SignOfTheCross

Why does 'denial' concern itself with proof or positive knowledge?

Peace,
SOTC

JGL53

The perjorative use of the word 'deny' by religionists is obviously an attempt to shift their burden of proof on to atheists. The implication always is that there is consensus and obvious proof of their, the theist position, but the heterodox atheists are 'denying the obvious' - so therefore, "What evidence, facts, proof, does the ATHEIST have to prove atheism is true, huh?" is generally their next burden-of-proof-shifting follow-up question.

Homey don't play that.

Autonemesis

If atheism is a belief, then aphilately (not collecting stamps) is a hobby.

Howard

When it comes to the majority of gods that have been conceived and worshipped throughout human history, virtually everyone is an atheist. We full-time atheists just believe in one less god than most theists.

Furthermore, since Christians do not believe in the pantheon of Hindu gods, not to mention the pagan and voodoo gods, let them show us evidence that those deities do not exist... as they expect us to do of their deity.

Mageth

One could be found "guilty" for lacking belief in something that cannot be objectively proven?

That's a bit silly, isn' it?

Your only safe course, then, is to accept the message of the prophet Mohammed.

JGL53

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
But objective proof is something Christianity does not, nor should concern itself with. If 33% of Christians worldwide can accept the Gospel message without objective proof, then you have no way of removing yourself from guilt should the Christian deity be true.


The latest figures I am aware of show that only about 20 per cent, if not less, of the world's present population is identified as RCC. Or, are you including in your 33 per cent all protestant christians, many of whom believe the pope is the Antichrist?

Christ founds a church that exist for 2000 years. The officials of that church command the mutilation, torture, and murder of millions of people in that time, yet christ does not intercede, either to prevent it, or to tell them to stop it. In modern times the church harbors hundreds of child-molesting priests, and does nothing about it, merely moving them from parish to parish. FINALLY, the secular authorites, not christ or faith in christ, are forcing them to reform.

I think all this has an obvious 'bearing on the truth', and on who is ignorant here and who is not. Christ, and the rest of the trinity, obviously 1.do not exist, or, 2. existing, are sadistic scum no more worthy of worship than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

What other conclusion can a rational, sane, person come to, if said person has any pretense whatsoever to being seriously concerned with morality, ethics, and common human decency?

Jobar

SOTC, we divide professed atheists into two groups: strong (or positive) atheists, who do deny the existence of any entity recognizable as a god, and weak atheists, who lack any belief in god(s) but do not deny them outright.

Most agnostics hold to the belief position of weak atheism.

This is a common topic in this forum. Here's a couple of threads from a year or so ago-
Weak atheism
Strong atheism

Note Clutch's post, towards the top of page 3 in that second link. I have used his very clear method of separating strong from weak atheism ever since reading it. (Good on yer, Clutch!)

emotional

There is no such burden of proof, unless you are an evidentialist. For the fideist, faith is its own justification and needs no proof or evidence to back it up. I don't think my belief in God needs any justification. Reason, logic, experience and evidence are limited in their scope of attaining to the truth.

JGL53

For what it's worth, I couldn't agree with you more. Would that ALL religionists were fideist (non-sectarian fideist would be best). Unfortunately, 99 per cent aren't, and are ignorant of the fact that non-fideist religion had utterly failed its burden of proof.

Fideism is certainly more honest and intellectually defendable. You believe because you believe. Case closed. Who can argue with that, or would want to? E.g., I have no interest in convincing any particular eight year old that Santa is make believe. Couldn't do it anyway.

Autonemesis

News flash: atheists are not christians. Therefore what "Christianity concerns itself with" is quite beside the point.

"Remove yourself from guilt"? Guilt for what? You assume the atheist is secretly fearful of damnation. That's quite absurd, since the atheist believes in no damner.