Originally posted by FMF"Cogito ergo sum[a] is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed..."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
Hang on. You haven't yet established that humans receive a so called "soul" that is "imputed by God the Holy Spirit at the moment of birth". You're getting ahead of yourself.
____________
So, do you agree with René Descartes' observation...........
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis is a non-sequitur. You have made claims about humans receiving a "soul" from "God" and another about how only Christians have a "human spirit". Talk of René Descartes is just a dodge. Or, if you think it isn't, just explain why.
So, do you agree with René Descartes' observation...........
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI would certainly require something like that to take the word of somebody who claimed to know such a thing. Or at least a very strong argument. Seems to me a more likely position than the opposite though, so I'd want even better from somebody who claimed that.
So if you claim there is no God is the burden of proof on you?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBurden of proof always lies with the person making a claim.
So if you claim there is no God is the burden of proof on you?
If someone claims that God doesn't exist, the burden of proof lies on him, as opposed to someone who does not know.
If someone claims that God does exist, the burden of proof lies on him, as opposed to someone who does not know.
However, because of the fact that given no information, anything is infinitely less likely to exist than exist, absence of evidence is strong evidence of absence, thus the person claiming that God does not exist need only point to absence of evidence as proving the claim, whereas the person claiming that God does exist must point to evidence.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatEvery game has a programmer or creator that wrote the game. You say life could be a game yet deny that that it (life) has a creator?
I would certainly require something like that to take the word of somebody who claimed to know such a thing. Or at least a very strong argument. Seems to me a more likely position than the opposite though, so I'd want even better from somebody who claimed that.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
"Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?" (By Trent Horn)
"When asked to prove atheism is true, many atheists say that they don’t have to prove anything. They say atheism is not “belief there is no God” but merely “no belief in a God.” Atheism is defined in this context as a “lack of belief” in God, and if Catholics can’t prove God exists, then a person is justified in being an atheist. But the problem with defining atheism as simply “the lack of belief in God” is that there are already another group of people who fall under that definition: agnostics.
The "I Don't Know's"
Agnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis) is the position that a person cannot know if God exists. A strong agnostic is someone like skeptic Michael Shermer, who claims that no one is able to know if God exists. He writes, “I once saw a bumper sticker that read “Militant agnostic: I don’t know and you don’t either.” This is my position on God’s existence: I don’t know and you don’t either.”
1. A weak agnostic merely claims that while he doesn’t know if God exists, it is possible that someone else may know. Agnosticism and weak atheism are very similar in that both groups claim to be “without belief in God.”
2. Pope Benedict XVI spoke sympathetically of such people in a 2011 address: "In addition to the two phenomena of religion and anti-religion, a further basic orientation is found in the growing world of agnosticism: people to whom the gift of faith has not been given, but who are nevertheless on the lookout for truth, searching for God. Such people do not simply assert: ‘There is no God.’ They suffer from his absence and yet are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness. They are ‘pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace.’"
A Difference Without a Distinction:
Because agnosticism seems more open-minded than atheism, many atheists are more apt to describe themselves like agnostics, who likewise have “no belief in a God,” even though they call themselves “atheist.” They say that an atheist is just a person who lacks a belief in God but is open to being proven wrong. But saying you lack a belief in God no more answers the question, “Does God exist?” than saying you lack a belief in aliens answers the question, “Do aliens exist?”
This is just agnosticism under a different name. For example, can we say agnosticism is true? We can’t, because agnostics make no claims about the world; they just describe how they feel about a fact in the world (the existence of God). Likewise, if atheists want us to believe that atheism is true, then they must make a claim about the world and show that what they lack a belief in—God—does not exist.
Belief on Trial
An illustration might help explain the burden of proof both sides share. In a murder trial the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the murder. But if the prosecution isn’t able to make its case, then the defendant is found “not guilty.” Notice the defendant isn’t found “innocent.”
For all we know, he could have committed the crime, but we just can’t prove it. Certain kinds of evidence, like an air-tight alibi, can show the defendant is innocent. But it is the responsibility of the defense to present that evidence.
Likewise, even if the theist isn’t able to make his case that God exists that doesn’t show God does not exist and therefore that atheism is true. As atheists Austin Dacey and Lewis Vaughn write:
“What if these arguments purporting to establish that God exists are failures? That is, what if they offer no justification for theistic belief? Must we then conclude that God does not exist? No. Lack of supporting reasons or evidence for a proposition does not show that the proposition is false.”
3. If he wants to demonstrate that atheism is true, an atheist would have to provide additional evidence that there is no God just as a defense attorney would have to provide further evidence to show his client is innocent as opposed to being just “not guilty.” He can’t simply say the arguments for the existence of God are failures and then rest his case." http://www.strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-belief/
________________
Question: From your experience and research, "Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?"
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29243
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI don't understand why you try and reset the thread like that. It's like saying the last 17 pages of discussion haven't happened.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]"Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?" (By Trent Horn)
"When asked to prove atheism is true, many atheists say that they don’t have to prove anything. They say atheism is not “belief there is no God” but merely “no belief in a God.” Atheism is defined in this context as a “lack of belief” in G ...[text shortened]...
Question: From your experience and research, "Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?"[/b]
Threads, like life on Earth, evolve. Just deal with it.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29243
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAs I say, threads evolve. I agree the thread has wandered off topic but that's because the participants in the thread have chosen to wander off topic. (And after 17 pages that's not really surprising). As thread creator you gave life to the thread, but you really need to then stand back and let the thread find its own feet.
GD, the thread had wandered off topic.
It's not like the thread has ended up talking about rhubarb or why elephants have big ears. We still have an interesting thread going, even if it has exhausted and then moved on from your original thread idea. - Repeating the OP is actually a little rude, even if that was not your intention.