Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
Perhaps there are more agnostics that are atheists they just don't know it lol.
But if the resolution is positing that God exists, then the BoP lies solely with the affirmative.
Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject.
Why is it that the atheist feels threatened by such evidence that the B of P is one which has exceptions?
Yes, you're right. I tripped up. Put prove and disprove in place of affirm and disaffirm in my post, because it being a responsive act would necessitate these two actions.An independent claim would be an invention by man and showing it to those who don't know it exists. This is independent and separate from man. A person doesn't independently say God exists because it is based off a stirring in the conscience. Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject. This is responsive.
For example, saying the apparent order of the universe credits the existence of God is based off a stirring in the human conscience because we perceive order.
I disagree.
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
An AGNOSTIC is literally, "NOT-a-GNOSTIC".It simply describes someone who does NOT personally have any conscious memory of a GNOSTIC experience (and or does not identify themselves as a GNOSTIC).
Where the fck do you get your definitions lol!
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.""Atheism is in the broadest sense (the least specific) an absence of belief in the existence of deities..."
That's a generally accurate standard, but there is a level of nuance I think from topic to topic that it doesn't account for. For example, topics related to positive good fit your standard. If we argue that there is a positive good to installing a 5G network in the United States, then the negative does not bear BoP and can simply say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" if we do not substantiate the claim with evidence that proves a positive good without reasonable doubt. Likewise, If we argue that there is a negative effect of 5G, then the negative could say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" and win if we do not substantiate our claim with evidence that proves a negative effect without reasonable doubt.
This is true. But "substantiating an affirmation" does not translate to having the BoP of proving that God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. "Substantiating the affirmation" could just as easily be the athiest arguing they only have to prove that there is no substantial evidence for God's existence
a belief in something with no evidence is a fallacy in of itself.
As erudite as ever Mr A.
Nonetheless, regarding the veracity of popular GOD stories, you are still no nearer shifting the burden of proof from your shoulders.
And as ever I have nothing to prove.
I, like most people, would love to know the reason for the existence of matter....But, a chap went up a mountain and had a chat with a GOD....Pull the other one, it's got bells on..... I certainly don't feel the need to disprove these sort of tall tales.
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
Yes, you're right. I tripped up. Put prove and disprove in place of affirm and disaffirm in my post, because it being a responsive act would necessitate these two actions.An independent claim would be an invention by man and showing it to those who don't know it exists. This is independent and separate from man. A person doesn't independently say God exists because it is based off a stirring in the conscience. Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject. This is responsive.What do you mean by "stirring in the conscience"?
For example, saying the apparent order of the universe credits the existence of God is based off a stirring in the human conscience because we perceive order.This presents a teleological issue--i.e. the perceived ends an entity serves necessarily is a consequence of creation for that specific end. For example, evolutionary psychology suffers immensely from this issue when making claims like gender roles necessarily manifest from a reproductive economy.
Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
I disagree.
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
But atheists DO follow something! They DO have beliefs. Saying atheists have no belief about God is a lie. They do have a positive belief, and that is that God does NOT exist. If an atheist makes this claim, then the BoP is his, whether he likes it or not.
...nor does it prove the inverse of the proposition your opponent affirms. So if one affirms "not p" then this isn't substantiated by your opponent's failure to prove "p." That would be an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
But atheists DO follow something! They DO have beliefs. Saying atheists have no belief about God is a lie.
I therefore have no belief, in either the existence or non-existence of any specific GOD....
Trying to define an atheist as "not a theist" is like defining oranges as "not red".
Both atheist and theist define beliefs. The atheists belief is not theism, but he does have beliefs about God. Denying that fact is an untruth.
This is true and correct. But the atheist wants to claim that theists are positively claiming God exists just by virtue of being theists! And atheists lack belief, so they are making no claim.
