I'm not sure you and
@Apologes are even making different arguments.
You seem to be debating the difference between assuming something is 'not true' until proved otherwise or assuming it is 'false' until proved otherwise.
IMO, there isn't any functional difference between the 2 stances of disbelieving something is true, and believing it is false (until proved otherwise).
The difference is that if one says proposition P is false, then one has the burden of proof in establishing the falsehood of proposition P. If, on the other hand, one simply states that proposition P is not true, without declaring it false, one is merely witholding judgement about the truth of proposition P and is remaining agnostic about it. While the former required one to bear a burden of proof, the latter does not. One may well ask at this point if there is any meaningful difference between negative atheism and agnosticism, but I don't want to go there now.
But you do have that right?
Noone has that right. I'm not even trying to do it, so that's a sloppy question.
I am an atheist because I lack a belief in gods, and I don't take the position that gods do not exist. Are you telling me that I am not an atheist?
No, as I said multiple times, that just makes you a negative atheist.
It is the proposition "There is no God".
Anyone with half a brain knows you can't prove a negative. Here are statements you can never prove:
1. God does not exist
2. Science will never know everything.
3. Theist will never understand what atheism means.
Well then, I guess I lack half a brain despite what my doctors say. I seem to be doing fine though.
On a bit more serious note (if such comments deserve that), you can prove a negative (at least as a matter of principle). Take the proposition "There is no T-rex in my living room.". Surely, all I have to do to prove this negative is go to my living room and show that there is no T-rex there.
If I were to be very charitable, I could interpret this very sloppy post of yours to be focused solely on some negatives with the only relevant one being the proposition "There is no God.". Even on this charitable reading, your post falls apart quickly simply by observing the history of the conversation on the topic of God's existence. Atheists have always presented arguments against the existence of God. Have you never heard the argument from evil?
Each of these statements MAY be true in the future. We just don't know what the future will be.
As far as atheism being "wrong" or "unjustified" is clearly an opinion or subjective judgment on your part. Having no belief in God or gods is neither "right" nor "wrong" in the same way having a belief in the existence of God is neither "right" nor "wrong".
Atheism is certainly justified because there is no agreeable evidence for the existence of God. If I hold an apple in my hand and you and I both look at it then I can say "apple". There is no denying the existence of the apple. But you can't grab me by the hand and bring me over to an old man sitting in a chair and say, "Here is God." God doesn't exist in reality as far as I know. You cannot experience God the same way you and I can experience an apple. As far as I can tell God only exists in our use of words and language. God is just a word.
Now many people claim ALL of existence is evidence for God. But this is, again, an opinion or subjective judgment. Many people look at all of existence and do not have the belief that it is evidence for the existence of God. Another thing people do is claim an experience in their life is evidence for the existence of God. Since we cannot share experiences, especially ones in the past, again, it is an opinion or subjective judgment by someone to belief one of their own experiences is evidence for the existence of God.
This section isn't merely epistemological gibberish, it is an explicit mess of contradictions. First of all, you're claiming that beliefs cannot hold any truth values which is absurd and betrays complete ignorance of epistemology on the level that I won't even bother expanding on. Even more absurd is the fact that you provide precisely no rationale for this bold claim.
Second, after claiming that beliefs cannot be true or false, you go on to assert that "God is just a word" which means theism is false and as such all sorts of religious beliefs turn out to be, as a matter of fact, wrong thereby making a gaping hole in your reasoning.
Now here is my big ax to grind with theists. I believe the only reason why theists talk about atheism at all is because their faith in God is so fragile. People have faith in God precisely because there is not a single shred of evidence. People CHOOSE to have faith because there is no evidence. Having faith is a choice not a decision. Decisions are based on reasons or evidence. Some choices are choices made without reason or evidence. So whenever I hear any theist talk about atheism I instantly think their faith is weak. It's really pathetic if the strength of your own convictions only comes from other people agreeing with you. If you see the Buddha on the road kill him. Meaning, absolute authority comes from within, If the strength of your own convictions is not coming from within then you are not paying attention. If you are going to choose to be a theist you have to mean it with all your heart.
So which is it, are you going to prove #3 wrong or are you one of the theists with weak faith?
Your admission of having an axe to grind is only overshadowed by the even more laughable attempt of explaining what choices and decisions are and trying to shove this irrelevant and unfounded distinction into the current debate. A close second to that, of course, is your pathetic projection and uncharitable assumptions of why people believe as they do. Of all the silly replies in this thread, yours may well take the cake.
