RE: Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"
June 26, 2014 at 2:40 pm
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2014 at 2:44 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 26, 2014 at 1:10 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(June 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm)whateverist Wrote: No apparently you're supposed to argue that they don't exist, to justify your belief that they don't exist.
Was does need to justify the position one holds to, yes.
The thing I think you are missing, is that if someone rejects the premise that a god exists, does not mean they accept the counter positive premise by default.
In other words, not accepting the claim that a god exists, does not mean one accepts the claim that a god does not exist. Each claim has it's own burden of proof.
There is a jar with an unknown number of green, red and white gumballs. Someone claims (despite not having knowledge) there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar. Since they have no knowledge of the number, you provisionally disbelief their claim.
Does your disbelief of their claim mean that you now believe that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?
Quote:Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist.
Does the person that disbelieves the claim that there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar have the burden of proof that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?
Quote:Except it isn't. Ask any person what they think an atheist is, and practically all of them will tell you something like "Someone who believes God doesn't exist." And this how words get their meaning, by how people use them. Online atheists basically just changed that for an attempted advantage on this topic.
Then those people should be corrected on their misuse of the word.
Atheists do have the advantage on the subject, since theists are unable to support their claims with evidence and reasoned argument.
All that is required to be an atheist is to disbelieve the claims made by theists that a god exists.
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.
