Stop Trying to Position Atheism as Merely a Lack of Belief

As I said, there are millions of atheists in the world and obviously you know exactly one thing about the vast majority. There'll even be atheists you've met who didn't do anything bad to you (though you may not have had any idea they were atheist). I've absolutely no problem with you challenging people who actually do that kind of thing - I may well join you. What I'm objecting to is you characterising atheists in generally being automatically guilty by association. That's like associating extremist religious violence with theists in general.

 

Yet, I have people comparing Christians to militant Islam. They call us "Talibornagains". Who do I see about my complaint?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I do not have to prove that something others created, a god or gods, is non-existent until they can prove it does exist...

Why is the onus on me, an atheist, to prove YOUR claim?

WTF is a "truth claim"?

I am NOT claiming anything....but those who made UP and claimed there is a god are the ones who have to [prove there is one...


Why would I have to prove "nothing" ?

If I claim there is a striped elephant wooly mammoth dancing in my backyard it is up to me to prove it....or do you just accept that it's there because I said so?

 

If a person compares Islam to Christianity, it is obvious they know nothing, of at least one of those religions.

 

True, but my friend here is complaining about unjust accusations. It happens to all of us. It's our job to put the lies about us to rest. It's his job to put the lies about him to rest. He needs to silence the voices of his detractors as we have to silence our detractors with the truth.

 

I think he would complain if his ice cream was cold.

 

Assuming it's just private citizens in public, you just have to address the individuals saying it (or ignore them). The point is they have nothing at all to do with anyone else who happens to be atheist.

 

You can send them to me, I'm familiar with both religions.

 

No, I'm not the judge of you and your beliefs. You're just paranoid.

I'm not "taking sides". It's you who is trying to assign me to a side. I'm ok with you believing there are gods - I just don't happen to agree.

- of course there is such a thing as morality. There does not need to be a god for that.
- yes, man has free will. I've seen no evidence to the contrary.
- as humans, we have not figured out why there is something and not nothing. Having no answer is NOT evidence of there being a god - it's merely an example of the fact that humans don't have all the answers.
- there doesn't have to be a god for there to be a basis for rationality.

 

Dude, I didn't write this, so chill.

 

I wrote in response to the OP, which has your name on it.

If someone is ghosting you, you should address that.

 

What's missing is a reason to give a damn.

Well now that would be reason to give a damn if you had any idea what the hell you're talking about.

Which you don't.

By whom?

Not the Founders, that's for sure.

Sure you wanna hang with that?

 

The constitution was a perfectly sound answer to the issue of state sponsored prayer such as school coaches might perform. Besides, they are religiously exclusive.

The founders wrote that amendment. Guessing they didn't mean it seems a little ridiculous.

 

The militant theists in this thread are entertaining. Empty, shallow, infantile, xenophobic and tribal but still entertaining, at least for a while.

 

Well, we're all kind of tribal in this. I kind of get that accusation being directed at us, because it's frankly true. I do find some of the arguments pretty empty though.

 

Indeed it does; and the answer is it's none of the federal government's damn business one way or the other.

So what?

Sure they meant it; or to put a finer point on it, they meant what they actually wrote, rather than what you wish they meant.

 

My turn. An atheist does not have any burden to prove with respect to God's inexistence, or with respect to his refusal to believe in God. He can wait for sufficient evidence that God exists, and if it is not forthcoming, rest at ease. Logic and reason so dictate. That does not mean any other assertions that he makes absent a deity or that may replace its social or moral role, go equally burden-free. They demand exactly the same burden that a theists do but that isn't very much either!.

A theist only has a burden to prove, what his audience demands as proof to be convinced, if he wants to do some convincing. If his audience demands no burden or very little, then his duty is likewise limited by either his self imposed expectation or his audience's. Logicians and sceptics do not get to impose their preferred burden on his every interaction with others or on himself at all. Faith need not jump through the rigors of rational scrutiny or through the hoops of science for anyone, because faith by its nature seeks its value outside the scope of those disciplines. The human experience is not a giant laboratory experiment to be duplicated under the three different research grants and bibles are not academic papers complete with abstract and bibliography.

Once people in either group decide that their view requires the pursuit of an agenda that impacts the rest of us, then the real burdens of proof begin. They not only need to show that what they want accomplished should be accomplished, but they have to meet a separate burden with respect to tactics employed. Atheists who work to oppose theism, find themselves with a greater burden than atheists who have a live and let live attitude. The same is true with theists who oppose atheism compared to those who do not..

 

This is just so easy to refute I debated whether to even respond to your OP. Well, here goes.

If you claimed you saw a ghost last night the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that this indeed happened. I am not forced to take the position that ghosts don't exist and to try to prove that. If you make the claim, there is no reason for anyone to believe you unless you provide evidence. We don't have to provide diddly squat if we don't make any big crazy claims about the deepest secrets of the universe.

There is no evidence for objective morality and if you believe its real then prove it. Anyway according to Christians the universe is a big dictatorship, God supposedly made nature a brutal amoral place, is a misogynist and homophone, and is going to torture the majority of the population for not believing in the right religion, If thats morality I definitely don't believe in it.

We are controlled by the state of our brains but since we are our physical bodies we are controlled by ourselves. We can make decisions and choices but can't choose the chooser and our natures outside of pre-existing events. If you believe God is going to eternally punish people for eternity and those in heaven have to obey him or get punished, do you really call that free will?

Beats me bro. Why do you believe there is something rather than nothing? God? Well God is technically part of something, so why is there God and not nothing? He existed eternally? Well, I can just say the same thing about the universe.

Rationality is just having beliefs that match reality and the way reality works. Are you saying God made 1+1=2 instead of it already being true? Do you have any actual evidence logic, math, and common sense were just created somehow by some guy in the sky? If you believe in rationality then do you believe in questioning the existence of your God without bias and equally considering other religions and beliefs?

 

No more noisy then the far right "christian" nutjobs who want their religion forced on others through law.

 

It is factually accurate to make the "truth claim" that here is ZERO EVIDENCE for the existence of any deity.

Nothing more needs to be done by atheists until theists can PROVE their own fallacious "truth claim" thereby "disproving" the factually accurate position of atheists.

That is how logic works for rational people.

 

Doubling down on your double-talk now?

 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

 

What "truth" might that be?

In order for anything to be the "truth" it MUST fit the definition of BEING TRUE.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/true

There is zero evidence for the existence of your deity so how does that CONFORM to REALITY or FACT?

 

There is plenty of evidence. You just ignore it.

 

Paranoia.