...God has never been consistently claimed to be imperceptible...Imperceptibility is only claimed when believers have to account for the fact that God doesn't show up at times when we might reasonably expect him to show up.
Well no one has ever claimed that God has a physical measurable manifestation (to my knowledge) so it is usually implied that God is imperceptible...
Note: I recognized that people made such a claim, and I attributed a motivation for it.
...Older pagan religions had God as perceptible beings (which were disproven) and modern monotheistic religions tend to have an omniscient, omnipresent being who I can only assume is imperceptible. You're right its an assumption but it seems to be a rather well purported one and I wouldn't hesitate to describe modern gods as imperceptible. Perhaps we should lay out a concrete definition of a 'god' before we continue?
I don't know whether I did that earlier in this thread, but I usually define a god as an intelligent agency that has absolute control over some aspect of reality. That may not cover all concepts of what the word "god" means, but it does seem to cover most uses of the word. Now word meanings can be very squishy things. We normally attribute a whole range of conceptual properties to them, and we can easily emphasize some properties at the expense of others in normal discourse. So I think that most people think of gods as undetectable spiritual beings who can manifest themselves physically in our reality when they choose to. However, that is not a necessary requirement. I think that gods must have to have manifestation and control power of some sort to be considered gods. Ghosts can sometimes manifest themselves, but they don't have absolute control over anything. If we are just talking about completely undetectable beings that cannot impinge on our reality, then they don't meet the minimal qualification.
But this is all about what licenses belief and disbelief. You do not have to have an absolute proof of nonexistence to have a reasonable case for nonexistence. Atheism is not about whether gods can possibly exist, but whether they can be reasonably said to exist. Denial of belief is not quite the same as merely lacking a belief. It is the assertion of an opinion about the existence of something. And there are plenty of arguments to justify rejecting belief that there is a giant, invisible rabbit in a room. But those arguments only make sense after one has considered the arguments for why one ought to believe in the existence of that giant, invisible rabbit.
But the burden of proof lies with the positive assertion. The default condition is skepticism and from there an individual is convinced to accept a proposition. You needn't create a disproof for every claim that anyone ever makes, that would be an endless task. Rather they need to prove to you that their assertion is correct.
I can't disagree with anything you have said here, but skepticism is by definition a rejection of a belief. It does not count as a lack of belief. I can hardly be called a skeptic of claims I have never heard before. I may be seriously conflicted over the truth of a claim. That does not qualify me as a skeptic. I think you get the point I am trying to make, because you made the same point in your discussion with Storm.
You do not (or at least should not) accept that a giant invisible bunny is in the room until you have proof to the contrary, you should simply ignore that proposition until evidence is offered.
I don't know. I would ask for evidence of such a claim. I wouldn't just ignore the claim. But that's just me. I would be cautious if the man making the claim were brandishing a weapon. Then I might withhold skeptical comment.
But to reject a belief you have to believe it to some degree. Gods you can simply ignore until you are convinced that they have merit.
You do not have to believe a claim in order to reject it. We all weigh the merits of claims in our own minds. So it may be that we create some sort of mental advocate for a belief in order to debate its merits. But I think that is precisely what atheists do with gods. They try to imagine how the idea might be defended. They don't just ignore the claim that a god exists. They actively consider it. I do, anyway.
Any proposition can be made, but it isn't accepted until evidence is offered.
Slight disagreement. Usually, arguments (and alleged evidence) are offered. Theists almost always do more than assert a claim about the existence of a deity. They defend the proposition, sometimes quite vigorously. It is not that they lack proof, but that the proof they present lacks credibility. As I have said before, you have to look at the arguments for God before you can reject belief in God. You and I are in violent agreement on this point, I believe.
Most of our opinions are based on what is plausible, not what is merely possible. After all, it is possible that you really live on Mars, but you suffer from the delusion that you live on Earth. Are you going to claim that it is impossible to prove that you don't live on Mars? Well, it may make me look foolish to you, but I reject the belief that I live on Mars. I'm willing to entertain counterarguments, but first I want the proponent to be properly medicated.
No, I don't disagree that it is possible, but until I see some evidence for it I do not believe it. It seems to me that you believe everything and then come up with a case to deny it (rejection.)
No, you weigh the evidence for belief. I think it a useful metaphor to think of the mind as a collection of proponents on both sides of every belief. We weigh the arguments for every claim, and we end up rejecting the arguments for one side after listening to the mental debate. There is always a certain amount of uncertainty in claims about the world, but that is not the same as saying that you actually believe the claims prior to rejection.
You seem to suggest that all ideas deserve respect and acceptance until reasonably proven false.
No, I'm not arguing against burden of proof. I consider it a reasonable way to approach every claim. I'm arguing against the claim that atheism is mere lack of belief. We reject claims that do not meet the burden of proof, but it is silly to pretend that theists never offer proof or argument. What atheists reject is a conclusion based on inadequate argument. That rejection does not constitute an absence of belief, but a belief that gods probably do not exist anywhere but in human imagination.
