Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A "claim" is an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. There are "implicit" and "explicit" claims. Holding a belief is asserting, implicitly, that what you believe is true.
That's true. Though, ''claim'', if not a declaration or argument, wouldn't make sense, as any distinctive thing, imo. So, I am assuming it's use as a argument, or such.
This makes no sense. Why would you need to prove that something exists to something who already acknowledges that it exists. Theists have the burden to support their claim that God exists. Atheists merely aren't convinced, and find any evidence lacking. It obviously isn't impossible, as many atheists have become theists later on in life. But, you can't expect atheists to provide support for a claim that they aren't making ... namely that God's existence is impossible.
I think that you are getting jumbled in the arbitrary terms, and concepts, that can be related to theism or atheism. One would be ''believing'' that there is no deity, in the same manner as one would believe in a deity. One might have the ''absence'' of belief, in say, automobiles, (island tribe), as well. The point is that, there is no standard, a point, where one goes from lack of belief, to belief. It's just a word used to describe things we might surmise, or 'know' to be true, etc. To a theist, the atheist has the ''burden of proof''', for example.
But you are erroneously equating a lack of belief with believing that God cannot exist. That's my point. It isn't one or the other. Many lack belief in both the positive and negative beliefs.
Actually, it does.
That is what you aren't understanding. They don't have any more of a burden to support their claim, than, say, someone stating that there isn't a deity, or someone claiming the moon is made of green cheese, or that pizza is great, etc etc. You're making arbitrary ''distinctions'', regarding burden of proof.
My point since the onset of our discussion was that atheism does not necessarily make the claim that "no deities exist". It only requires that someone be without belief, which is often due to them merely being unconvinced. Many atheists say that they don't believe in anything without reason. They certainly don't believe that God exists, but they also wouldn't go so far as to say that they believe that God cannot exist. Thus, they aren't making the claim that "no deities exist". They are just without belief in deities. If evidence or reasoned arguments come about that convince them, they would be open to changing their beliefs. But, until that day arises, they are merely "weak atheists", lacking belief in both the existence of God or gods and the impossibility of God or gods.
In other words, "atheism" does not make the claim that "no deities exist". That is a claim that you are falsely assigning to all atheists, which certainly isn't the case. They merely are unconvinced that God or gods do exist.
Actually, I'm not using the word ''claim'', in the manner you are. Claim seems to imply a position for an argument, whereas, 'theism', is a belief, and not necessarily an argument or any claimed position, made.
A belief is an implicit claim. When one "believes" in the existence of God, they are implicitly making the assertion that they think God exists. When one says that theism makes a claim, it means that theism is the acceptance of the existence of God being true. Atheists are unwilling to accept this as true due to lack of supporting evidence/reasoning.
What does this have to do 'burden of proof'? If someone said to you, that mars does not exist, you cannot ''prove'', to that person, that mars exist. You could present evidence, but that is not 'proof', of course.
Burden of proof merely means the burden of supporting ones belief. It doesn't require something to be proved to a certainty. Proof in this context merely means "evidence". And, theists hold the belief while atheists do not. This, theists have the burden of supporting their belief.
Agreed.
I am not making that claim. Many atheists do not believe that god cannot exist. They merely have not been convinced of either belief. They still lack belief in god or god's though.
My point is that there is a common misconception that atheists actively believe that God does not exist. For example, if someone came up to me and asked me if John Doe existed, I would need sufficient evidence to believe either way. I would certainly lack belief in the existence of John doe though.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge of God, not belief. Ignosticism is completely different.
It seems that the only need for a new word is due to theists erroneously forcing beliefs on atheists that just aren't necessarily accurate. Just like theism, it is a very general term for good reason.