RE: When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?
December 24, 2015 at 3:53 am
(This post was last modified: December 24, 2015 at 4:04 am by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(December 24, 2015 at 2:05 am)Delicate Wrote:(December 24, 2015 at 1:41 am)Goosebump Wrote: Again forgive my obtuseness. But is not atheist one who rejects belief in the existence of deities? Also is not an agnostic one who thinks something such as "god" can't be known. How then are these Mutually exclusive?
Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.
On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.
But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.
"a" is a Greek negation, "theist" requires no explanation on this site, and Merriam Webster is a culturally myopic twat. I'm just not a theist, because I find your god to be just as improbable as any claim which others have made to knowing their great but equally invisible gods. There is no "rhetoric" in that, as I'm sure has been explained to you multiple times in this thread. You just enjoy trolling as the bigoted twat!
In regards to "burden of proof", there's nothing more insulting and dodgey than you trying to make it a case of us owing you that - it isn't us who are making any grandiose and spurious claims! As for you, put up or shut up!
Mr. Hanky loves you!
