Burden of proof

[rosey]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

[ndf8th]

Adding a supernatural being has no explanatory power whatsoever.

depends on the view point.

From the point of view of explaining the universe scientifically.
I accept that the religious add personal revelation by themselves or others as a way of knowing. But it isn't science. And tho' I can appreciate the beauty and mystery of other traditions, when it comes to explaining nature and existence, I'm sticking with science until something more accurate comes along.

I mean the science is the social psychology how they think and behave
within a religious tradition. The claims they make can be seen as their
way to find expressions for how it feels to be in a relation to such a tradition.

Sure they claim that it is a real existing God but that it is a supernatural god.

That is how they express it. the science we can do
is how they relate to their own claims we don't have
to believe in their claims for to do science on the belief system as such.

We don't have to accept their claims. We don't do science on the gods
but on the belief in the gods. How they relate to their own stories and
group norms and history and so on.

Maybe my words where confusing.

[ytrewq]

I've been strong atheist all my life at least for 55 years
I thought that I knew what that meant. I saw no evidence for
a supernatural god.

Lack of belief is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.

this new definition of atheism did not exist when I grew up.
I heard about it first time around 1995 on internet.
It has still not made it into ordinary Dictionaries so
only atheists that are philosophy minded seems to know that definition.

So instead of us going courses can you maybe explain
what this lack of belief really means? to me it is no lack.

I am 100% sure of that all gods even the supernatural ones
are only existing as ideas in the minds of humans.

formally that may make me 100% atheist but I self identify as a
Religious Freethinker that see gods as different from the definitions.

Sure. Here is a simple, no BS explanation.

Atheists generally don't claim they are '100% sure' there is no God because, technically, they cannot be '100% sure', and then theists/Christians would rip them apart for claiming something they cannot prove, and point out (correctly) they have a 'burden of proof' to back up their claim that they are '100% certain' that God does not exist. That's all it is.

For the same reason, wise theists will never claim they are '100% sure' that God exists, for then they incur the burden of proving that he does, which is unlikely to be possible.

Wise atheists have a number of choices. They can say instead they simply 'lack belief' in a God, which is not the same as saying they are '100 sure' there is no God. Personally, I think this approach a bit wimpish, more in line with an agnostic viewpoint.

My own approach, therefore, is to say something like:

On the basis of the very weak and often contradictory evidence for a personal or Chritian style of God, combined with the considerable weight of evidence that such a God and the claims made for him contradict well known and established science, combined with many other factor such as (but certainly not limited to) the known tendency for humans to believe in Gods that we now know are nonsensical, I consider that the existence of a personal/Christian style of God is extremely unlikely.

You ask in another posting why you should believe what I (or anything written on the internet) say. You should not automatically believe anything that I or anyone says, including what is written in the Bible. You should judge all you read and hear on it's own merits.

[stubbornone]

^
Sure, here's a good article. StubbornOne should really read this. It addresses his chronic confusion.

Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1) I believe Santa is coming to town
2) I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3) That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1) I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2) I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3) I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief.

This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods." Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof.

If some of this sounds like agnosticism to you, that is because it is. Agnosticism deals specifically with the realm of knowledge, whereas atheism is in the realm of belief. In this context, gnostic (not to be confused with the Gnosticism associated with early Christianity) simply means "with knowledge", while agnostic means "without knowledge". This lack of knowledge can either refer to the absence of the knowledge which is available, or to the notion that it is not possible to possess the knowledge. Since a label of gnostic or agnostic usually tells nothing about what a person believes, only if they have an unspecified knowledge, it is of limited use. Instead, labels related to belief (theism and atheism) are more common. Though the two types of labels are most descriptive when paired, the knowledge-based label is often absent. This is often either due to a poor understanding of the differences between the four labels, or because the belief-based label implies it as its default state.

Since generally atheists believe people are born without knowledge of the concept of gods, thus do not have an innate belief in any gods, the default atheist position is an agnostic-atheist. If an atheist then encounters a god belief and does not accept it, the person remains an agnostic-atheist. However, if the person encounters the god belief and then claims to have knowledge that the god truly does not exist, the person is a gnostic-atheist. Most gnostic-atheists are those that have either not seriously considered their position, have a poor understanding of the topic, are being intellectually dishonest, or are really agnostic-atheists. The last type understand the nuances of the issue but claim their knowledge is sufficient to warrant the gnostic label if they wish to use it, unless pressed with a strict definition of knowledge. This last group is often the cause of much of the confusion, since they commonly use the colloquial understanding of knowledge when making statements about the existence of gods. Unfortunately, the gnostic-atheist label is rarely used by gnostic-atheists due to an ironic lack of knowledge. Instead, these people ambiguously use the atheist label, which implies the default agnostic-atheism. This creates additional confusion as to what atheism is. Additionally, more confusion is introduced when the agnostic term is often mistakenly used instead of [agnostic-]atheist since the person intends to mean while they do not have the knowledge of the true answer, they do not hold a positive god belief either.

While the line is relatively clear-cut in terms of the default atheist position, the theistic view of the default theist position varies greatly. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there is a great deal of diversity of thought regarding innate knowledge and belief. A very common theistic view that is also most apt for confusion during discussions with atheists is that a person is born with the belief/knowledge/both of their god(s), with this claim to knowledge instead being supported by the concept of faith. Not only does this understanding of knowledge differ from the atheist, but it places the default theistic position to be gnostic-theism, the opposite of the default atheist position. The result is the theist not only using a different understanding of what constitutes knowledge than the atheist, but also assuming the atheist is coming from the gnostic perspective. Due to this misunderstanding, many conversations do not get past this point.

Four common statements can illustrate each of these perspectives:

1) Gnostic-Theist/Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
2) Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
3) Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].
4) Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

You are now equipped with a good understanding of what an atheist is (and is not). During discussions, be sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of which category each person belongs in -- and even which definition of "god" will be used. If your arguments are not even directed at what the person actually believes/doesn't believe, you're wasting your time. [Gnostic-]theists should know that if they want to debate with an [agnostic-]atheist, asking the atheist to prove that gods don't exist does nothing but make the theist look clueless. This also holds for gnostic-atheists asking agnostic-theists to prove gods exist -- though I hope by this point in the reading, the gnostic-atheists would no longer consider themselves gnostic.

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

Once again, I am amazed at the sheer arrogance of posts like this. Not only does it ignore the fact my profile lists me as a former atheist, ignores the fact that I made th same argument, it further ignores the analysis in why I already reject what I have ALREADY read.

The entire thing is an illogical conclusion whose sole purpose is avoiding the burden of proof.

You are an atheist, and the ONLY thing that unifies ALL atheists is the lack of belief in God or Gods. That is it. Something lead you to conclude that, but the fact that you cannot explain it should give you pause ... Instead, you combine two incredibly different scenarios simply to retain your belief now without any evidence whatsoever.

From your own source: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief.

It STILL raises the point ... what evidence HAVE you seen? Where did you look? What drove your opinion of insufficiency? What would provide sufficiency? In short, HOW do we engage our brains to SOLVE? Like actual curious, intelligent, problem solvers?

In short, agnostic atheism is a great big excuse to avoid actual evidence ... and you atheists are the ones claiming your precious faith, which is not even a faith, is driven by evidence.

As we see, its driven by a haughty series of illogical excuses and a general disdane for the intelligence of others.

Another reason I left atheism.

[stubbornone]

I've been strong atheist all my life at least for 55 years
I thought that I knew what that meant. I saw no evidence for
a supernatural god.

Lack of belief is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.

this new definition of atheism did not exist when I grew up.
I heard about it first time around 1995 on internet.
It has still not made it into ordinary Dictionaries so
only atheists that are philosophy minded seems to know that definition.

So instead of us going courses can you maybe explain
what this lack of belief really means? to me it is no lack.

I am 100% sure of that all gods even the supernatural ones
are only existing as ideas in the minds of humans.

formally that may make me 100% atheist but I self identify as a
Religious Freethinker that see gods as different from the definitions.

Sure. Here is a simple, no BS explanation.

Atheists generally don't claim they are '100% sure' there is no God because, technically, they cannot be '100% sure', and then theists/Christians would rip them apart for claiming something they cannot prove, and point out (correctly) they have a 'burden of proof' to back up their claim that they are '100% certain' that God does not exist. That's all it is.

For the same reason, wise theists will never claim they are '100% sure' that God exists, for then they incur the burden of proving that he does, which is unlikely to be possible.

Wise atheists have a number of choices. They can say instead they simply 'lack belief' in a God, which is not the same as saying they are '100 sure' there is no God. Personally, I think this approach a bit wimpish, more in line with an agnostic viewpoint.

My own approach, therefore, is to say something like:

On the basis of the very weak and often contradictory evidence for a personal or Chritian style of God, combined with the considerable weight of evidence that such a God and the claims made for him contradict well known and established science, combined with many other factor such as (but certainly not limited to) the known tendency for humans to believe in Gods that we now know are nonsensical, I consider that the existence of a personal/Christian style of God is extremely unlikely.

You ask in another posting why you should believe what I (or anything written on the internet) say. You should not automatically believe anything that I or anyone says, including what is written in the Bible. You should judge all you read and hear on it's own merits.

#1 - Yes you do. Please peruse this forum and see the often derisive comments about the irrationality of faith that flows from atheism. Its pretty clear that many atheists these days think religion is the dumbest thing in the world ... and yet you are not certain? Malarky, your own actions speak far louder than your after the fact words.

#2 - Whether its 100% or 90% or even 2%, its still a conclusion. Several atheists have pointed out what drove them to CONCLUDE, albiet with an acknowledgement that it is not fully evidenced in a scientific sense. Simply claiming that because you are not 100% certain and therefore have no burden of proof indicates a desire to dump logic.

Claims must be supported. THAT is logic. The degree of certainty is irrelevant and can be expressed in degrees of confidence resulting from the analysis.

"LONDON (RNS) A controversial Oxford University professor billed by many as the world's "most famous atheist" now says he is not 100 percent sure that God doesn't exist -- but just barely.

In a 100-minute debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins surprised his online and theater audiences by conceding a personal chink of doubt about his conviction that there is no such thing as a creator.

But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... 99752.html

Your contention doesn't stop Dawkins from making a case does it?

More importantly, his assertion of 99% possibility, doesn't stop him from treating religious people with absolute disdane does it?

IMO, that is the real reason for all this illogical 'analysis'. If, and I speak from experience, we get to the point where we HAVE to acknowledge the illogic that we are using ... and then we see how we have been treating people ... the disdane, the rudeness, the arrogance, the dismissive flubs, ... well, that can be quite a blow to the old ego.

A better question, why would you want to continue using illogical premise to continue being rude to people based solely on a faith choice?

A reminder, not ALL atheists do this, but the ones who do ...

[d.thomas]

^
Sure, here's a good article. StubbornOne should really read this. It addresses his chronic confusion.

Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1) I believe Santa is coming to town
2) I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3) That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1) I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2) I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3) I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief.

This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods." Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof.

If some of this sounds like agnosticism to you, that is because it is. Agnosticism deals specifically with the realm of knowledge, whereas atheism is in the realm of belief. In this context, gnostic (not to be confused with the Gnosticism associated with early Christianity) simply means "with knowledge", while agnostic means "without knowledge". This lack of knowledge can either refer to the absence of the knowledge which is available, or to the notion that it is not possible to possess the knowledge. Since a label of gnostic or agnostic usually tells nothing about what a person believes, only if they have an unspecified knowledge, it is of limited use. Instead, labels related to belief (theism and atheism) are more common. Though the two types of labels are most descriptive when paired, the knowledge-based label is often absent. This is often either due to a poor understanding of the differences between the four labels, or because the belief-based label implies it as its default state.

Since generally atheists believe people are born without knowledge of the concept of gods, thus do not have an innate belief in any gods, the default atheist position is an agnostic-atheist. If an atheist then encounters a god belief and does not accept it, the person remains an agnostic-atheist. However, if the person encounters the god belief and then claims to have knowledge that the god truly does not exist, the person is a gnostic-atheist. Most gnostic-atheists are those that have either not seriously considered their position, have a poor understanding of the topic, are being intellectually dishonest, or are really agnostic-atheists. The last type understand the nuances of the issue but claim their knowledge is sufficient to warrant the gnostic label if they wish to use it, unless pressed with a strict definition of knowledge. This last group is often the cause of much of the confusion, since they commonly use the colloquial understanding of knowledge when making statements about the existence of gods. Unfortunately, the gnostic-atheist label is rarely used by gnostic-atheists due to an ironic lack of knowledge. Instead, these people ambiguously use the atheist label, which implies the default agnostic-atheism. This creates additional confusion as to what atheism is. Additionally, more confusion is introduced when the agnostic term is often mistakenly used instead of [agnostic-]atheist since the person intends to mean while they do not have the knowledge of the true answer, they do not hold a positive god belief either.

While the line is relatively clear-cut in terms of the default atheist position, the theistic view of the default theist position varies greatly. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there is a great deal of diversity of thought regarding innate knowledge and belief. A very common theistic view that is also most apt for confusion during discussions with atheists is that a person is born with the belief/knowledge/both of their god(s), with this claim to knowledge instead being supported by the concept of faith. Not only does this understanding of knowledge differ from the atheist, but it places the default theistic position to be gnostic-theism, the opposite of the default atheist position. The result is the theist not only using a different understanding of what constitutes knowledge than the atheist, but also assuming the atheist is coming from the gnostic perspective. Due to this misunderstanding, many conversations do not get past this point.

Four common statements can illustrate each of these perspectives:

1) Gnostic-Theist/Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
2) Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
3) Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].
4) Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

You are now equipped with a good understanding of what an atheist is (and is not). During discussions, be sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of which category each person belongs in -- and even which definition of "god" will be used. If your arguments are not even directed at what the person actually believes/doesn't believe, you're wasting your time. [Gnostic-]theists should know that if they want to debate with an [agnostic-]atheist, asking the atheist to prove that gods don't exist does nothing but make the theist look clueless. This also holds for gnostic-atheists asking agnostic-theists to prove gods exist -- though I hope by this point in the reading, the gnostic-atheists would no longer consider themselves gnostic.

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

Once again, I am amazed at the sheer arrogance of posts like this. Not only does it ignore the fact my profile lists me as a former atheist, ignores the fact that I made th same argument, it further ignores the analysis in why I already reject what I have ALREADY read.

The entire thing is an illogical conclusion whose sole purpose is avoiding the burden of proof.

You are an atheist, and the ONLY thing that unifies ALL atheists is the lack of belief in God or Gods. That is it. Something lead you to conclude that, but the fact that you cannot explain it should give you pause ... Instead, you combine two incredibly different scenarios simply to retain your belief now without any evidence whatsoever.

From your own source: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief.

It STILL raises the point ... what evidence HAVE you seen? Where did you look? What drove your opinion of insufficiency? What would provide sufficiency? In short, HOW do we engage our brains to SOLVE? Like actual curious, intelligent, problem solvers?

In short, agnostic atheism is a great big excuse to avoid actual evidence ... and you atheists are the ones claiming your precious faith, which is not even a faith, is driven by evidence.

As we see, its driven by a haughty series of illogical excuses and a general disdane for the intelligence of others.

Another reason I left atheism.

So only now that you left atheism you expect atheists to take on the burden of proof. I tell you what, explain how you know leprechauns don't exist and you will have all the so called evidence you need to know why atheists don't concern themselves with invisible gods anymore than they concern themselves with any other fictitious imaginary character read of in books.

[stubbornone]

^
Sure, here's a good article. StubbornOne should really read this. It addresses his chronic confusion.

Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1) I believe Santa is coming to town
2) I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3) That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1) I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2) I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3) I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief.

This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods." Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof.

If some of this sounds like agnosticism to you, that is because it is. Agnosticism deals specifically with the realm of knowledge, whereas atheism is in the realm of belief. In this context, gnostic (not to be confused with the Gnosticism associated with early Christianity) simply means "with knowledge", while agnostic means "without knowledge". This lack of knowledge can either refer to the absence of the knowledge which is available, or to the notion that it is not possible to possess the knowledge. Since a label of gnostic or agnostic usually tells nothing about what a person believes, only if they have an unspecified knowledge, it is of limited use. Instead, labels related to belief (theism and atheism) are more common. Though the two types of labels are most descriptive when paired, the knowledge-based label is often absent. This is often either due to a poor understanding of the differences between the four labels, or because the belief-based label implies it as its default state.

Since generally atheists believe people are born without knowledge of the concept of gods, thus do not have an innate belief in any gods, the default atheist position is an agnostic-atheist. If an atheist then encounters a god belief and does not accept it, the person remains an agnostic-atheist. However, if the person encounters the god belief and then claims to have knowledge that the god truly does not exist, the person is a gnostic-atheist. Most gnostic-atheists are those that have either not seriously considered their position, have a poor understanding of the topic, are being intellectually dishonest, or are really agnostic-atheists. The last type understand the nuances of the issue but claim their knowledge is sufficient to warrant the gnostic label if they wish to use it, unless pressed with a strict definition of knowledge. This last group is often the cause of much of the confusion, since they commonly use the colloquial understanding of knowledge when making statements about the existence of gods. Unfortunately, the gnostic-atheist label is rarely used by gnostic-atheists due to an ironic lack of knowledge. Instead, these people ambiguously use the atheist label, which implies the default agnostic-atheism. This creates additional confusion as to what atheism is. Additionally, more confusion is introduced when the agnostic term is often mistakenly used instead of [agnostic-]atheist since the person intends to mean while they do not have the knowledge of the true answer, they do not hold a positive god belief either.

While the line is relatively clear-cut in terms of the default atheist position, the theistic view of the default theist position varies greatly. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there is a great deal of diversity of thought regarding innate knowledge and belief. A very common theistic view that is also most apt for confusion during discussions with atheists is that a person is born with the belief/knowledge/both of their god(s), with this claim to knowledge instead being supported by the concept of faith. Not only does this understanding of knowledge differ from the atheist, but it places the default theistic position to be gnostic-theism, the opposite of the default atheist position. The result is the theist not only using a different understanding of what constitutes knowledge than the atheist, but also assuming the atheist is coming from the gnostic perspective. Due to this misunderstanding, many conversations do not get past this point.

Four common statements can illustrate each of these perspectives:

1) Gnostic-Theist/Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
2) Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
3) Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].
4) Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

You are now equipped with a good understanding of what an atheist is (and is not). During discussions, be sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of which category each person belongs in -- and even which definition of "god" will be used. If your arguments are not even directed at what the person actually believes/doesn't believe, you're wasting your time. [Gnostic-]theists should know that if they want to debate with an [agnostic-]atheist, asking the atheist to prove that gods don't exist does nothing but make the theist look clueless. This also holds for gnostic-atheists asking agnostic-theists to prove gods exist -- though I hope by this point in the reading, the gnostic-atheists would no longer consider themselves gnostic.

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

Once again, I am amazed at the sheer arrogance of posts like this. Not only does it ignore the fact my profile lists me as a former atheist, ignores the fact that I made th same argument, it further ignores the analysis in why I already reject what I have ALREADY read.

The entire thing is an illogical conclusion whose sole purpose is avoiding the burden of proof.

You are an atheist, and the ONLY thing that unifies ALL atheists is the lack of belief in God or Gods. That is it. Something lead you to conclude that, but the fact that you cannot explain it should give you pause ... Instead, you combine two incredibly different scenarios simply to retain your belief now without any evidence whatsoever.

From your own source: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief.

It STILL raises the point ... what evidence HAVE you seen? Where did you look? What drove your opinion of insufficiency? What would provide sufficiency? In short, HOW do we engage our brains to SOLVE? Like actual curious, intelligent, problem solvers?

In short, agnostic atheism is a great big excuse to avoid actual evidence ... and you atheists are the ones claiming your precious faith, which is not even a faith, is driven by evidence.

As we see, its driven by a haughty series of illogical excuses and a general disdane for the intelligence of others.

Another reason I left atheism.

So only now that you left atheism you expect atheists to take on the burden of proof. I tell you what, explain how you know leprechauns don't exist and you will have all the so called evidence you need to know why atheists don't concern themselves with invisible gods anymore than they concern themselves with any other fictitious imaginary character read of in books.

Strawman:

I expect BOTH sides to take on the burden of proof. Which part of ALL CLAIMS MUST BE SUPPORTED are you struggling with?

The fact is we have several open threads where thesis are doing just that, meeting their burden of proof.

In contrast, we have atheists not only dodging their burden of proof, but arrogantly thinking that everyone is too stupid to know what agnostic atheism is ... even AFTER they spell out their issues with it.

Your post is another step in that emotional, rather than evidence driven, state of atheism.

Your atheism rests not on proof, but upon emotion.

I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but your entire activity on this thread is about doing everything BUT that.

And that is indeed a problem with atheism, which puts in the same category as conspiracy.

Again, not all atheists do this, there are HONEST atheists who acknowledge that the evidence for God is inconclusive any they rely on what they think is the preponderance of the evidence in support of a conclusion.

The Walt Disney of atheism is claiming its not making any claims and has no evidence or preponderance at all and doesn't need it. Its illogical and simply asinine.

There is nothing in atheism that requires one to abandon logic. There is something in emotional hatred for other based solely on a faith choice that DOES.

You tell me which is more likely?

BTW - you just claimed that God was fictitious. A positive claim that REQUIRES support. Prove it.

or acknowledge that your atheism is merely meanness.

[GADARENE]

"So only now that you left atheism you expect atheists to take on the burden of proof. I tell you what,


-- explain how you know leprechauns don't exist and you will have all the so called evidence you need to know why atheists don't concern themselves with invisible gods --



anymore than they concern themselves with any other fictitious imaginary character read of in books."

I think I see what you are saying, but I am not quite convinced.
atheists, agnostic/atheists, jesus myth theorists- the ones oblivious to invisible irish leprechaun gods have posted 97,556,087, 023 posts in 4 days!

[Star]

StubbornOne,

Prove you're not a car thief. I have just burdened you with evidence.

My evidence is that I feel very strongly inside that you are guilty. You'll just have to take my word for it)

Where's your evidence to support the conclusion that you're innocent? The ball is in your court. Thank you.

(Entirely rhetorical just to make a point. I don't actually believe you're a car thief. I wouldn't know, so my null hypothesis is that you're actually not guilty until proven otherwise. That's logic.)

[d.thomas]

Strawman:

I expect BOTH sides to take on the burden of proof. Which part of ALL CLAIMS MUST BE SUPPORTED are you struggling with?

The fact is we have several open threads where thesis are doing just that, meeting their burden of proof.

In contrast, we have atheists not only dodging their burden of proof, but arrogantly thinking that everyone is too stupid to know what agnostic atheism is ... even AFTER they spell out their issues with it.

Your post is another step in that emotional, rather than evidence driven, state of atheism.

Your atheism rests not on proof, but upon emotion.

I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but your entire activity on this thread is about doing everything BUT that.

And that is indeed a problem with atheism, which puts in the same category as conspiracy.

Again, not all atheists do this, there are HONEST atheists who acknowledge that the evidence for God is inconclusive any they rely on what they think is the preponderance of the evidence in support of a conclusion.

The Walt Disney of atheism is claiming its not making any claims and has no evidence or preponderance at all and doesn't need it. Its illogical and simply asinine.

There is nothing in atheism that requires one to abandon logic. There is something in emotional hatred for other based solely on a faith choice that DOES.

You tell me which is more likely?

BTW - you just claimed that God was fictitious. A positive claim that REQUIRES support. Prove it.

or acknowledge that your atheism is merely meanness.

The only reason there are atheists is because there are people running around claiming there are invisible gods out there. I claimed leprechauns are fictitious as well, so what's your point? Am I to provide so called evidence for the non existence of every fictitious character writers have come up with over the last five thousand years? Who has the time for that?


No one is jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of leprechauns. People are however jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of invisible gods, go figure.

[Star]

I think I see what you are saying, but I am not quite convinced.
atheists, agnostic/atheists, jesus myth theorists- the ones oblivious to invisible irish leprechaun gods have posted 97,556,087, 023 posts in 4 days!

We made 97.6 billion posts in just four days?

That's a positive assertion. Sorry to burden you, but where's your evidence?

Oh right, you think the burden is on me, so let's see... that number is statistically unlikely.