However, in the case for god, 'invisible' is indistinguishable from 'nothing'.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument
- Thread starter Falvlun
- Start date
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
But surely 'nothing' and 'non-existence' are abstracts? (And therefore exist?)
But you didn't seem happy to agree that nothing exists. Have I misunderstood?
It is, indeed; but that says nothing about the object of faith.
Actually it is accurate unless you are in the business of bending spoons to support theism. God claims are unsupported faith beliefs, that is why God is a faith belief in the first place.
Nothing is not non-existence. But this is a discussion for another thread.
You must have a very limited outlook on theism in order to believe this. Although I'd encourage you to widen your understanding of theism, each to their own, I suppose. Or are you intending to limit this discussion to classical monotheism, or supernaturalistic, transcendent, omnimax god-concepts? I find that pretty boring, personally. Theisms outside of that don't really fall within your assumptions.
That's probably why I find it hard to call myself an atheist, half the time I don't even know what God concept it is that I am supposedly denying.
The burden of the atheist is not the burden of the theist, though. The atheist's burden does not lie in the object of the theist's belief.
The atheist is free to ignore unsupported God claims.
Yes, they are. But that's not what makes them an atheist.
Unsupported claims made this atheist.
I apologize; it's not my nature to approach topics like this from a classical monotheist mindset because I'm not one myself. I think in western cultures, you'd be in a good position to call yourself an atheist if you reject the culture's dominant god-concept (which is classical monotheism, sometimes slightly modified though). I usually assume that of people who self-identify as atheists. Honestly, I've never been a fan of the terms "theist" and "atheist" to begin with, because their meaning hinges on what the god-concept of discussion is.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Correct. You have helped me. Thanks.
Last edited:
No need to apologize. Are you a believer in Spinoza's God, in that God is nature?
The Bullfrog
Member
"I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that a rejection of a claim has no burden whatsoever."
A complete lack of hard evidence is a good reason to reject a claim as real.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I've long since stopped playing the labeling game. I'm neither a theist nor an atheist.
How did you come to the conclusion that there was a complete lack of hard evidence?
Was it because the banana told you?
Or was it through considered exploration of various theistic arguments?
The Bullfrog
Member
That is why I place the burned of proof on the theist. Because they can't even figure out what it is they are proving.
Last edited:
If no one was making god claims, there would be no atheists.As long something did and you're not an atheist for no reason.