(January 9, 2014 at 9:52 am)Sejanus Wrote:(January 9, 2014 at 9:20 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Whilst it may indeed be true that you'd be hard pushed to find an atheist who believes in dragons, this is entirely irrelevant to being an atheist. Indeed, if no atheists believed in a dragon of any sort, this would not be because they are atheists. It would be because they have applied the same reasoning to why they disbelieve in claims of deities to that of dragons.
Ok. I know that atheism is only a response to the god claim, and that atheists
do not need to disbelieve in anything else. I'm not trying to say it is. I just want to know why that same reasoning wouldn't be applied to other things for which there is no evidence. (If the lack of evidence was the reason for disbelief) <---- I didn't make that part clear in the OP, my apologies.
No problem.
I'd read Ben's response to you above for a better clarification. Everything else beyond the lack of belief is superfluous to said lack of belief.
Not everyone is an atheist because they have used deductive reasoning in which to identify as one. Everyone is born an 'atheist', but that requires no reasoning at all. Does that make more sense?
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
