Wrong. The greatest argument against gods is the absence of evidence for their existence. Also, no argument is needed. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.
isn’t this more of an argument for agnosticism? atheism makes the claim that god does not exist, while agnosticism says it’s impossible to know either way.
Agnosticism leaves the door open to the idea that our reality and our universe could be artificial on a level outside of our perception, on a fundamental level, though for what purpose, I’d say it would be impossible to know.
Depends on what your definition is. As how I and from my experience, most atheists define atheism, atheism is the lack of belief in god for whatever reason. Your reasoning for this can stem from gnosis (knowledge) or agnosticism (without knowledge).
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, who do not make any claims regarding the knowledge of existence of any particular gods.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate concept from theism/atheism and can be applied to other concepts, not just gods.
Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If you claim that gods don’t exist, you have the burden of proof again and that is impossible to prove.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things. it can mean you either believe there is no god, or that you are basically agnostic, or something in between. (at least that’s what i got from the wikipedia page.) but anyways, the whole “burden of proof” argument does not apply to all forms of atheism, as certain kinds of atheism involve an active belief that no god exists. however, the “burden of proof” argument does apply to all forms agnosticism. so it is still a better argument for agnosticism than it is for atheism.
Wrong. The greatest argument against gods is the absence of evidence for their existence. Also, no argument is needed. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.
isn’t this more of an argument for agnosticism? atheism makes the claim that god does not exist, while agnosticism says it’s impossible to know either way.
It’s impossible to know whether the Earth is controlled by a secret cabal of Reptilians.
Still, I am not a Reptilian agnostic. Agnosticism to me sometimes feels like the enlightened centrism of religion.
Agnosticism leaves the door open to the idea that our reality and our universe could be artificial on a level outside of our perception, on a fundamental level, though for what purpose, I’d say it would be impossible to know.
Depends on what your definition is. As how I and from my experience, most atheists define atheism, atheism is the lack of belief in god for whatever reason. Your reasoning for this can stem from gnosis (knowledge) or agnosticism (without knowledge).
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, who do not make any claims regarding the knowledge of existence of any particular gods.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate concept from theism/atheism and can be applied to other concepts, not just gods.
Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If you claim that gods don’t exist, you have the burden of proof again and that is impossible to prove.
What is an atheist on a planet of atheists?
If nobody believes in God, then there’s no one to convince anyone, and there’s nothing to convince.
Are you implying people naturally believe in a god and it has to be denied? I sure didn’t.
In what way was I implying that? You’re not making sense.
This is only true if the general consensus is “God exists”.
If no one has any concept of God to begin with, then what are you arguing?
If you have to invent hypothetical scenarios to make your argument sound plausible, it’s probably not a good argument.
Considering God is entirely hypothetical, I agree.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things. it can mean you either believe there is no god, or that you are basically agnostic, or something in between. (at least that’s what i got from the wikipedia page.) but anyways, the whole “burden of proof” argument does not apply to all forms of atheism, as certain kinds of atheism involve an active belief that no god exists. however, the “burden of proof” argument does apply to all forms agnosticism. so it is still a better argument for agnosticism than it is for atheism.