Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Brian37]

Are you an atheist poe? How old are you?

Just because you have a problem understanding the difference between KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF doesn't mean you have to take your ignorance out on others.

Let me spell it out for you.

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist. This defines me as agnostic.

Since there is insufficient evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I do not hold the belief that they do exist. This defines me as an atheist.

What don't you understand?

It depends for me.

Based on our current scientific data, all claims of pet gods of all religions are utter bullshit. Combine that with the knowledge that humans have a history of pulling shit out of their ass, I have no doubt that ALL polytheistic, monotheistic, ghost, spirit, disembodied magical super brains, are BULLSHIT.

I am only and strictly semantically "agnostic" about the future, but even then I do not see how even in the future we will find evidence for any of the bullshit claims made so far.

Right now it makes much more sense that humans make up their superstitions and super natural beings as a childish reflection of their own desires.

[Doubting Thomas]

Why is it that both Vinny G. and Rational AKD both seem to have trouble understanding that? Maybe someone needs to check their IP numbers...

Maybe it's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-trace their routes!

Either that or they've both been reading the same "How to debate with atheists" manual.

[Brian37]

Maybe it's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-trace their routes!

Either that or they've both been reading the same "How to debate with atheists" manual.

That "manual" is called "apologetics" It is the art of sticking your fingers in your ears, denying reality, and pretending a huge lexicon will fool skeptics.

[Doubting Thomas]

That, and read my sig line.

[Brian37]

That, and read my sig line.

Ok, why do you have to destroy my thunder? I use the word "feces" and you call it "shit" and Hitchens looks at both of us thinking we are fuckwads for not using the word "excrement".

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Vinny, what you're doing would be like this:

Atheist: Christians think they can only get to heaven by drinking the blood of babies.
Christian: That's not true, we believe X, Y, and Z.
Atheist: Who cares what you say you believe? Christians think they can only get to heaven by drinking the blood of babies.

I can see that no matter how often it's going to be pointed out to you, you're going to keep believing in this wrong idea of what you think atheism is, so as I said there's no more reason to talk to you. You're being both willfully ignorant and arrogantly stubborn (or is that stubbornly arrogant?) and you're not willing to listen to us about what we really believe.

I'm quite happy to believe Merriam-Webster over "Doubting Thomas on the internet" who is trying to convince me that he is correct and the dictionary and other authoritative sources are wrong.

---

Since atheism is only about not believing something and that is the concept you seem unable to grasp, belief is both highly relevant to the topic, and something you can't see the relevance of because of the blinders you're wearing.

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.

[Doubting Thomas]

And at one time the dictionaries used to have a definition of "evil" under atheism. Didn't make it right.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Are you an atheist poe? How old are you?

Just because you have a problem understanding the difference between KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF doesn't mean you have to take your ignorance out on others.

Let me spell it out for you.

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist. This defines me as agnostic.

Since there is insufficient evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I do not hold the belief that they do exist. This defines me as an atheist.

What don't you understand?

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.

You not being a theist in practice, or believing in a particular God simply makes you irreligious.

[Mister Agenda]

Since atheism is only about not believing something and that is the concept you seem unable to grasp, belief is both highly relevant to the topic, and something you can't see the relevance of because of the blinders you're wearing.

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.

---

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.

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.

[Simon Moon]

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.

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'.

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.