Atheism: A Positive Assertion That God Doesn't Exist?

[Red Door]

Okay, as many religion threads come and go, they all seem to be about what Christians believe. I think it's time we show what atheists believe.

Atheists believe there is no God.

People see the word "No" and automatically assume it's a negative assertion, but when you look at that sentence, the word no is an adjective to the word "God" and makes the sentence a positive assertion.

That is a positive assertion right there, it's not:

Atheist's don't believe there's a God, they believe there is NO God.

Why is this not a positive assertion and why are these atheists not supposed to prove that there is no God?

 

[ShannonCT]

There are two kinds of atheists. Postive atheists have just as much burden of proof as theists to prove their beliefs. Negative atheists dont have the same burden of proof.

 

[Sidhe]

It is a belief system at it's most hard just an antithetical one.

 

[Red Door]

There are two kinds of atheists. Postive atheists have just as much burden of proof as theists to prove their beliefs. Negative atheists dont have the same burden of proof.

Specifically on these forums, I have never seen a negative atheist. I have only seen positive atheists.

 

[Sidhe]

Specifically on these forums, I have never seen a negative atheist. I have only seen positive atheists.

Negative atheism is really more agnosticism. Just as hard agnosticism is more weak atheism. It's a grey area.

 

[Gogf]

Specifically on these forums, I have never seen a negative atheist. I have only seen positive atheists.

I am a "negative atheist." I do not believe that God exists, not that it is impossible for God to exist.

 

[Gogf]

negative atheism is really more agnosticism. Just as hard agnosticism is more weak atheism. It's a grey area.

As far as I can tell, "hard agnosticism" and "weak atheism" are essentially synonymous. For clarity's sake, I think most "hard agnostics" prefer to be called atheists. In fact, I would think that most atheists are "weak atheists."

 

[Red Door]

I am a "negative atheist." I do not believe that God exists, not that it is impossible for God to exist.

If you don't believe it's impossible for God to exist, doesn't that make you an agnostic?

 

[GenMarshall]

There are two kinds of atheists. Postive atheists have just as much burden of proof as theists to prove their beliefs. Negative atheists dont have the same burden of proof.

Would that be the same as Weak and Strong Atheism?

 

[CurtSibling]

The inquisitors have it all the wrong way around.

I think if religionists wish to convince we atheists that their gods are anything
other than myths and fantasy, they must first prove it to the people like me.

Why should I believe in something that I consider a man-made invention?
It is not my place to be put in trial by those who worship thin air.

I am not interested in spreading my belief, but the religious are interested
in spreading theirs...So, it is required that they validate this belief first...

...

 

[Leifmk]

Atheist's don't believe there's a God, they believe there is NO God.

This is precisely and completely wrong. Learn better.

 

[Gogf]

Atheists believe there is no God.

There are two kinds of atheists. One kind of atheist does not believe in God. The other kind believes that God cannot exist. One is a positive assertion and one is a negative assertion. Not believing in something is a negative assertion. Believing that it is impossible for something to exist is a positive assertion.

The positive assertion that it is impossible for God to exist is no more rational than the positive assertion that God must exist.

That is a positive assertion right there, it's not:

Atheist's don't believe there's a God, they believe there is NO God.

Why is this not a positive assertion and why are these atheists not supposed to prove that there is no God?

Not believing in something is not a positive assertion. Believing that something is impossible is.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I don't believe in what isn't scientifically proved. I don't see that atheists have anything to prove. It is the theists who have made an outrageous statement and it is up to them to prove it.

 

[Sidhe]

As far as I can tell, "hard agnosticism" and "weak atheism" are essentially synonymous. For clarity's sake, I think most "hard agnostics" prefer to be called atheists. In fact, I would think that most atheists are "weak atheists."

Agreed the distinction has a very fine line for example hard agnosticism says it is impossible to ever proove god exists not that he may or may not exist just that it doesn't matter, very simillar but grey enough to warrant the distinction.

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.

My weak agnosticism.

 

[CurtSibling]

I don't see that atheists have anything to prove. It is the theists who have made an outrageous statement and it is up to them to prove it.

I wish we could spray-paint these words onto the vatican.

...

 

[Gogf]

If you don't believe it's impossible for God to exist, doesn't that make you an agnostic?

No, it makes me a weak atheist. I do not lend equal credence to the assertions that God exists and that he does not. The default position is nonexistence, and until some substantive evidence that God exists is offered, it is only reasonable to believe that he does not exist. The means that I do not believe in God, making me an atheist.

 

[Gogf]

I don't believe in what isn't scientifically proved.

Then you don't believe in anything. Nothing is ever proven in science.

 

[ShannonCT]

I wish we could spray-paint these words onto the vatican.

...

Watch out for the Swiss guards.

 

[CurtSibling]

Watch out for the Swiss guards.

Their halberds won't stop my MG-44 gunfire.

 

[GenMarshall]

The inquisitors have it all the wrong way around.

How in the world did I became an inquisitor when I am reevaluating my faith?

I think if religionists wish to convince we atheists that their gods are anything other than myths and fantasy, they must first prove it to the people like me.

Somehow trying to convince you atheists only leads to frustration. As for a few, like me, to reevaluate one's beliefs and try to find a more rational belief in God than a belief in God rooted in emotions.

I am not interested in spreading my belief, but the religious are interested in spreading theirs...So, it is required that they validate this belief first...[/QUOTE]
Its not the Christians and the Muslim's fault that they tend to evangalize. Its been commanded by God written in the scriptures.

I wish we could spray-paint these words onto the vatican.

Expect to be arrested and slapped with a large fine if you do. I am not kidding, vandalism of any kind just irks me, weather its done on a religious place or a secular place. I have seen a local landmark (it was not religious) being vandalized because it had association with the Military and a lot of people were upset by it.