RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
October 4, 2013 at 5:24 pm
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2013 at 5:24 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
(October 4, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(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.
I disbelieve any gods exists. That position would, according to the vast majority of people, define me as an atheist. It doesn't really matter to me what you want to label that position.
Quote:It's like you're calling yourself an atheist theist. As far as common sense is concerned, atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive positions.
It's nothing like calling myself an atheist theist. It is impossible to to believe and disbelieve the same proposition simultaneously. Therefore, those are mutually exclusive by definition.
But since agnosticism is not a BELIEF position, it is a position that concerns KNOWLEDGE, they are not mutually exclusive.
I'm seriously getting the impression you don't understand the difference between the meaning of the 2 words 'belief' and 'knowledge'.
Quote:You not being a theist in practice, or believing in a particular God simply makes you irreligious.
I do not believe any of the gods, that have ever been defined, exist.
Go ahead and define a god, provide me with demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence and reasoned argument that you believe support its existence, and I will evaluate it. If it meets the burden of proof, I will accept it.
I don't think anyone characterizes any positions based on disbelief. They are all based on beliefs.
Otherwise, theism could define itself as "A disbelief in the claim that the world around us can adequately be explained without appealing to deities"
Then they would prance around like ninnies declaring themselves as "merely disbelieving" and thus free to shirk off the obligatory burden of proof.
I mean listen, I don't have a problem with self-labels. But I do have a problem with bad use of language. And ultimately that's what I think the new definition of atheism really is.
(October 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(October 4, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 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.
No no, burden of proof for your definition of atheism. I assume you believe it's true.
But if you're just bleating a psychological state, or you don't really believe it's true, you can just shrug off the burden of proof.
