Nostr Web Client

Well, that's a pretty complicated lead-off question. I have about 200 pages of written content that is relevant. I'm working on bridging science with religious teachings from many traditions. Consilience is a major part of that "proof" but it is not proof. It's just a really strong case presented in a really specific way that happens to be at least partially agreeable to every religious tradition and extremely agreeable to scientists with the chops to understand it.

Yeah, atheists like to try to annex agnostic territory because agnostic territory is the neutral position and requires no burden of proof. This is why I cleanly define atheism as an absolute negative claim on the existence of God. Claims must be proven and atheism is a claim. Saying "I don't believe" instead of "I claim that [X is false]" isn't strictly equivocation, but it can be a subtle way to shift the burden of proof, especially if used to avoid defending a negative claim (like "God doesn't exist") by framing it as mere lack of belief (agnosticism/weak atheism). The key difference: "I claim X is false" is a positive assertion needing proof, while "I don't believe X" is a state of mind, but in debate, the latter often functions as a tacit, unproven claim that X isn't true, bordering on an Appeal to Ignorance if you imply its falsehood due to lack of evidence for X. That's why I don't buy your definition of atheism. It's got wiggle room and that's a cop out.

Your final question betrays that you did not comprehend my post. I literally said "The Philosopher's Burden of Proof bears upon the believers side as well."

It seems you missed the point so I'll summarize it briefly for you:

Atheism is an untenable position to hold because it is dynamically contradictory.

That's the claim I'm making so feel free to engage with that claim and the argument that was provided to back it up rather than moving the goalposts which is another common atheist tactic.

Valentino Giudice 3w ago

> This is why I cleanly define atheism as an absolute negative claim on the existence of God.

So you redefine your opponent's position? Is this how you win?

I define your position as asserting there absolutely cannot be a teapot orbiting Earth. Can you prove your position, which I just defined?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

RedTailHawk 3w ago

I mean, I established my definition first in the thread and I even caveated that people bicker over the definitions of these things, so if anyone is redefining definitions and can’t read the room, it’s the one replying with their definition.

It’s simple. There are people who do not believe God exists. There are people who aren’t sure if God exists. There are people who know God exists. Likewise, there are atheists, agnostics, and gnostics. Believe me. I love etymology but this is not the place for that argument. We need a word that means “someone who doesn’t believe in God”. We need a word for “someone who isn’t sure whether or not God exists”, and we need a word for “someone who knows God exists”. We need those words for those concepts specifically to deal with this very issue.

The default position is agnostic, and typically everyone has faith in something, whether that thing is math or science or some religious traditions teachings or what have you. Babies are born agnostic. That’s why it’s the default. They have only instincts, no knowledge.

From there, they polarize one way or another or stay “on the fence”. Define it however you like, but the reason I define atheism cleanly as an absolute negative claim is exactly to deal with this shirking of burden of proof by muddying the waters. There are 3 camps and 3 words to describe them. If you’re agnostic because you’re not sure, you’re amongst the masses of the spiritual but not religious and many people who are technically part of a religious tradition but their heart isn’t in it and they would switch to something.

Leaning away from any one religious tradition as being right doesn’t make a person an atheist. Perennialism is where its at.