|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 23, 2018 11:02:50 GMT
So apparently there's 2 kinds of atheists I hear and they claim they have nothing to say since the burden of proof is on the religious people.
Well, why are they split into 2? And at least why do the ones who say there isn't a God don't have this burden of proof on them either?
|
|
Mocha
Full Member
Posts: 194
Likes: 128
Meta-Ethnicity: Coffee
Ethnicity: Caffè Latte
Ancestry: 90% Milk / 6% Cocoa Powder / 4% Espresso
Relationship Status: Caffeinated
Age: Freshly Brewed
|
Post by Mocha on Feb 20, 2018 15:45:13 GMT
I am not an atheist, but no they would not be making a claim. It's like it's the default assumption. For example, by default unicorns don't exist. If someone wants to talk to me about unicorns, I will have to tell them to prove that they exist first and if they tell me to prove they don't exist it wouldn't make sense. Let's say I point my hands at you and tell you to give me all your money because I have an invisible gun that can kill you, would you believe me? You would want proof that the supposed gun exists because by default we don't know that invisible guns exist. At the same time, people say we don't know a God exists, so you have to show that he does in order to make us act as if he does. Basically, it's not about them claiming they know God does not exist. It's them saying for you to tell us to act as if God exists, you must present us with evidence that he does. Ok let me give you another example. Let's say there is a building on fire, and you want to escape through the stairs, but someone tells you to jump through the window because there is an invisible ladder you can reach. People would not do that, as they have no evidence to support that ladder existing. It would make sense to consider that an invisible ladder does not exist rather than that it does, and you cannot be surprised that they would not jump just because they didn't prove 100% that such ladder does not exist. Your argument falls apart when you consider that one of the most basic tenants of Judeo religions is faith. It is a belief that one should believe in God without proof. An Agnostic does not have the burden of proof because they do not make a claim. A Christian does not have a burden of proof because their claim is a personal faith. If I say, I believe in God and you say prove His existence, I'll simply reply, "no." There is no proving God, if there were, there would be no faith. Atheists however, do make a claim. They claim God does not exist. There is no way of knowing that that I am aware of. If they simply say, I don't believe in God, that is different. And, I think that is where the two(or however many) types of Atheists come from. Take, for example, Pluto. I have never personally seen Pluto. I believe it exists, but what if I didn't. What If I came up to you as a believer in Pluto and said, Pluto does not exist. Is the burden of proof suddenly on you to prove it does? Can you truly prove it exists? >Atheists however, do make a claim. They claim God does not exist. Incorrect. Only Hard/Positive Atheists make that claim. You should read my post earlier in the thread describing the different types of atheism. >Is the burden of proof suddenly on you to prove it does? Can you truly prove it exists? The burden of proof is on both of you since you are both making claims. |
|
xero_art
New Member
Posts: 20
Likes: 10
Country: USA
Politics: Liberal
Religion: Christian
Hero: Batman
Age: 27
|
Post by xero_art on Feb 21, 2018 5:42:56 GMT
Your argument falls apart when you consider that one of the most basic tenants of Judeo religions is faith. It is a belief that one should believe in God without proof. An Agnostic does not have the burden of proof because they do not make a claim. A Christian does not have a burden of proof because their claim is a personal faith. If I say, I believe in God and you say prove His existence, I'll simply reply, "no." There is no proving God, if there were, there would be no faith. Atheists however, do make a claim. They claim God does not exist. There is no way of knowing that that I am aware of. If they simply say, I don't believe in God, that is different. And, I think that is where the two(or however many) types of Atheists come from. Take, for example, Pluto. I have never personally seen Pluto. I believe it exists, but what if I didn't. What If I came up to you as a believer in Pluto and said, Pluto does not exist. Is the burden of proof suddenly on you to prove it does? Can you truly prove it exists? >Atheists however, do make a claim. They claim God does not exist. Incorrect. Only Hard/Positive Atheists make that claim. You should read my post earlier in the thread describing the different types of atheism. >Is the burden of proof suddenly on you to prove it does? Can you truly prove it exists? The burden of proof is on both of you since you are both making claims. If you continue reading, you can see that I distinguish in the next two sentences that not all atheists make that claim. Even pointing to the different types of atheists. No, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. More aptly put, the one seeking to spread their belief. If you are content with believing Pluto exists and are making no effort to dissuade me in my belief that it does not, you do not carry a burden of proof. If I am going around trying to spread the belief that Pluto does not exist, the burden of proof is on me. Similarly, my claim is important. If my argument is not that Pluto does not exist, but rather that you should not believe in Pluto, that is what I should prove. |
|
xero_art
New Member
Posts: 20
Likes: 10
Country: USA
Politics: Liberal
Religion: Christian
Hero: Batman
Age: 27
|
Post by xero_art on Feb 21, 2018 6:09:52 GMT
In case of Pluto I base my "trust" in its existance on those who are experts in Astronomy and some other fields that combined together allowed the scientists to prove its existance. So yeah, technically I may say that I "believe" that Pluto exists, however if I'd be an astronomer I would be pretty sure that it exists. Even an Astronomer still has faith. All "knowledge" is faith based. That is one of the main conclusions of radical skepticism. I make no claims as to what beliefs require more faith. I understand that the belief in Pluto requires less faith than the belief in a God and more faith than the belief in the keyboard I am typing on.Regardless of the words, such atheists simply either do not exist or are extreme rarity. "Regardless of the words?" So, even if they claim to think in such a way, they don't actually? I can say the same for Christians and I actually have a text that backs me up,
stating that belief in God is faith based. Besides that, this entire statement is utter conjecture.You said that religions are based on faith, not on actual physical evidence that something spiritual exists. The atheists simply do not have this faith, exactly because there is no evidence. It's impossible to get such evidence, so atheists believe there is no God. No, agnostics have no faith. Those who say I do not know or believe one way or the other. Even an agnostic atheist says, I do not know, but I believe there is no God. That is still faith. It is faith often hidden in the guise of logic but faith nonetheless. Anyone who believes one way or the other is basing such a belief on faith.But you also said that atheists make claims so should provide some proof. Let me ask you: can you make a claim that fairies don't exist? Yes. I can make any claim I want. I will say I do not believe in fairies. |
|
mdk
New Member
Posts: 21 
Likes: 14
|
Post by mdk on Feb 26, 2018 13:45:50 GMT
The assertion "God does not exist" is to be understood as "there is no evidence that God exists; until such evidence is found there is no need to assume God's existence". It's Occam's razor. Until now, the physical world is explained without the need to introduce "God". |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 11:12:26 GMT
mdkYes, your assumption sounds, but: 
|
|
bluesreligion
Junior Member
Posts: 65 
Likes: 57
Religion: Not Religious
Age: 34
|
Post by bluesreligion on Mar 2, 2018 12:09:31 GMT
Other people have said it but I will too. In general someone who is an Atheist just lacks the belief in any god. There are people who say there IS NO GOD and we refer to those people as hard atheists. These people sometimes believe that the idea of god is unintelligible and so can't exist.
I'm just your garden variety atheist. I don't believe in god, but if sufficient evidence was discovered or presented, I would. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. So if someone wants me to believe in god, they have to present evidence.
That doesn't mean I sit around on my butt waiting for someone to show up, but even through extensive searching I've never seen or read anything that even came close to proving a god exists.
It is best to just talk to a person to figure out what their position is, since people have different ideas about the label of "Atheist".
|
|
