RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 27, 2013 at 9:11 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
(September 27, 2013 at 6:25 pm)Rahul Wrote:(September 27, 2013 at 12:10 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it. But the idea you might be referring to is Zeno's paradox. And I won't lie, it mystifies me too.
But you asked me about the conception of God because, IIRC we were discussing a minimally sufficient criteria of evidence in order to justify belief in said deity.
Still awaiting a definition. That's step numero uno.
I provided one in post #19
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21066-po...#pid512836
(September 27, 2013 at 9:02 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote:(September 26, 2013 at 9:41 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: There are several, and they are all implicitly entailed by atheism.
a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of God has not been met.
b) The claim that atheism is a more rational position than theism.
(sometimes) c) The claim that theism is irrational.
I don't claim that proof for a god doesn't exist. If it does, it hasn't been shown to me, is all. Still an atheist. Point a) is moot.
b) is not required to be an atheist.
c) is not required to be an atheist.
Have a good day.
I've responded to this one before.
I don't think anyone reasonable really claims that there is proof for God. Rather, there are claims of evidence.
I also think it's a little unusual to expect someone to "show you proof". Rather, if there is evidence out that is compelling to a number of people, I think it's good to "check it out" whether or not anyone brings it to you. After all, I imagine one would naturally want to know whether or not God exists regardless of whether there are people there to serve it to you on a platter.
But what I'm really interested in is your denial of (b). Would you say that it's okay to be an atheist while simultaneously holding that one's own atheism is irrational?