Not so much. I am not asking those that claim, "God does not exist," to disprove their claim. Regardless of whether the claim is negative or affirmative, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, which is not me.
We are not claiming gods don't exist. You're claiming they might, and were asking why would you say such a thing.
If I said "It's possible there are teapots orbiting some distant planets", you would hopefully disregard the statement as being nonsense. It is possible, but so what? Putting the word "possible" before something doesn't by itself make it worth my time to think about.
On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim.
> You're claiming they might
I have made no such claim, making your assertion a straw man fallacy. My claim was only that among atheists, deists and agnostics, only agnostics have a compelling argument. IOW neither atheists' nor deists' arguments have logical nor epistemological merit, and the flaws in their arguments are identical: claiming unknowable knowledge.
> Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
You’re talking about the most narrow definition, which is addressed by Russell’s Teapot. According to Russel, the logical position that there is no teapot floating in space is much more reasonable in the absence of evidence than saying you don’t know. To say you don’t know and to continue to entertain theories of a teapot in space is simply a waste of time. Or, if you say you don’t know but refuse to entertain theories of the teapot, then you’re simply projecting agnosticism, without truly practicing it.
A more common application of the term “atheism” is the absence of belief. An absence of belief requires no proof. It’s a rejection of an assertion, which is different than an assertion.
In fact, it’s a common logical starting point of not believing in something until you have a reason to believe. I’m sure you do it all the time with knowledge that isn’t innate. And then of course as evidence presents itself you’re free to reevaluate and change your mind.
You don’t get any bonus points for “not ever being wrong” by saying “I don’t know” all the time. It’s perfectly reasonable to say “I don’t believe you.” Or “No, it doesn’t.” as long as you’re willing to accept future information and revise your views then. Not being wrong isn’t the same as being right.
Progress comes equally from doubt as it does from curiosity. Countless discoveries were made by rejecting unsubstantiated claims. So from a practical standpoint, rejecting theories seems to have some utility.
So, if accepting or rejecting a hypothesis helps someone live a better life, then why not?
Clearly, the absence of belief in God is the very same as believing God does not exist. Both phrases, in fact, mean the same thing. And with tomato tomato, we can dismiss a correction to one's adherence to an alternative standard.
> Clearly, the absence of belief in God is the very same as believing God does not exist.
Not in my opinion.
You were born with an absence in the belief of an infinite number of things. Absence of belief is a default state.
Presumably you have a filter of what beliefs you choose to add to that default state you were born in.
Having a filter of: “Does it help me live a better life?” seems good to me. “Can anyone reproduce it?” seems like a decent filter too.
Basically an absence of belief is saying that the level of evidence presented to me has not surpassed the requirements of my filter. The burden is on others to improve the evidence.
Believing a negative is saying that I have all the evidence I need and I’ve come to a conclusion. The burden is on me to show that I’ve collected enough evidence.
> Basically an absence of belief is saying that the level of evidence presented to me has not surpassed the requirements of my filter. The burden is on others to improve the evidence.
Again, the "absence of belief" is identical to "not believing:" "the evidence has not convinced you, so you do not believe it," is, in fact, a belief. Believing something is a belief, and not believing something is also a belief. Belief is not knowledge of truth, it is a gamble that something is true without seeing the dice. When you see the dice, you know.
> On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim
I can only assume you're trolling, but sure I'll bite, because I have nothing better to do.
Again, athiests are not making the claims. In fact it's insulting to even have the word "athiest" exist, but I understand the historical context that led to it's existence.
A person is just a person, but then some people come along and make claims that there are gods. So the people ask;"Why? Can you prove it?". These questioners don't have beliefs that need to be proven, because they are the default. The theist is the one making the claim.
Atheism does not say nothing; it is saying something. Atheism is an argument, and as such, it is fundamentally and ideologically making a claim. Any claim may be examined for rigor.
A person is not born believing in gods. They are not making arguments about the existence or non-existence of gods. One day someone says to them that gods may exist, this other person has made a claim. It would be more than strange to say this person has a more valid viewpoint than the person who has made no claims.
Goodnight and good luck. And even if you are trolling, I hope you find what it is you're _really_ seeking in life.
> A person is not born believing in gods. They are not making arguments about the existence or non-existence of gods. One day someone says to them that gods may exist, this other person has made a claim. It would be more than strange to say this person has a more valid viewpoint than the person who has made no claims.
I think this is a popular kind of argument, and the form of it isn't necessarily invalid. The form is to use a developmental model of a fetus developing into baby, to infant, to rugrat, etc., as a frame to eliminate something that, allegedly, emerges at some point during healthy development, utilizing simplified ideas in the cognitive theory of moral development or some such to show that something is not there, and then it is, almost as if by slight of hand, to construct the droll ramification that it is not an inherent quality, thus whatever it is, is not a priori, it is nurture not nature, beliefs are behavior, and they are learned behavior.
But in this case, it is not remotely as clear as I believe you would like. It could be nature. Due to a number of interesting cases and non-controlled, ad hoc studies on single patient bases, an idea emerged (from medical professionals exposed to patients with brain injury, most of the injuries caused by bicycle accidents) a concept emerged known as the Godspot: A conscious patient with part of their skull cap removed and their brain exposed was given a small charge on a particular area of the brain from, seriously, a zapper wand, idk what it is called, and the patient, an atheist that was not raised exposed to religion, experienced religious rapture and epiphany, and concerningly with other patients, visions of what we'd all recognize as Hell. Subsequent, and especially more recent investigations have shown this brain state is real and academically reproducible, but that there probably isn't a particular Godspot because so many parts of the brain are involved, arguably necessarily.
Regardless, whatever the hell that is, it evolved in humans, and there is absolutely no reason not to believe it occurs and can be induced in nearly all if not all mammalian brains.
And the repercussion of this extant evolved brain state is that: whatever triggers belief in God, at the very least, is not necessarily introduced through only nurture. It is part of what human beings are, part of common human genetic make-up assuredly, and maybe also other or all mammals, meaning, it probably existed long, long before humans showed up.
This is not a court room or a debate. There is no such thing as 'burden of proof'. A hypothesis can be proven correct or false, and both parties are welcome to do so. This is how competitive science works, thankfully not being one-sided.
If I said "It's possible there are teapots orbiting some distant planets", you would hopefully disregard the statement as being nonsense. It is possible, but so what? Putting the word "possible" before something doesn't by itself make it worth my time to think about.