Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
That's not entirely correct. Atheists loosely fall into one of two schools of thought:
Strong atheists assert that there absolutely is no god. This is what you're referring to, although there are very, very few people who hold this philosophy. Even Richard Dawkins does not make that assertion.
Weak atheists, who form the vast majority of non-believers, simply state that there is no evidence for the existance of a god, therefore having such a belief is irrational.
The burden of proof belongs to those claiming that something exists, not those who deny its existance given the lack of evidence. It's also impossible to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Tooth Fairy.
See here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot |
Yeah, I 've heard all that before, but then the question is, what differentiates an agnostic from a 'weak atheist'. Weak atheist is just a politically charged term for atheists trying to make agnostics feel like they're wrong. I don't know if you've read the God Delusion, but as far as I'm concerned Dawkins way overstates the level of confidence in the "no God' evidence as far as I'm concerned.
And yes I recognize that it is impossible to 'disprove' the existence of God on scientific terms, that is exactly why I say to be a true atheist who
asserts that there is no God, you must be willing to believe without conclusive evidence. A sceptical agnostic does not have to do so. My position is summarized as follows. I strongly doubt the existence of God and see no conditions requiring the existence of God for the universe to exist, but acknowledge that the matter is beyond scientific proof, and will simply operate as though there is no supernatural agency directing life or responsible for the human condition.
I leave the possibility of such an agency existing open, but find the question intellectually uninteresting as there is no effective way of testing the hypothesis. (other than killing yourself, which seems rather extreme given the alternatives)
Anyway, I really dislike the term 'weak atheist', because it is just a term that atheist zealots like Dawkins take at those who recognize that the scientific search for truth can't even investigate the existence of a supernatural agency (i.e strong agnostics, if you will)
Quote:
Burden of Proof
What it boils down to is the burden of proof. Let’s say you assert that, “Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist”.
That is a statement. You are stating something as fact and you have a burden of proof to prove that Flying Spaghetti Monsters do indeed exist.
Now I say, “I reject your claim”.
Now, I did not offer a statement. No statement of fact was offered. I simply choose not to accept your statement. I have no burden of proof in rejecting your statement.
But now Bob comes along. Bob’s a nasty bugger who loves to eavesdrop. He is infuriated by the suggestion that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist and states, “Flying Spaghetti Monsters do not exist.”
Whoopsy daisies, Bob just stepped into a huge pile of philosophical ass-kicking.
Why? Because he went beyond rejection of a statement into offering a statement of his own.
By stating that Flying Spaghetti Monsters do not exist, he now assumes burden of proof to prove the nonexistence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
This may seem like a minor detail. It isn’t. The repercussions are humongous. If atheism does indeed state that God doesn’t exist, there is a burden of proof on atheists. If they simply reject the theist statement, then there is no burden of proof.
|
http://www.individualsovereigntist.c...s-agnosticism/
The guy on that age sums u my thoughts perfectly, even though I hadn't read it before writing muy post.