RE: What is Atheism?
March 6, 2017 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 1:28 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:(March 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm)mlmooney89 Wrote: I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you are saying you don't know if gods really exist but then turn around and say they don't. I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. To me it's very black and white- either gods exists or they don't. I say they don't so I'm an atheist. I have no belief in them and when reworded I lack a belief in them.
It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief.
Sorry that your knowledge of the rules of logic is so lacking that you believe this, but that does not mean it is true.
When defending or debating atheism, taking the position that theist's claims have not met their burden of proof, is the only stance that is required to be defended. If a particular atheist wants to make the case that gods don't exist, they are welcome to do so, and they now have the burden of proof.
Quote:With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief".
Under my definition of atheism, this is not true, since babies don't have cognitive abilities and agency.
Quote: The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.
Sure, I never made the claim that I do not have an opinion whether gods exist or not. My opinion is that they don't. My opinion is provisional and based on the claim not being supported by theist's arguments.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.