I…don’t need to fight you. It’s not about burden of proof; it’s about the definition of the word. Atheism is—as we agree—merely a yes/no classification of the belief in a deity; it is not a belief system in itself. As such, someone can be an atheist while still having a religion, which is a belief system, one that may or may not involve a deity.
Burden of proof only applies if one is making a claim in an objective context, not when one is making a claim in a subjective context.
Also worth noting that the onus of proving a claim lies with whoever does claim a thing. It is always more difficult to prove a negative and nobody just assumes everything that hasn’t been specifically debunked. Hilariously wrongheaded of them.
Atheism is a lack of belief. Basically we are not convinced there is a god. There is no burden of proof because we are not claiming there isnt a god, just that we are not convinced one does.
Easy, gods used to do devine interventions all the time. Didn’t sacrifice to Neptunus before your sea journey? His mood storm sinks your ship. Didn’t please Mars before your battle? You fight at bad weather and the enemy has surprise reinforcements.
Modern day gods? They left a secretary or something. Buhbuh you did something bad, I put you on the naughty list but I’m a weak noodle so your punishment will have to wait until after your death. When your soul which is not your body but has all senses asif it were because we antromorph everything, gets hurt.
If you can bomb a kids hospital without getting struck by lightning, there are no gods. There are millions of people praying for peace and the save return of their children in the ukraine war on both sides, nothing happens.
I claim that the presence of a god would be obvious if they took their job description seriously. Like a managers/auditors presence can be felt in the office without seeing him.
Exactly. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity; anything extra is just personalized spices.
Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. Atheists have a burden of proof of a negative. Only agnostics get the “not a belief system” card.
Fight me.
I…don’t need to fight you. It’s not about burden of proof; it’s about the definition of the word. Atheism is—as we agree—merely a yes/no classification of the belief in a deity; it is not a belief system in itself. As such, someone can be an atheist while still having a religion, which is a belief system, one that may or may not involve a deity.
Burden of proof only applies if one is making a claim in an objective context, not when one is making a claim in a subjective context.
Also worth noting that the onus of proving a claim lies with whoever does claim a thing. It is always more difficult to prove a negative and nobody just assumes everything that hasn’t been specifically debunked. Hilariously wrongheaded of them.
Atheism is a lack of belief. Basically we are not convinced there is a god. There is no burden of proof because we are not claiming there isnt a god, just that we are not convinced one does.
Easy, gods used to do devine interventions all the time. Didn’t sacrifice to Neptunus before your sea journey? His mood storm sinks your ship. Didn’t please Mars before your battle? You fight at bad weather and the enemy has surprise reinforcements.
Modern day gods? They left a secretary or something. Buhbuh you did something bad, I put you on the naughty list but I’m a weak noodle so your punishment will have to wait until after your death. When your soul which is not your body but has all senses asif it were because we antromorph everything, gets hurt.
If you can bomb a kids hospital without getting struck by lightning, there are no gods. There are millions of people praying for peace and the save return of their children in the ukraine war on both sides, nothing happens. I claim that the presence of a god would be obvious if they took their job description seriously. Like a managers/auditors presence can be felt in the office without seeing him.
You can’t prove a negative.
Prove to me there isn’t a teapot floating around Saturn, or that Gravity isn’t a panda in the centre of every planet pulling on invisible strings.
That’s where you’re wrong, bucko.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Agnostics are cowards
Agnostic-atheists are honest. Nostic-atheists are hubristic, fools.
As always, people use those words with the most absurd meanings linked to them.
But you are technically correct. What is the best kind of correctness, and all that…
deleted by creator
Well if you say, for example, Christianity is faith based, then you could argue that atheism is faith based as well. Faith that there is no god.
Which is a form of faith based aproach. If you don’t believe in something you believe it doesn’t exist.
No, if you ask an Atheist if they believe in something spiritual, they would say “no”. They wouldn’t say “I believe that god doesn’t exist”.