Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps you could provide an example of how a lack of belief in any Gods plays a part in how we view the World. You certainly belief that you have the only correct view of reality and that it justifies all those apparently absolute proclamations but even you must be able to explain those claims. Just how does my lack of belief lay a role in my view of the World?
It is NOT a lack of belief. It is a negative belief about any involvement of God in our Reality, including why we even exist or what relevance our existence has to Reality, but it is a belief nonetheless! This puerile dodge to lay the burden of proof on believers in God is semantic tomfoolery to make your belief about Reality the default for everyone. It has traction here because TPTB accepts it but it is philosophical dross.
E.g. my wife has much better hearing than I. would never argue with her if she says she hears something downstairs. It is similar with intuition. i am a Gnostic, so, some of 'miracle' or 'sinner' stories have different color in my mind.
Do you assume that all believers are Christians? Or that everything I would see in my reality consists of seeing people who you see as sinners.
Most of my reality includes the natural world: weather, the skies and sun, the landscape, flora and fauna, manufactory good like cars and bicycles. Little of my reality consists of looking at sins or sinners.
Driving down the highway in near blizzard conditions I believe we all face the same reality, visibility is poor, the road has slippery sections and some of the other driver's donny have the proper tires on. That I need to drive alert and carefully. No sinners or miracles involved. You may pray however I don't and have always made it through safely without praying. Where I live even the very devout believers use winter tires.
Travelling through the mountains we see a very beautiful sight. We may interpret it different but we are still seeing the same reality. You might see it as the works of God however with my training I might see it as a product of tectonics and glacial processes, my wife , an artist, might see it as a composition and someone else may see it as interesting. We al have different interpretations but are seeing the same thing. And a devout person ma also see both the effects of the glacial processes and the scene as a composition.
But what I see the reality of either the winter driving or the mountain scene is affected more by my learning and experience than any though I might of ever had about if a God exists. Actually much of our recognition of the affects of glacial ion comes out of the mind of a devout Christian and glacial Geomorphologit's may be atheists or from any religion.
It really is just word games to define atheism in order to escape the burden of proof.
Here’s an actual quote: “I have no need to defend any beliefs I have because I’m not claiming any of them to be true.”
This is a common tactic for anti-theist atheists who want to criticize others’ beliefs while never having to defend their own.
What this demonstrates is a lack of confidence in their own beliefs, even though many claim to be 99.99999999% sure that God does not exist. Doesn’t add up.
It is NOT a lack of belief. It is a negative belief about any involvement of God in our Reality, including why we even exist or what relevance our existence has to Reality, but it is a belief nonetheless! This puerile dodge to lay the burden of proof on believers in God is semantic tomfoolery to make your belief about Reality the default for everyone. It has traction here because TPTB accepts it but it is philosophical dross.
Sorry but the use of insults is no way a backing of your claim. You claim elsewhere that this definition of a God uses Christ hence you are denying not only atheists of denying reality but in essence 6 billion people of other faiths reality as well.
The burden of proof always rests upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that Reality is God and that it's up to everyone not believing your claim to have to disprove it. That is certainly not an honest assessment of burden of proof. That you use insults to dismiss any arguments against your claim in bad faith on your part.
Personally when I look at reality I see what appears to be reality. It is you that are claiming that something is there not be adding something not there. When you claim that it is God not the rape victim perceiving the pain that is a positpositive claim, one that need support to be accepted. You bring in science so often in your feeble attempts at bashing or disproving atheism however any person who has taken one college level science course, let alone a degree plus grad level courses, would know there the burden of proof rests. Fancy insults does not spare you wirh the responsibility to back your claim and I am under no obligation to disprove them. I can choose to either accept your claim or choose to not having been convince by them however the burden of proof I'd squarely upon your claims. Your constant efforts to attempt to twist the responsibility around demonstrates that you either do not understand or are to dishonest to address the reality of where the burden of proof lays.
I do no understand what TPTD is. But your refusal to accept the standards of burden of proof set out in either the scientific method or in English Common Law is upon you, not be. Believing in a God is not the default position no matter how often you repeat this lie.
Do you assume that all believers are Christians? Or that everything I would see in my reality consists of seeing people who you see as sinners.
Most of my reality includes the natural world: weather, the skies and sun, the landscape, flora and fauna, manufactory good like cars and bicycles. Little of my reality consists of looking at sins or sinners.
Driving down the highway in near blizzard conditions I believe we all face the same reality, visibility is poor, the road has slippery sections and some of the other driver's donny have the proper tires on. That I need to drive alert and carefully. No sinners or miracles involved. You may pray however I don't and have always made it through safely without praying. Where I live even the very devout believers use winter tires.
Travelling through the mountains we see a very beautiful sight. We may interpret it different but we are still seeing the same reality. You might see it as the works of God however with my training I might see it as a product of tectonics and glacial processes, my wife , an artist, might see it as a composition and someone else may see it as interesting. We al have different interpretations but are seeing the same thing. And a devout person ma also see both the effects of the glacial processes and the scene as a composition.
But what I see the reality of either the winter driving or the mountain scene is affected more by my learning and experience than any though I might of ever had about if a God exists. Actually much of our recognition of the affects of glacial ion comes out of the mind of a devout Christian and glacial Geomorphologit's may be atheists or from any religion.
I do not "assume that all believers are Christians". Christ Principle is universal.
The topic is the dictionary definition of atheism and how each individual atheist uses that definition to conduct their lives. Stop saying you're right all the time.
I know how I define atheism and how I use atheism to conduct my life.
Check this out:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
*Menu
*Entry Navigation
Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Wed Aug 2, 2017
The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism and, more importantly, to each other. This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. Settling this issue, at least for the purposes of this entry, will set the stage for discussing an important distinction between global atheism and local atheism, which in turn will be helpful for distinguishing different forms of agnosticism. Examination of an argument in support of a modest form of agnosticism will ensue, followed by discussion of three arguments for atheism and one argument against a more ambitious form of agnosticism.
1. Definitions of “Atheism”2. Definitions of “Agnosticism”3. Global Atheism Versus Local Atheisms4. An Argument for Agnosticism5. An Argument for Global Atheism?6. Two Arguments for Local Atheism6.1 How to Argue for Local Atheism6.2 The Low Priors Argument6.3 The Decisive Evidence Argument7. An Argument against AgnosticismBibliographyAcademic ToolsOther Internet ResourcesRelated Entries
1. Definitions of “Atheism”
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and*not*the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not*direct*answers to this question.
It is NOT a lack of belief. It is a negative belief about any involvement of God in our Reality, including why we even exist or what relevance our existence has to Reality, but it is a belief nonetheless! This puerile dodge to lay the burden of proof on believers in God is semantic tomfoolery to make your belief about Reality the default for everyone. It has traction here because TPTB accepts it but it is philosophical dross.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Sorry but the use of insults is no way a backing of your claim. You claim elsewhere that this definition of a God uses Christ hence you are denying not only atheists of denying reality but in essence 6 billion people of other faiths reality as well.
The burden of proof always rests upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that Reality is God and that it's up to everyone not believing your claim to have to disprove it. That is certainly not an honest assessment of the burden of proof. That you use insults to dismiss any arguments against your claim in bad faith on your part.
YOU are making a claim IMPLICITLY by your atheism that No God is involved in our Reality but that is entirely presumption, NOT science. Science does NOT address the issue of God, period. What you consider insults or not is irrelevant to the discussion since no insults are intended by me. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that NEITHER of us can claim the default because we do not know and have no evidence either way because we all use the same evidence about our Reality. You want to DEMAND your belief about Reality be accepted and mine be rejected without any legitimate basis for doing so. We BOTH have to be satisfied with "We Do Not Know!" since Science is impotent with regard to answering the question. If we ever develop the ability to directly "measure" the 95+% of our Reality we cannot yet measure, THEN science may be able to answer the question. As it stands, dark energy, dark matter, and consciousness are NOT directly measurable. "We do not know" is the ONLY default position tunil we resolve this scientific inadequacy - the hubris of atheists notwithstanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
