(July 16, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Something written and edited by actual philosophers would be a good start. I have quoted from the two most prominent encyclopedias of philosophy. You have given me nothing in return. Given your logic, theists could simply define their position as, "The true belief that God exists" and then say, "See! God does exist!".
False.
By saying that we lack belief in gods is not an existential claim, like "The true belief that God exists" is.
Quote:No, that is not how it works, atheists try to redefine the word atheism because they are trying to avoid sharing the burden of proof, unfortunately for them it simply does not work that way.
So, if I coined my own term "shmatheist", and defined that position as "the lack of belief that gods exist", would you be okay with that?
Quote:Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief. I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain. If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.
Even if atheist is defined as "disbelief in the existence of god or gods", atheists still do not have the burden of proof.
Disbelief in a claim is still not a claim.
[/quote]
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.
