I have a friend who considers him self a an athiest and reminded me of his non belief in God.
I just don’t get how he can reject something he doesn’t understand. I mean if he didn’t believe in God then there would be nothing to not believe in. So perhaps he is saying that he doesn’t believe in what i believe in???
I think i have just confused my self a little, but to me its like someone saying to me they don’t believe in the color orange, or doesn’t believe in science for that matter.
what are your thoughts???
Ohh by the way i’m Hux from Australia, my apologies for my absence from the forums the past few months. I hope to be more active especially considering the lack of Libertarians in Australia who i can talk to.
Not sure what you mean. I can say “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” and that would not imply that Santa Claus necessarily exists. The Idea of Santa Claus exists, but not him himself.
It is sloppy wording. Many prefer a-religious instead
We [atheists] would claim that we cannot prove that something does not , not exist–since you can only disprove a negative with a positive. Therefore, the burden of proof must fall upon god to prove itself (which is a discussion I typically refuse to look into)
Reality is not essentially a part of the mind so to say you don’t believe in some part of reality is not going to destroy the part of reality you don’t believe in. I suppose he means that he believes God is just an imaginary being like unicorns or as was mentioned, santa claus.
Atheism is a statement regarding theism, where ‘a’ simply means ‘not’. Theism means religious belief. A religious belief is the affirmation of the belief in something that cannot be scientifically described. The reason we have defined this category of belief is because if something CAN be scientifically described, then it wouldn’t require this other kind of belief. We don’t call belief in the Austrian business cycle theory a religious belief because we can describe it and explain it. Religious belief however cannot be explained.
So for people who don’t profess religious belief it’s quite easy to spot other people who do profess those beliefs: you simply ask them to explain what their belief is and after one or two follow-up questions people fail to answer and resort to ‘faith’. So people who don’t have such un-describable and un-scientific beliefs, they call themselves non-theists, or: atheists.
btw, it’s also the atheist position that religious speak has no rational meaning. This is deemed ‘theological noncognitivism’. So that means that from this perspective the only rational response to God-speak or other religious speak would be to ask them to define their terms, for it is otherwise an incomprehensible discussion.
There are two things that spark my curiosity in this regard. 1) to not not exist is to exist. But you probably aren’t claiming that you can’t prove something exists? 2) there are ways to prove a negative (like God doesn’t exist) isn’t there? For instance you can prove negative statements by syllogisms like Baroco?
Its been awhile, but typically the theist will claim that in order to prove that something does not exist would involve omnipresence, or thus that you must be god to prove that god doesn’t exist. This would be what Dawkins called an absolute atheist, rank 7, on the 1-7 scale.
Essentially, I’m only referring to the burden of proof. The language presented could be misplaced
Oh, so you’re just referring to the fact that the burden is always on the person trying to argue in favor of the proposition. In this case the proposition is God exists and so the theist can’t shift the burden of proof?