Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Exian]

"Hey dad, I think I just proved Blarg doesn't exist!"

"What the fuck is a Blarg, son?"

"It's a 'non' type human thingy. I fear people may end up inventing him/her and forming large groups of worship around it. I'm nipping it in the bud. Also, I'm an atheist now. Well, not now exactly, they have to form a theistic religion first, but..."

[datc]

Know why the atheist has no burden of proof?

Because we're not trying to prove anything.

Even to yourself, to make sure you are not mistaken?

[Surgenator]

Know why the atheist has no burden of proof?

Because we're not trying to prove anything.

Even to yourself, to make sure you are not mistaken?

Are you sure there are no magic smurfs in your coffee? Are you sure there are no faries? I can go on.

The point is we believe in things that are shown have evidence for. We don't spend time worring about all the what if beliefs.

[datc]

Also, I'm an atheist now. Well, not now exactly, they have to form a theistic religion first, but...

So, as an atheist, you define yourself solely in opposition to various opinions held by different individual theists.

It's like a conservative who just hates the left but has no ideas of his own.

You have refuted 23, say, concepts of God, and are waiting for some theist (me, perhaps?) to give you the 24th concept to reject.

Is that how it is?

[Esquilax]

A theist needs to have a definite concept of God in whose existence he believes.

And I'm willing to bet that, outside of your desperation to just prove atheists wrong no matter what, your concept of god is not "a dog." That's why I don't think a serious discussion on this topic would include such dishonest arguments, and I still don't understand why you'd want us to proffer a concept of god that might not match what you believe.

Why not just skip the "As an atheist, I believe that god is X!" "As a theist, I don't believe that god is X!" step, and just get down to what you do think god is, and actually have the discussion? Why do you care so much about which concept of god we don't believe in, when if your concept of god is different and, you know, realistic, we would start believing in it?

But an atheist, I presume, is not a machine built for shooting down random theistic concepts of God.

He is a human being.

Yes, and we address god claims on a case by case basis. Just because we don't find one concept of god to be valid, doesn't mean we won't find another valid, so long as it's cogent and presented in a non-contradictory manner.

So, in a sense, if you say god is a dog, then I guess in your worldview I am not an atheist. But I don't accept that god is a dog either, only because we already have a word for it, and that word is dog. It's not a useful or valid position to take to say "If I say this dog is god, then ha ha, you're not an atheist!" That still doesn't make me a christian, which is what you're trying to convince me of.

As a result, he can't just sit there waiting for a random theist to inform him of his personal idea of God (which may well be "dog") and then get all excited and try to refute it.

Sure I can. That's why I'm here. Of every god concept theists have legitimately tried to have me accept, I have rejected them all. And I'm here because I enjoy theological debate on this topic. So actually... yes, I can just sit there waiting to assess god claims thrown at me, on their own merit. Why wouldn't you do the same thing? Is your position that immutable and rigid?

The atheist is not spared the necessity of coming up with his own full-featured worldview. He must know what he believes and what he does not believe. He needs to articulate for himself a finite personally significant number of concepts of God and prove that none of those exist in reality.

The burden of proof is on both of us.

But I think both of us could benefit from the recognition that we don't know everything, and that additional knowledge could eventually change our positions, yes? At present, no god claim that has been presented to me has been accepted: I am an atheist to all the god claims I have ever come across. A future god claim could change that tomorrow, but it would have to be presented to me.

As to the burden of proof, no. I don't have to disprove any god claim; the burden of proof is on positive claims, not disbelief. Do you have to prove wrong every claim you don't believe? Have you disproven leprechauns yet?

[Chas]

Also, I'm an atheist now. Well, not now exactly, they have to form a theistic religion first, but...

So, as an atheist, you define yourself solely in opposition to various opinions held by different individual theists.

It's like a conservative who just hates the left but has no ideas of his own.

You have refuted 23, say, concepts of God, and are waiting for some theist (me, perhaps?) to give you the 24th concept to reject.

Is that how it is?

Nope, that's not how it is.

There is no credible evidence for anything except the natural world. There is no evidence for any gods described by any religions.

You got a credible one? Let's hear your evidence.

[Surgenator]

Also, I'm an atheist now. Well, not now exactly, they have to form a theistic religion first, but...

So, as an atheist, you define yourself solely in opposition to various opinions held by different individual theists.

Your startement is flawed. Just replace theist with sportsman and you see the ridiculousness of your statement. "So a person who doesn't play sports, an asportsman, is in opposition to various sports held by different individual sportsman."

It's like a conservative who just hates the left but has no ideas of his own.

Atheism is not a worldview. It is a rejection of one claim. An atheistic worldview would be Humanism, Free thinkers, Buddhism, etc...

You have refuted 23, say, concepts of God, and are waiting for some theist (me, perhaps?) to give you the 24th concept to reject.

Is that how it is?

Again, burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.

[Heywood]

The point is we believe in things that are shown have evidence for. We don't spend time worring about all the what if beliefs.

We recently did a thread on synthetic life and how it demonstrates lineages of life can come into existence as the products of intellects. There is no demonstration that lineages of life can come into existence via some natural process.....yet you atheists still believe it does.

Claiming that atheistic world views are free from assertions is wrong.

[datc]

There is no credible evidence for anything except the natural world.

That's a nice positive statement that seems to cover all concepts of God. There is no evidence for anything even remotely Godlike.

You, Chas, then are different from Esquilax who says negatively:

Yes, and we address god claims on a case by case basis. Just because we don't find one concept of god to be valid, doesn't mean we won't find another valid,

though you are both atheists.

[Heywood]

Again, burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

If you claim a particular God does not exist...you have a burden of proof.