Atheism = ‘a lack of belief’ is oxymoronic! A baby ‘lacks belief’. Babies do not hold beliefs. As we grow we develop our beliefs about the world. We form beliefs about the supernatural, politics, colors, food, etc. We do not form ‘lack of beliefs’. Do you ‘lack a belief’ in Superman or do you ‘believe’ Superman is a fictional character? Beliefs are not scientific or legal claims and thus do not need to be proven!
I believe there is nothing to prove about my ‘belief’ there are no gods!
@JohnHasSeriousQ Say you have never heard about a flying teapot orbiting earth. Some guy states that it exists. You ask what proof he has for this. He says it exists based on a dream he had. My question is thus, is it your job to disprove him or can you just carry on with your lack of belief in the orbiting teapot as if it does not exists? Will his assurances that you will be sent to a hell if you don't believe in the teapot change your mind? The burden of proof lies with him.
If I never heard of a (potential) teapot orbiting Earth I would not have cause to form a belief as such. Still, I would not lack a belief; rather I would have never formed a belief in the first place. If, on the other hand, someone claimed that there is a teapot orbiting Earth I would have no choice in the matter to form a belief of this persons’ claim. I would believe it is true or not, or believe it worth looking into or not, etc. Regardless, at that point I would have formed some beliefs.
@Zoiros85 Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the person hearing a claim to disprove that claim (except if they have some personal interest in the validity of said claim). People claim all sorts of wild fantasies, and, as far as I’m concerned can believe what they want. I am not convinced in peoples' claims JUST because they claim what they do. It’s not a good reason to believe anything. Threats of punishment if I don’t believe are even less convincing. Did I answer your questions?
@JohnHasSeriousQ Thank you for proving my point. People who invoke a god figure have the burden of proof, which is the whole point of the "default position" clam of atheists.
@Zoiros85 Right, people who make fanciful claims (of gods or teapots, etc) have the burden of proof.
Still, I disagree with the videos main premise that atheism is a ‘Lack of Beliefs’ or the ‘default position’. If babies lack (the ability to hold) beliefs they cannot hold any position (default or otherwise). Reasoning capable minds (who have been exposed to a particular belief) can hold beliefs, reject them, etc, but they can no longer lack a belief (in the particular exposed belief).
@JohnHasSeriousQ Your first sentence is not congruent with your second sentence. Any new concept should be questioned. You have to hear about gods, before you can believe in it, thus the default position is the one you always had, until convinced otherwise. Not having a belief in gods is something you have up until you hear about it and from that point on you can carry on not believing in it, or start believing in it. Anyway, this is turning in to semantics, we still agree on who has the BoP.
Atheism = ‘a lack of belief’ is oxymoronic! A baby ‘lacks belief’. Babies do not hold beliefs. As we grow we develop our beliefs about the world. We form beliefs about the supernatural, politics, colors, food, etc. We do not form ‘lack of beliefs’. Do you ‘lack a belief’ in Superman or do you ‘believe’ Superman is a fictional character? Beliefs are not scientific or legal claims and thus do not need to be proven!
I believe there is nothing to prove about my ‘belief’ there are no gods!
JohnHasSeriousQ 1 year ago
@JohnHasSeriousQ well said,
ts not on our burden to find proof of a god, we have no need to have belief there is one, thats the point of being an atheist, our minds are free
offkeychris123 1 year ago
@JohnHasSeriousQ Say you have never heard about a flying teapot orbiting earth. Some guy states that it exists. You ask what proof he has for this. He says it exists based on a dream he had. My question is thus, is it your job to disprove him or can you just carry on with your lack of belief in the orbiting teapot as if it does not exists? Will his assurances that you will be sent to a hell if you don't believe in the teapot change your mind? The burden of proof lies with him.
Zoiros85 4 months ago
If I never heard of a (potential) teapot orbiting Earth I would not have cause to form a belief as such. Still, I would not lack a belief; rather I would have never formed a belief in the first place. If, on the other hand, someone claimed that there is a teapot orbiting Earth I would have no choice in the matter to form a belief of this persons’ claim. I would believe it is true or not, or believe it worth looking into or not, etc. Regardless, at that point I would have formed some beliefs.
JohnHasSeriousQ 3 months ago
@Zoiros85 Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the person hearing a claim to disprove that claim (except if they have some personal interest in the validity of said claim). People claim all sorts of wild fantasies, and, as far as I’m concerned can believe what they want. I am not convinced in peoples' claims JUST because they claim what they do. It’s not a good reason to believe anything. Threats of punishment if I don’t believe are even less convincing. Did I answer your questions?
JohnHasSeriousQ 3 months ago
@JohnHasSeriousQ Thank you for proving my point. People who invoke a god figure have the burden of proof, which is the whole point of the "default position" clam of atheists.
Zoiros85 3 months ago
@Zoiros85 claim*
Zoiros85 3 months ago
@Zoiros85 Right, people who make fanciful claims (of gods or teapots, etc) have the burden of proof.
Still, I disagree with the videos main premise that atheism is a ‘Lack of Beliefs’ or the ‘default position’. If babies lack (the ability to hold) beliefs they cannot hold any position (default or otherwise). Reasoning capable minds (who have been exposed to a particular belief) can hold beliefs, reject them, etc, but they can no longer lack a belief (in the particular exposed belief).
JohnHasSeriousQ 3 months ago
@JohnHasSeriousQ Your first sentence is not congruent with your second sentence. Any new concept should be questioned. You have to hear about gods, before you can believe in it, thus the default position is the one you always had, until convinced otherwise. Not having a belief in gods is something you have up until you hear about it and from that point on you can carry on not believing in it, or start believing in it. Anyway, this is turning in to semantics, we still agree on who has the BoP.
Zoiros85 3 months ago