The only thing more irritating...

[memimemi]

1)
Ah I guess my pasta (I like variety) example was poorly chosen.

Consider the following 4 statements:
1)"There exists reason why you should believe X"
2)"There exists reason why you should not believe X"
3)"I believe X"
4)"I don't believe X"

I would assert the first two statements are positive assertions due to the claim that a reason exist. I would also assert the last 2 statements are also assertions but only about the existence/nonexistence of a belief. Usually such statements correlate with a speaker competent enough to know their beliefs. As such they could only have a burden of proof if that competence was called into question.

Okay, I'm with you so far... as long as we're clear that statements 3) and 4) are about the existence of belief of X, and not about the existence of X as such.

2)
Rarely do we require absolute certainty before we call evidence proof. If lack of evidence can be evidence of lack then evidence for a negative assertion is possible. If evidence for a negative assertion is possible and certainty is not required for proof then a negative assertion might be provable. If a negative assertion might be provable then I see no reason to be biased toward it.

Well, as I mentioned before, my use of 'proof' stems from Philosophy and Law; in both of those fields, 'proof' does require absolute certainty.  Innocent until proven guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt; no proofs that do not follow logically from their axiomatic basis.  If lack of evidence can be evidence of lack... that's a mighty big 'if'.  I think you may be begging the question a little, here, as I strongly doubt that lack of evidence is evidence of anything other than a lack of evidence.

3)
Another related topic:
background in the spoiler - and my responses are there, too

Spoiler for Hidden:

The existance of say the Higgs Boson(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	T	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

I'm having trouble with point 4, here - evidence against the existence of a thing is an unfamiliar concept to me, excepting maybe in some cases of probability.  Can you provide an example of 'evidence against the existence of X?'

The existence of say an imperceptible object(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	F	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

How can one provide evidence of the imperceptible?  We can hypothesize, for sure, but can that be called 'evidence?'  Take Dark Energy as an example - there is indirect evidence that something is going on, based on observed motion and expansion in the universe; however, there is no evidence as to what, exactly, is going on.  Afaik, at least in science, the very concept 'evidence' requires perceptibility, whether by human sensory organs, engineered observational devices, or indirect inference from observable happenings.  So, though an interesting point, I would say that it may well also be a moot one; a false paradox, if you will.  I wonder what Bertrand Russell would have had to say about this point?  I know that Wittgenstein would point out that the paradox probably stems from the inherent ambiguity of language, and no more...

The relation between the existence of various types of evidence and the existence of the object in question differs between these objects. In the first case I can see a reason not to assume the positive prior to evidence. However the only reason I see does not apply to the second case. Do you know a reason to put all the burden of proof on the positive in both cases? If so what is this reason and why is the difference between the cases irrelevant?

In the second case, it seems as though the very premise is flawed, requiring perception of the imperceptible (NOT 'perception of the very, very hard to perceive', but the imperceptible).  Can you think of real world examples, that I may have forgotten/am ignorant of, wherein it's meaningful to speak of 'evidence of the imperceptible?'

Naesala, OldTrees: thanks for the discussion; this stuff really gets my motor humming!

edit: formatting error.

[OldTrees]

1)
Okay, I'm with you so far... as long as we're clear that statements 3) and 4) are about the existence of belief of X, and not about the existence of X as such.

3)
Another related topic:
background in the spoiler - and my responses are there, too more from me

Spoiler for Hidden:

The existance of say the Higgs Boson(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	T	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

I'm having trouble with point 4, here - evidence against the existence of a thing is an unfamiliar concept to me, excepting maybe in some cases of probability.  Can you provide an example of 'evidence against the existence of X?'
Every slot with a T means that in that column's case that row's evidence will exist even if not known.
Every slot with a F means that in the column's case that row's evidence will not exist.
I have a box. It is light. It being light is evidence against a bowling ball being inside the box.


The existence of say an imperceptible object(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	F	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

How can one provide evidence of the imperceptible?  We can hypothesize, for sure, but can that be called 'evidence?'  Take Dark Energy as an example - there is indirect evidence that something is going on, based on observed motion and expansion in the universe; however, there is no evidence as to what, exactly, is going on.  Afaik, at least in science, the very concept 'evidence' requires perceptibility, whether by human sensory organs, engineered observational devices, or indirect inference from observable happenings.  So, though an interesting point, I would say that it may well also be a moot one; a false paradox, if you will.  I wonder what Bertrand Russell would have had to say about this point?  I know that Wittgenstein would point out that the paradox probably stems from the inherent ambiguity of language, and no more...

It is all Fs because no evidence would exist for or against regardless of whether the object existed or not.
Dark Matter would fit the first case model.
I honestly do not see a paradox here. I hope the note I added made the charts clearer. They were intended for describing all 16 types of relationships. Only 2 are listed here.

The relation between the existence of various types of evidence and the existence of the object in question differs between these objects. In the first case I can see a reason not to assume the positive prior to evidence. However the only reason I see does not apply to the second case. Do you know a reason to put all the burden of proof on the positive in both cases? If so what is this reason and why is the difference between the cases irrelevant?

1)
This was mostly my evidence for the claim that conversion (what the OP found irritating) has a burden of proof. Even conversion to atheism.

3)
Sorry, my notes were not sufficient the first time.

[memimemi]

1)
Okay, I'm with you so far... as long as we're clear that statements 3) and 4) are about the existence of belief of X, and not about the existence of X as such.

3)
Another related topic:
background in the spoiler - and my responses are there, too more from meand yet more responses

Spoiler for Hidden:

The existance of say the Higgs Boson(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	T	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

I'm having trouble with point 4, here - evidence against the existence of a thing is an unfamiliar concept to me, excepting maybe in some cases of probability.  Can you provide an example of 'evidence against the existence of X?'
Every slot with a T means that in that column's case that row's evidence will exist even if not known.
Every slot with a F means that in the column's case that row's evidence will not exist.
I have a box. It is light. It being light is evidence against a bowling ball being inside the box.
No, I disagree.  It being light is evidence that you have a light box, nothing more.  No information is given about the content of the box; one can make a reasonable hypothesis that there is no heavy bowling ball within, but there is absolutely no evidence that there is not a light bowling ball in there.  Of course, all of this assumes that we have strict definitions of 'light,' and 'bowling ball,' in place to start.  Example: as a young child, I had a plastic set of bowling pins, with a matching plastic ball.  They were all very light.  If my old ball were in your box, would you still hold that your example is necessarily true?

The existence of say an imperceptible object(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	F	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

How can one provide evidence of the imperceptible?  We can hypothesize, for sure, but can that be called 'evidence?'  Take Dark Energy as an example - there is indirect evidence that something is going on, based on observed motion and expansion in the universe; however, there is no evidence as to what, exactly, is going on.  Afaik, at least in science, the very concept 'evidence' requires perceptibility, whether by human sensory organs, engineered observational devices, or indirect inference from observable happenings.  So, though an interesting point, I would say that it may well also be a moot one; a false paradox, if you will.  I wonder what Bertrand Russell would have had to say about this point?  I know that Wittgenstein would point out that the paradox probably stems from the inherent ambiguity of language, and no more...

It is all Fs because no evidence would exist for or against regardless of whether the object existed or not.
Dark Matter would fit the first case model.
I honestly do not see a paradox here. I hope the note I added made the charts clearer. They were intended for describing all 16 types of relationships. Only 2 are listed here.
If no evidence would exist either way, how is it meaningful to chase this point?  At best, what you've described is something unprovable - much like the existence of any gods, to tie this back to topic.  The question of evidence, and by extension, proof, is moot in this example.  I understand your chart perfectly well; what I fail to understand is its relevance.

The relation between the existence of various types of evidence and the existence of the object in question differs between these objects. In the first case I can see a reason not to assume the positive prior to evidence. However the only reason I see does not apply to the second case. Do you know a reason to put all the burden of proof on the positive in both cases? If so what is this reason and why is the difference between the cases irrelevant?

1)
This was mostly my evidence for the claim that conversion (what the OP found irritating) has a burden of proof. Even conversion to atheism.

Arguably, conversion requires some sort of evidence in the first place, at least when converting a rational agent.  I would say that 'converting' bears no relevance to atheism anyways - atheism is just the default position that's left, when religion is stripped away.  'Conversion' is more a case of changing religions, not denying all religion as suspect.

3)
Sorry, my notes were not sufficient the first time.

I think I see where you're going with all of this, and agree that it's important reasoning; I just don't think it's precise enough for discussions of proof, in the philosophical sense.

[OldTrees]

1)
Okay, I'm with you so far... as long as we're clear that statements 3) and 4) are about the existence of belief of X, and not about the existence of X as such.

3)
Another related topic:
background in the spoiler - and my responses are there, too more from meand yet more responsesyet more

Spoiler for Hidden:

The existance of say the Higgs Boson(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	T	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

I'm having trouble with point 4, here - evidence against the existence of a thing is an unfamiliar concept to me, excepting maybe in some cases of probability.  Can you provide an example of 'evidence against the existence of X?'
Every slot with a T means that in that column's case that row's evidence will exist even if not known.
Every slot with a F means that in the column's case that row's evidence will not exist.
I have a box. It is light. It being light is evidence against a bowling ball being inside the box.
No, I disagree.  It being light is evidence that you have a light box, nothing more.  No information is given about the content of the box; one can make a reasonable hypothesis that there is no heavy bowling ball within, but there is absolutely no evidence that there is not a light bowling ball in there.  Of course, all of this assumes that we have strict definitions of 'light,' and 'bowling ball,' in place to start.  Example: as a young child, I had a plastic set of bowling pins, with a matching plastic ball.  They were all very light.  If my old ball were in your box, would you still hold that your example is necessarily true?
Ok how about the weight(being 1lb) being evidence against the box containing a ton of sand?

The existence of say an imperceptible object(The form is more important than the topic.)

	Exists	Does not exist
Evidence for	F	F
Evidence against	F	F

Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the existence
Evidence for the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence
Evidence against the existence is not evidence of the nonexistence

How can one provide evidence of the imperceptible?  We can hypothesize, for sure, but can that be called 'evidence?'  Take Dark Energy as an example - there is indirect evidence that something is going on, based on observed motion and expansion in the universe; however, there is no evidence as to what, exactly, is going on.  Afaik, at least in science, the very concept 'evidence' requires perceptibility, whether by human sensory organs, engineered observational devices, or indirect inference from observable happenings.  So, though an interesting point, I would say that it may well also be a moot one; a false paradox, if you will.  I wonder what Bertrand Russell would have had to say about this point?  I know that Wittgenstein would point out that the paradox probably stems from the inherent ambiguity of language, and no more...

It is all Fs because no evidence would exist for or against regardless of whether the object existed or not.
Dark Matter would fit the first case model.
I honestly do not see a paradox here. I hope the note I added made the charts clearer. They were intended for describing all 16 types of relationships. Only 2 are listed here.
If no evidence would exist either way, how is it meaningful to chase this point?  At best, what you've described is something unprovable - much like the existence of any gods, to tie this back to topic.  The question of evidence, and by extension, proof, is moot in this example.  I understand your chart perfectly well; what I fail to understand is its relevance.
Yes. Case 2 is meant to represent the relation (or lack there of) between evidence for/against and existance/nonexistance of certain deity concepts and things like invisible pink unicorns.

The relation between the existence of various types of evidence and the existence of the object in question differs between these objects. In the first case I can see a reason not to assume the positive prior to evidence. However the only reason I see does not apply to the second case. Do you know a reason to put all the burden of proof on the positive in both cases? If so what is this reason and why is the difference between the cases irrelevant?

1)
This was mostly my evidence for the claim that conversion (what the OP found irritating) has a burden of proof. Even conversion to atheism.

Arguably, conversion requires some sort of evidence in the first place, at least when converting a rational agent.  I would say that 'converting' bears no relevance to atheism anyways - atheism is just the default position that's left, when religion is stripped away.  'Conversion' is more a case of changing religions, not denying all religion as suspect.

3)
Sorry, my notes were not sufficient the first time.

I think I see where you're going with all of this, and agree that it's important reasoning; I just don't think it's precise enough for discussions of proof, in the philosophical sense.

1)
I was using conversion to describe the action of someone trying to change your position on a topic. Aka I need to provide evidence for why someone should become atheist.

3)
Now that I am sure I have communicated the background to my question.
In the first case I see a reason to be biased against the positive prior to evidence since evidence for the existence would only exist if it existed. So assuming the negative assertion makes sense in this case.
However I cannot make a similar argument in the second case. It seems to me like the principle to assume the negative assertion is not supported in this case. (Neither is a principle to assume the positive assertion) Yet I find it common for people to claim the principle still applies. Do you know of a reason that would support the principle in both cases?

[memimemi]

<--snip-->


1)
I was using conversion to describe the action of someone trying to change your position on a topic. Aka I need to provide evidence for why someone should become atheist.

Okay, but I don't think that's how it actually works.  Atheism is not a prosthelytizing religion; it's the absence thereof.

Would you say that someone who has lost weight, has converted to a thinner self?  Do teachers convert children to mathematics?

The general way people reach atheistic outlooks is by studying alternate, workable, descriptions of reality and physical processes, which don't require a god to exist.  Basically, it's through application of Occam's Razor, not through convincing speech or firm belief, that people come to atheism.

3)
Now that I am sure I have communicated the background to my question.
In the first case I see a reason to be biased against the positive prior to evidence since evidence for the existence would only exist if it existed. So assuming the negative assertion makes sense in this case.
However I cannot make a similar argument in the second case. It seems to me like the principle to assume the negative assertion is not supported in this case. (Neither is a principle to assume the positive assertion) Yet I find it common for people to claim the principle still applies. Do you know of a reason that would support the principle in both cases?

That's because the second case, to put it in Wolfgang Pauli's blunt terms, is not even wrong.  It's meaningless; if an entity defies evidence, speaking of proofs thereof has no value whatsoever, at least from a scientific sense.

Unless it can be disproven by new or contrary evidence, there is no proof - this is the basis of Logical Positivism, the foundation of modern scientific method.  In example 2, there can be no evidence one way or the other, to support either proof or disproof.    This is a much more eloquent way of describing the burden of proof, than I can give you right now.

The principle holds in both cases, as case 2 essentially says nothing whatsoever.  The burden of proof still lies with the one who asserts the existence of your hypothetical non-perceptible entity.  I am assuming, of course, that there is no indirect evidence given for that entity, either, unlike say Dark Energy or Neutralinos.

"I find it common for people to claim the principle still applies."  I find it common for people to claim that Green Day is a great band - does that make it true?  I've said it before on this thread: a billion beliefs do not one fact make.  How many of these people have studied Philosophy, Logic, or even Mathematics?  How is their opinion relevant?

Forgive me if I've missed something; as I understand it, your second case still holds no weight at all.


As to the 1lb box example, that is testable - one can simply weigh the box, weigh a ton of sand, and compare the values.  Or,just open the box, assuming that's possible.  In the case of an omnipotent, omniscient being, however,one would need a position outside of the universe, in order to 'open it up,' as it were, and test for the existence of god(s).  Highly unlikely, to say the least. 

So, though your example is a good one of confirming a negative proposition, it is not a good example of a proof of non-existence.  After all, the box exists, as do tonnes of sand - these are positive assertions.  Remember, by saying that your 1lb box doesn't contain a tonne of sand, you're really asserting that it contains something else.  This is a positive postulate, provable by the evidence of the box's weight, size, our experience of 'tonnes of sand," etc. 

BTW, I think we're leaving the actual topic of this thread in our dust, here... can we relate everything back to the annoyance factor of theists vs non-theists?  Or, perhaps, start up a new thread on the meaning of proof and evidence thereof?

[OldTrees]

1)
I was using conversion to describe the action of someone trying to change your position on a topic. Aka I need to provide evidence for why someone should become atheist.

Okay, but I don't think that's how it actually works.  Atheism is not a prosthelytizing religion; it's the absence thereof.

Would you say that someone who has lost weight, has converted to a thinner self?  Do teachers convert children to mathematics?

The general way people reach atheistic outlooks is by studying alternate, workable, descriptions of reality and physical processes, which don't require a god to exist.  Basically, it's through application of Occam's Razor, not through convincing speech or firm belief, that people come to atheism.

The OP was not talking about the normal way people find Atheism or about the normal way atheists talk about Atheism. The OP was talking about the specific kind of atheist that does proselytize.
Use whatever word you want to use to symbolize this concept. I believe that this action has a burden of proof due to having an assertion that reasons exist for the theist to change their belief.

3)
Now that I am sure I have communicated the background to my question.
In the first case I see a reason to be biased against the positive prior to evidence since evidence for the existence would only exist if it existed. So assuming the negative assertion makes sense in this case.
However I cannot make a similar argument in the second case. It seems to me like the principle to assume the negative assertion is not supported in this case. (Neither is a principle to assume the positive assertion) Yet I find it common for people to claim the principle still applies. Do you know of a reason that would support the principle in both cases?

That's because the second case, to put it in Wolfgang Pauli's blunt terms, is not even wrong.  It's meaningless; if an entity defies evidence, speaking of proofs thereof has no value whatsoever, at least from a scientific sense.

Unless it can be disproven by new or contrary evidence, there is no proof - this is the basis of Logical Positivism, the foundation of modern scientific method.  In example 2, there can be no evidence one way or the other, to support either proof or disproof.    This is a much more eloquent way of describing the burden of proof, than I can give you right now.

The principle holds in both cases, as case 2 essentially says nothing whatsoever.  The burden of proof still lies with the one who asserts the existence of your hypothetical non-perceptible entity.  I am assuming, of course, that there is no indirect evidence given for that entity, either, unlike say Dark Energy or Neutralinos.

"I find it common for people to claim the principle still applies."  I find it common for people to claim that Green Day is a great band - does that make it true?  I've said it before on this thread: a billion beliefs do not one fact make.  How many of these people have studied Philosophy, Logic, or even Mathematics?  How is their opinion relevant?

Forgive me if I've missed something; as I understand it, your second case still holds no weight at all.


As to the 1lb box example, that is testable - one can simply weigh the box, weigh a ton of sand, and compare the values.  Or,just open the box, assuming that's possible.  In the case of an omnipotent, omniscient being, however,one would need a position outside of the universe, in order to 'open it up,' as it were, and test for the existence of god(s).  Highly unlikely, to say the least. 

So, though your example is a good one of confirming a negative proposition, it is not a good example of a proof of non-existence.  After all, the box exists, as do tonnes of sand - these are positive assertions.  Remember, by saying that your 1lb box doesn't contain a tonne of sand, you're really asserting that it contains something else.  This is a positive postulate, provable by the evidence of the box's weight, size, our experience of 'tonnes of sand," etc. 

BTW, I think we're leaving the actual topic of this thread in our dust, here... can we relate everything back to the annoyance factor of theists vs non-theists?  Or, perhaps, start up a new thread on the meaning of proof and evidence thereof?

I have never claimed that evidence against a general existence claim could exist. Only that evidence against an existence claim could exist. You will note that is both cases the evidence against sections had an F. This was because both cases were about general claims of existence/nonexistence.

I would agree with Wolfgang Pauli that case 2 is at least prima facie meaningless. However it being meaningless has different consequences in my mind.

Your link asserts the burden of proof is always on the positive. It has an unproven premise that only 1 side has a burden of proof. The evidence it provides for the principle (general negative claims are unprovable) appears to apply for both positive and negative meaningless claims. If general negative claims being unprovable indicates positive claims have a burden of proof then positive meaningless claims being unprovable would also make negative meaningless claims have a burden of proof. (This is in addition to positive meaningless claims having a burden of proof)

If general negative claims being unprovable is not the evidence for the principle that positive claims have a burden of proof then please inform me of what was the evidence for the principle.

[memimemi]

Your link asserts the burden of proof is always on the positive. It has an unproven premise that only 1 side has a burden of proof. The evidence it provides for the principle (general negative claims are unprovable) appears to apply for both positive and negative meaningless claims. If general negative claims being unprovable indicates positive claims have a burden of proof then positive meaningless claims being unprovable would also make negative meaningless claims have a burden of proof. (This is in addition to positive meaningless claims having a burden of proof)

Okay, OT, it's been a long day on this thread; this will be my last off-topic post on it.  If we're to continue the discussion, I'd be happy to - on its own thread.  If any mods are interested in moving our past few posts over to Philosophy, 'twould verily be awesome!

I'll keep it short and sweet: neither positive nor negative meaningless claims hold a burden of proof.  Both are meaningless.

I hereby posit that 2+Yellow= Hippopotamus.  I also posit that (-)infinity/√Rhinoceros = Jello^3, as a negation of the first postulate.

Which of the two meaningless postulates holds the burden of proof?  Neither - proof is inapplicable to meaningless statements.

Now, the On-Topic bit:

The OP was not talking about the normal way people find Atheism or about the normal way atheists talk about Atheism. The OP was talking about the specific kind of atheist that does proselytize.
Use whatever word you want to use to symbolize this concept. I believe that this action has a burden of proof due to having an assertion that reasons exist for the theist to change their belief.

Can a Skeptic be said to be trying to 'convert' a believer in Sasquatch, by pointing out the flaws in cryptozoology?  Despite your belief, I think otherwise.  Can a psychiatrist be said to be trying to 'convert' a schizophrenic patient, by using various therapies to suppress delusions?  Once again, is a grade-school teacher 'converting' children to mathematics, by teaching them basic BEDMAS operations?

By any definition of atheism that I've ever heard, from the mundane to the complex, it's pretty much impossible to 'convert' someone to atheism.  Conversion is changing from one belief set to another; atheism is the rational conclusion to the application of Occam's Razor.  (Naesala, I apologize if you find that offensive.  None is intended.)  The difference between converting from, say, Mormonism to Sufiism, as opposed to (insert belief-based outlook here) to atheism, hinges on the place of belief in one's worldview.  In the first example, nothing is actually changed about the act of belief; merely its focus shifts from one set of beliefs to another - but in both cases, belief is held as an important part of one's outlook.  The shift from any faith/belief based philosophy to atheism/skepticism, on the other hand, is a change in the value of belief qua belief.

At the risk of committing the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, I claim that atheism, strictly defined, does not allow for conversion, as it isn't an alternate to religion, but rather its negation.

 Did proving that the world is round 'convert' Flat-Earthers?   I think this is a fair analogy.  If atheists are changing any viewpoints of the religious, it's through providing completely natural explanations, demonstrable through experiment and perception, for phenomena that the faithful attribute to (G-D).  Just as flat-earthers still exist (albeit a VERY small minority) despite the positive evidence of a round world, so do the faithful (not all, not all - don't get me wrong, most people are pretty reasonable) exist, despite there being perfectly natural explanations for phenomena that have been traditionally attributed to the hand of (G-D).  However, there is no impetus for the faithful to give up on beliefs, other than their own weighing of value between evidence and faith.

Any atheist who tries to force a worldview on another, is probably acting less as an atheist, and more as a jerk. (No True Scotsman?  Perhaps.)  See, an atheist has little to gain by forcing hir worldview on the religious, since faith is irrelevant to truth in the secular world.  Unlike the faithful, who gain the sure conviction that every convert is another soul saved - one of the more important ethos of any prosthelyzing religion.

To repeat an earlier point I tried to make - the main reason that popular secular humanism is turning slightly militant (see Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens) is due to politics: atheists are commonly denied human rights, and not only in theocracies (such as Iran), but also in democracies wherein the majority hold strong religious views (such as the United States).  It's more like gay rights than anything - homosexuals aren't out to 'convert' others away from heterosexuality, so much as to establish an equal political footing with heterosexuals.

Sorry if I'm not too clear; I'm very, very sleepy right now.

[OldTrees]

Words are used to symbolize concepts. I ask you to not get hung up on the word and rather focus on the concept. If you prefer not to use the word conversion when speaking about the attempt to actively change the belief of another person then please focus on the concept and not the symbol.

I would consider a Skeptic to be preforming this action when trying to convince a believer in Sasquatch to not believe in Sasquatch. Pointing out the flaws in cryptozoology would work to reduce the evidence the believer has for Sasquatch. Since Sasquatch has the same evidence-existance pattern as most scientific hypotheses, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Thus the Skeptic is also satisfying the burden of proof for hir assertion that there exist reasons the believer should not believe in Sasquatch. (Same applies for arguments against flat world or Newtonian physics)

Any atheist who tries to force a worldview on another, is probably acting less as an atheist, and more as a jerk. (No True Scotsman?  Perhaps.)  See, an atheist has little to gain by forcing hir worldview on the religious, since faith is irrelevant to truth in the secular world.  Unlike the faithful, who gain the sure conviction that every convert is another soul saved - one of the more important ethos of any prosthelyzing religion.

To repeat an earlier point I tried to make - the main reason that popular secular humanism is turning slightly militant (see Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens) is due to politics: atheists are commonly denied human rights, and not only in theocracies (such as Iran), but also in democracies wherein the majority hold strong religious views (such as the United States).  It's more like gay rights than anything - homosexuals aren't out to 'convert' others away from heterosexuality, so much as to establish an equal political footing with heterosexuals.

Sorry if I'm not too clear; I'm very, very sleepy right now.

I agree with almost all of this.

With the exception that most of the "militant" atheists use the tactic of trying to change theists to atheists without overcoming the burden of proof required for their assertion that there is a reason not to be theist. (Aka using the invisible pink unicorn argument as the sole argument) If the gay rights analogy were accurate then these atheists would be more focused on convincing theists to be religiously tolerant (including allowing atheists hold state public office).

Thanks for the discussion so far. Hope you sleep well.

[Naesala]

Oh goodness that was a load to read through all at once. And I don't want to look up the terms/theories I dont know, so I'm going to keep this pretty brief.

First and foremost, addressing memi's last post, that was not offensive. Thank you for the changes your making so that you aren't ^_^

Second, one of you (I believe memi) said "a billion beliefs does not a fact make". I would like to point out that maybe not a billiion beliefs, but 7 billion probably would. If 99% of the population believe's something is true, it is regarded as fact and those who disagree are called wrong. Yes, yes, we have scientific backing for said facts, but science only gets so far before it hits axioms, something we just have to accept. All science eventually boils down to axioms. Though I cannot prove it without mass genocide, I believe if 99% of people believed God existed, his existence would be regarded as fact.

Third, at this point we seem to be at an impasse on the definition of "atheist" and "convert". As such, we can't really argue one of the major points here because we define things differently. Unless we were to agree on a definition, we cannot progress.

Fourth, I support moving the off topic stuff off the thread.

Fifth, using real world examples to try and show a parallel to something we cannot for the sake of explaining and then tearing the example appart instead of looking at what the example was trying to explain is something that has always baffled me. My mother and one of my brothers do it, as do a couple of my friends and some people on the forums. But most people I know (may not be a global majority) understand that the example is to illustrate. I'm a missing something here? I would really like this explained to me. (And I hope this doesn't seem insulting, for I don't mean it to be).

So much for brief...

[OldTrees]

Second, one of you (I believe memi) said "a billion beliefs does not a fact make". I would like to point out that maybe not a billiion beliefs, but 7 billion probably would. If 99% of the population believe's something is true, it is regarded as fact and those who disagree are called wrong. Yes, yes, we have scientific backing for said facts, but science only gets so far before it hits axioms, something we just have to accept. All science eventually boils down to axioms. Though I cannot prove it without mass genocide, I believe if 99% of people believed God existed, his existence would be regarded as fact.

Fourth, I support moving the off topic stuff off the thread.

Fifth, using real world examples to try and show a parallel to something we cannot for the sake of explaining and then tearing the example appart instead of looking at what the example was trying to explain is something that has always baffled me. My mother and one of my brothers do it, as do a couple of my friends and some people on the forums. But most people I know (may not be a global majority) understand that the example is to illustrate. I'm a missing something here? I would really like this explained to me. (And I hope this doesn't seem insulting, for I don't mean it to be).

So much for brief...

4) The off topic is over. I underestimated memimemi when I thought it was going to be relevant. For this I apologize.

2) memimemi probably said that. However there is a great difference between something being regarded as fact and it being fact. Everyone could believe humans breathe CO2 and exhale O2. That would be regarded as a fact but would not be a fact.

5) I don't know what you are referring to. It was not insulting.

[furballdn]

Second, one of you (I believe memi) said "a billion beliefs does not a fact make". I would like to point out that maybe not a billiion beliefs, but 7 billion probably would. If 99% of the population believe's something is true, it is regarded as fact and those who disagree are called wrong. Yes, yes, we have scientific backing for said facts, but science only gets so far before it hits axioms, something we just have to accept. All science eventually boils down to axioms. Though I cannot prove it without mass genocide, I believe if 99% of people believed God existed, his existence would be regarded as fact.

The world was regarded as flat for a long time by many people. Fact is defined as reality or truth. A flat earth is not reality or the truth.

[memimemi]

Words are used to symbolize concepts. I ask you to not get hung up on the word and rather focus on the concept. If you prefer not to use the word conversion when speaking about the attempt to actively change the belief of another person then please focus on the concept and not the symbol.

I assure you, it is to the concept that I'm speaking, not the word.  Atheists aren't out to change another's beliefs; they are out to show the irrelevancy of belief as a whole.  Maybe another analogy?  Oncologists aren't out to change your lung cancer into prostate cancer; they're out to eliminate the cancer as a whole.  Or, on a more positive note, nutritionists aren't out to replace your Lay's habit with a Pringles habit; rather, to show you that life is just as good (or better) without junk food having any relevancy to it.

I would consider a Skeptic to be preforming this action when trying to convince a believer in Sasquatch to not believe in Sasquatch. Pointing out the flaws in cryptozoology would work to reduce the evidence the believer has for Sasquatch. Since Sasquatch has the same evidence-existance pattern as most scientific hypotheses, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Thus the Skeptic is also satisfying the burden of proof for hir assertion that there exist reasons the believer should not believe in Sasquatch. (Same applies for arguments against flat world or Newtonian physics)

As would I.  But, the point I'm trying to make is that convincing someone of the non-existence of Sasquatch is futile - it says nothing about Chupacabra, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, or what have you.  Where atheism is gaining hold in the popular conscience, it is doing so not by attacking specific religions, but rather by promoting reason, skepticism, evidence-based science, etc.  Whatever term we use in place of 'conversion,' it's still a comparison of apples to walruses.  Changing religions is like changing hats; the head underneath doesn't need to do much changing in itself, beyond getting used to a slightly different style.  Leaving religion altogether requires a much more fundamental change in one's entire outlook on the nature of faith, belief, and reason.  This is my argument against conversion (or whatever term we choose to use).  It's the difference between converting states from gas to liquid, and converting types from hydrogen to helium.  Is that more clear, at all?  (Once again, barely slept these past few days - zzzz! XD)

With the exception that most of the "militant" atheists use the tactic of trying to change theists to atheists without overcoming the burden of proof required for their assertion that there is a reason not to be theist. (Aka using the invisible pink unicorn argument as the sole argument) If the gay rights analogy were accurate then these atheists would be more focused on convincing theists to be religiously tolerant (including allowing atheists hold state public office).

Thanks for the discussion so far. Hope you sleep well.

Well, let's look at it from the point of view of a Richard Dawkins.  Imagine having spent your entire working life, as a biologist, showing any and all interested parties exactly how natural processes can explain all of the wonders of life.  Now, imagine that there is a very vocal, very rabid group of people, with more political clout than you (as an effect of sheer volume? That's my best-fit hypothesis), who are actively attacking you and your colleagues, both directly and indirectly (directly, ad hominem, indirectly by denying the validity of your profession as a whole), on a constant basis. 

Okay, so no big deal, right?  They're just idiots; let them believe what they will.

But, now, let's take it to the sphere of politics.  These same (not even) critics are now pushing their agenda, which reeks of sheer ignorance (to your [R. Dawkins'] nose), through public institutions.  An attack has been made, and the aggressors have set the tone of the attack.  Rational discussion was tried for many, many years (see also: Stephen J. Gould, Carl Sagan); it did little to stem the tide of anti-scientific, anti-knowledge, faith-based belief being pushed through public institutions, despite an official separation of Church and State.  (From Scopes on, extremists have not hesitated to try to use the courts and Congress to push their agenda)

So, yeah, maybe a little bit of aggression comes through.  But what other option is there?  A great number of people (ranges vary, but hover around 16% of the US populace) identify as Atheist; counting the Agnostics, the undecided, and those for whom religion just isn't important, there's a vast swath of the population whose children are now forced to read ID creationist texts alongside Darwin, as though both hold equal factual value.  Would you be angry?  I know I would; atheists are only human, after all.

So, if your opponent refuses to listen to reason, and is unyielding in hir fundamentalism, what choice do you have?  You can't change the unshakably certain with skepticism and doubt; doubt is the road to hell, in many a fundamentalist's eyes.  You can't reason with the arationial - so what do you do?

Maybe this?

But if we, as a society, re-asserted a strong separation of Church and State, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't see atheists trying to change anybody - they have better things to do, like revolutionizing science, medicine, engineering, maths, etc, etc.

To sum up: rationality has been tried; fundamentalists, by nature, are not interested in reason.  Scientific knowledge has been tried; fundamentalists aren't interested in the way that science is based on doubt.  Just living a better life has been tried (ignore the bully); fundamentalists aren't interested in any lifestyle that can present any alternative to their own.  And  religious (or areligious) tolerance is most certainly not in any fundamentalist's playbook.

So, yeah, there's some aggression.  But, the rules of this war on science were set by the aggressors - the same religions that supposedly bring a message of peace.  All that any atheist can do is take up the gauntlet that has been thrown down, win the war by whatever means necessary, and move on with life.  I'm pretty sure that if we took out the politics, most (non-jerk) atheists would be quite happy to just skip to the end, and move on with life.

Thank you, as well - this has been one heck of a discussion!