|
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?
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jan 23, 2018 11:10:13 GMT
I always thought that there is one kind of atheist! Shrug
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 23, 2018 11:17:07 GMT
I always thought that there is one kind of atheist! Shrug I recently learned there were 2 :/ Confusing isn't it? Also 2 agnostics too.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jan 23, 2018 11:25:53 GMT
Anyway I do not belong to them...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 12:56:54 GMT
I've never heard that there were two. Can you explain the types?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 23, 2018 21:29:23 GMT
I've never heard that there were two. Can you explain the types? I'll try. They confuse me... 1. Believe there is no God at all 2. Lacking in believing but are open to thinking God can still exist They still sound rather the same to me :/
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Jan 23, 2018 22:21:42 GMT
I've never heard that there were two. Can you explain the types? I'll try. They confuse me... 1. Believe there is no God at all 2. Lacking in believing but are open to thinking God can still exist They still sound rather the same to me :/ #2 is similar to agnostic atheism.
|
|
mdk
New Member
Posts: 21
Likes: 14
|
Post by mdk on Jan 25, 2018 9:37:56 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? What you argue for is an argument from ignorance fallacy, the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 25, 2018 9:50:47 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? What you argue for is an argument from ignorance fallacy, the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. But won't someone be making a claim too if they say God doesn't exist? Like some atheists state.
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2018 3:10:57 GMT
I've actually seen it divided three ways:
1. Those who have never heard of any concept of a god (Implicit Atheism) 2. Those who have but don't believe it (Explicit Negative Atheism) 3. Those who have and claim none exist (Explicit Positive Atheism)
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 29, 2018 3:22:47 GMT
I've actually seen it divided three ways: 1. Those who have never heard of any concept of a god (Implicit Atheism) 2. Those who have but don't believe it (Explicit Negative Atheism) 3. Those who have and claim none exist (Explicit Positive Atheism) 3? I learn new things every day. Have you come across all 3 in your life before?
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2018 13:38:26 GMT
I've actually seen it divided three ways: 1. Those who have never heard of any concept of a god (Implicit Atheism) 2. Those who have but don't believe it (Explicit Negative Atheism) 3. Those who have and claim none exist (Explicit Positive Atheism) 3? I learn new things every day. Have you come across all 3 in your life before? Yup! Babies are technically implicit atheists (until they are taught a belief system, or not). Aside from that I'm sure some of the younger Piraha are implicit atheists, although I haven't ever met one so that's just a guess. Many other animistic cultures are possibly also like that, depending on how well connected they are to the outside people. I'm the second type, so hi! Most atheists I've met are this type, as well. And the third type I've seen very occasionally. Burden of proof is on them. I've never seen a hard atheist prove the nonexistence of every god.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 29, 2018 23:53:50 GMT
3? I learn new things every day. Have you come across all 3 in your life before? Yup! Babies are technically implicit atheists (until they are taught a belief system, or not). Aside from that I'm sure some of the younger Piraha are implicit atheists, although I haven't ever met one so that's just a guess. Many other animistic cultures are possibly also like that, depending on how well connected they are to the outside people. I'm the second type, so hi! Most atheists I've met are this type, as well. And the third type I've seen very occasionally. Burden of proof is on them. I've never seen a hard atheist prove the nonexistence of every god. This seems like a really good explanation. Which always makes me wonder about people baptizing babies since my church doesn't do it. You're baptizing an atheist if you baptize a baby as you just said
|
|
hamad
New Member
Posts: 19
Likes: 25
|
Post by hamad on Feb 5, 2018 19:19:59 GMT
What you argue for is an argument from ignorance fallacy, the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. But won't someone be making a claim too if they say God doesn't exist? Like some atheists state. 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.
|
|
xero_art
New Member
Posts: 20
Likes: 10
Country: USA
Politics: Liberal
Religion: Christian
Hero: Batman
Age: 27
|
Post by xero_art on Feb 20, 2018 10:13:50 GMT
But won't someone be making a claim too if they say God doesn't exist? Like some atheists state. 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?
|
|