Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And I'm quite sure it's not al dente...I believe this qualifies as detente!
(Or one of the detentes.)
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And I'm quite sure it's not al dente...I believe this qualifies as detente!
(Or one of the detentes.)
Can you give an example of this ferocity? I have seen no such reaction.
What has that got to do with atheism? What are these people demanding proof of from you?Bunyip. If I have to engage in yet another round of "where's your proof?" with another member of RF, I will scream.
What has that got to do with atheism? What are these people demanding proof of from you?
Well yes, of course. Are you have trouble accepting that? Atheism is the default and bears no burden of proof.the "lack of belief" position is the default response to almost any criticism of atheism. it is also the default response to any suggestion that atheists have a burden of proof for their beliefs.
So sorry to hear that. I'm an atheist - but did not think it was possible to, prove God exists, so please show me your proof.If a theist tries to offer proof for their beliefs, it is dismissed as not being the 'right' kind of proof. And no matter what you say, it never qualifies as either fitting the definition of atheism or proof.
If a god is ceased to be worshipped must that god cease to be a god?a head of lettuce, a woden idol, an idea, these are all 'gods', in the bible. /in the Biblical context these of course are seen as false/, but there still called 'gods'.
anything worshipped is a god.
Nobody is required to accept something as proof that someone's beliefs are true. That's why lack of belief is always the default. Should I prove to you that I don't believe and if I don't believe, how do I prove it?the "lack of belief" position is the default response to almost any criticism of atheism. it is also the default response to any suggestion that atheists have a burden of proof for their beliefs.
If the proof seems relevant to your beliefs you should engage with them.If a theist tries to offer proof for their beliefs, it is dismissed as not being the 'right' kind of proof. And no matter what you say, it never qualifies as either fitting the definition of atheism or proof.
If a god is ceased to be worshipped must that god cease to be a god?
Interesting thought. So if they are worshipped they are a god, but if they are not worshipped but still remembered, what are they?Yeah, it could, for all practical purposes. A deity might fall out of favor, i'm sure that many basically have ceased to exist. Whether they exist outside of that? Who knows, thats' speculation as far as im concerned. Just opinion,
Yes this is a very good topic. In fact, my earlier answer is just an overview. I am off the forum for a bit, though, so perhaps later we can go further into this.Interesting thought. So if they are worshipped they are a god, but if they are not worshipped but still remembered, what are they?
Atheism is the default and bears no burden of proof.
.
I would enjoy that. Cheers.Yes this is a very good topic. In fact, my earlier answer is just an overview. I am off the forum for a bit, though, so perhaps later we can go further into this.
it's a difficult and complex question, imo
I cannot agree that the definition of atheism is any more than a lack of belief.There have been exhustative threads on RF over the definition of atheism and I have been genuinely taken aback at the sheer feriousity with the insistence that atheism is only lack of belief. I do not share this view. I can only deduce that I am not of the same "atheism" as many of the other atheists on RF and that there are multiple atheisms but I don't quite know where the line is drawn.
What two propositions?Dont these two propositions bear the burden of proof?
Atheism is the default.What two propositions?
Oh ok. Then no.Atheism is the default.
And
Atheism bears no burden of proof.
You can start by proving what you do believe.Nobody is required to accept something as proof that someone's beliefs are true. That's why lack of belief is always the default. Should I prove to you that I don't believe and if I don't believe, how do I prove it?
.
Why not?Oh ok. Then no.