• Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

        • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          If you claim God does not exist, you get the burden of proof

          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?

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.