[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.18754559 [View]
File: 159 KB, 384x288, 544y464464646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18754559

>>18754418
What does Aristotle say about it? I bet you dont even know.

>> No.18381723 [View]
File: 159 KB, 384x288, 544y464464646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18381723

>> No.18250946 [View]
File: 159 KB, 384x288, 544y464464646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18250946

>>18250706
>Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods

This definition of atheism is retarded because it implies that the "belief God does not exist' is NOT atheism.

Shifty atheists will appeal to this non-traditional definition of atheism in order to evade the burden of proof when making the claim God does not exist.

>> No.17751266 [View]
File: 159 KB, 384x288, 544y464464646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17751266

>>17748284
>>17750486
>>17750537
There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists....

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]