RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
October 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(October 4, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:(October 4, 2013 at 10:43 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Since atheism is only about not believing something and that is the concept you seem unable to grasp, belief is both highly relevant to the topic, and something you can't see the relevance of because of the blinders you're wearing.I cannot believe your bullshit.
I guess you can think of me as a skeptic, waiting on you to meet your burden of proof.
Or something.
No burden of proof to be met. I don't believe because I don't know of a good reason to think it's true that God (or some god) is real. I don't have to prove God isn't real in order to not believe God is real, anymore than anyone has to prove God IS real to believe it. Atheists and theists only assume the burden of proof when they make a positive claim that God isn't or is real. It's not our fault that so many theists make an absolute claim that God is real that they can't back up. They don't have to do that.
T: 'I believe God is real.'
A: 'I don't.'
T: 'Fair enough, but who has the burden of proof?'
A: 'Neither of us, I guess, if we leave it at you believe and I don't.'
: 'Fine with me. Have a day.'
A: 'You, too.'
But you can't process that. You're like a frog that can't see a fly if it doesn't move. It's really very interesting.
(October 4, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't understand how you can get the first part right.
And the second part oh so wrong.
It's like you're calling yourself an atheist theist. As far as common sense is concerned, atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive positions.
Saying that calling yourself an agnostic atheist is like calling yourself an atheist theist doesn't make it so. Agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive for reasons explained to you many times. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive because you can't hold the position of simultaneously believing and not believing in the same thing. You CAN simultaneously not believe something exists and not be 100% positive it doesn't exist. I don't believe you have a Persian cat, but I know you MIGHT have a Persian cat.
(October 4, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You not being a theist in practice, or believing in a particular God simply makes you irreligious.
The only thing required to be a theist in practice is to believe in at least one god. You don't have to be religious at all.
An atheist can do anything a religous person can do, except believe in any God or gods. An atheist can BE religious, unless you use a definition of religion that prescribes believing in one or more gods.
