(March 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:Of current gods proposed we do, yeah. But as it would currently be impossible to assign any value of certainty to the hypothesis that a 'god' (undefined?) exists some form another (or whether that even makes sense) lacking a belief is 100% accurate in the assessment. Ultimately it's not a claim to say, either, i have no formed belief of a given 'deity or indeed 'I don't believe you'. If you're forming the hypothesis about the 'god', Therein lies the burden. It's really not difficult, and opponents of this very easy to understand notion tend to be those trying to obfuscate their way to the truth.(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.
With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.
And Whilst technically true that a baby or a bench or a planet also 'lack a belief' in a deity, it would seem absurd to start stretching the limit of what we ascribe the label 'capable of forming a belief or having a lack thereof' to.
Love atheistforums.org? Consider becoming a patreon and helping towards our server costs.