect (such as the efficiacy of prayer), are studied, they consistently fail to demonstrate it. This, an assersion of non-existance is considered warrented.
They often fail to take into account, however, that this does not disprove a more generalised theistic God: it merely disproves the properties given to the hypothesised deity by it's adherents.
This means that, for example, the God of the Young Earth Creationists can be positively said to not exist: there are demonstratable effects that this deity should have on the universe that are not observed. However, the God of the theists can not be disproven in this manner, as it's effects on the universe are far more negligable and thus cannot be predicted: warrenting the 'weaker' form of atheism: i.e. One has no reason to believe in it, but one cannot disprove it's existence.
Wow, Mariano; you sure showed that random anonymous commenter!
ReplyDelete'One has no reason to believe in it, but one cannot disprove it's existence'
ReplyDeleteyes theres basically two assertions being promulgated by some both faith based
Does a person who sees no reason to believe in the existence of a given entity need to prove that said entity doesn't exist? I don't quite follow how this would be logically possible. For example, if I should say, "Space aliens never visited earth," I will simply be expressing my ignorance of any verifiable evidence that they visited earth. If you should have such evidence, it would naturally behoove me to change my mind. But if you should say, "They came 2,000 years ago, and some of the guys who saw them wrote about all the neat tricks they could do," I would consider that as just about as persuasive as no evidence whatever, yet I couldn't prove that they weren't here or that they couldn't do neat tricks. But then, there's the matter of the Easter Bunny--I can't prove he doesn't exist either, but that's certainly scant reason to believe he does.
ReplyDeleteThis debate is pointless. The facts are simple
ReplyDeletethere is no scientific evidence for a God or the supernatural. This has nothing to do with atheism. The existence of God is not common knowledge it is merely the cries of the supernatural. If anyone has evidence for a God come out and prove it, the James Randi will pay 1,000,000. I issued this challenged to your hero
Mariano and he was too much of a cowaed to accept it!
I issued this challenge on my website WWW.SCIENCECLUBOFLONGISLAND.COM