The atheist told me he “lacked belief”;
That the burden of proof was on those who believe
The ubiquitous taunting: “you can’t disprove God”
Was fallacious—just what did they hope to achieve?
He chided believers for missing his point
Cos the logic is simple; it’s easy to show
When it comes to belief, it can only be true
That a lack of a “yes” is the same as a “no”.
A logical argument, deftly presented—
It’s hard to deny what the atheist meant…
So why does it seem to defy comprehension
When switching one word, from “belief” to “consent”?
Yes, this is a bit of tilting at strawmen–at least, I hope it is. There aren’t any atheists who are outright saying that a lack of a “no” is the same as a “yes”, are there? I mean, it’s bad enough that the burden of all “don’t do X” recommendations is on the victim, but the very idea of active consent? That has to be… I mean…
*sigh*
A lack of a yes is the same as a no
Which brings a conclusion that none can escape:
Consent must be active, informed, and clear-headed;
To argue this point is to advocate rape.
Oh my. Very nicely done!
Well done!
That’s pretty damn good.
Niiiiiiiice!
http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/2014/08/disproof-of-god.html
But it’s a specific proposition: switch “atheist” to “agnostic” and a lack of a “yes” is a “maybe”.
The funny thing is that when referring to atheism, the lack of a yes is not necessarily a “no.” The distinction here is that even if someone did want to have sex but didn’t communicate it, it is still a lack of consent, and without that consent you’re still guilty of disregarding a person’s desires because you don’t know if that person really wants to or not.
John and Michael, you have fallen for the “strong atheism” trap; it is a bad definition, for many reasons (the current being just one–another, “strong atheism” is only definable one god at a time, such that strong believers in god X may be strong disbelievers in god Y, and not (as privatively defined) atheists at all. Defining a lack of something as a positive category simply does not work.
And John, agnosticism is an entirely different axis–knowledge, rather than belief. Indeed, one common Christian argument is to say that *all* people are actually *knowledgeable* of the existence of god (it says so in the bibble, so it must be true), therefore either A) there are no atheists (confusing knowledge with belief again) or B) atheists are all hypocrites and strong disbelievers, denying something they know to be true. Once again, conflating agnosticism with “weak atheism” is just plain bad logic–it phrases a privative as a positively defined category, and everything just falls apart.
The verse, as well, necessarily frames atheism as the privative category. Within the verse itself, the logic is sound. If you want to bring in other definitions of atheism, I would suggest that the logical problems you see are in the eye (and definition) of the beholder, and more point out flaws with your definition than flaws with my analogy.
If someone holds no belief in any gods, they don’t have to declare their atheism to be a part of the category. We don’t ask cows to say “I’m a cow”, tables to say “I’m a table”, or logical categories to say “I’m a logical category”. Self-labeling is another thing entirely; it is not unimportant, but it is not today’s (or yesterday’s) topic.
@Cuttlefish
Well, no, I wasn’t really referring to “strong” or “weak” atheism. I guess you could say it was more an observation of how it can be appropriate to treat a lack of affirmation as different from a negation in atheism, but this would be an inappropriate distinction in terms of the question of whether or not someone wants to engage in salacious behavior. Which makes sense since violating one’s consent is a bit more serious.
Cuttlefish,
I can’t dispute that.
I don’t see it as a logical problem, rather a case of applicability.
Agnostics basically don’t care to commit to a truth-value (however provisional) and thus don’t make the claim in your second stanza; therefore, it’s not applicable to them.
True. But all professed agnostics with whom I have interacted hold that their disbelief in the god-proposition is not equivalent to a belief in the negation of the god-proposition, and that is precisely why they don’t care to identify as atheist.
… which basically means that believers have succeeded in establishing a “positive disbelief” standard, logically incoherent as it is, as what “atheism” is in the public eye. Which is why the “atheists have the burden of disproving the existence of god” and “it takes more faith to be an atheist” arguments (again, incoherent) have the traction they do.
Which is why I write stuff like this.
When faithful acquaintances inquire about my beliefs, I usually explain by posing and answering two questions:
1) Do you believe any gods exist? No; therefore I am an atheist.
2) Do you know with logical certainty that none do? No; therefore I am an agnostic.
It’s proven a satisfactory explanation so far.