Such as demanded on the Quora site: Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. Why can’t people understand that?
Andy Stout noted
Atheism is not a “LACK” of belief in superstitious, religious nonsense: Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in superstitious, religious nonsense.
Do rational adults “LACK” belief in Santa Claus?
I, Ken Ammi, noted
I’m unsure how it makes sense to you to say not “LACK” but “ABSENCE.” Yet, the main issue is that what you subjectively find to be nonsense is not a standard. Also, you seem to imply that God is in the same category as Santa but that is a textbook classic world-class case of a category error.
Words acquire connotations with value judgements according to common usage.
To ‘Lack’ something is a negative.
Absence, while technically synonymous with lack, is more neutral in its use.
And while you feel it a categorical error, it isn’t to an atheist. An atheist finds no objectively verifiable evidence to support the assertions of any magical mythic creatures.
That clarified, you are welcome to parse the hierarchical rankings of imaginary magical mythical creatures by type and kind, by culture, etc.
Most believers in such do so regularly.
That’s what I was saying, you merely made a case by using a synonym.
Recall that, “what you subjectively find to be nonsense is not a standard.”
It’s a category error by definition since a philosophically necessary being is not in the same category of an amalgam of a real guy and tall tales.
Before raising the issue of, “objectively verifiable evidence” you need to justify your demand for such, on your worldview.
Now, that God is in the category of, “magical mythic creatures…imaginary magical mythical creatures” is a positive affirmation you must prove.
Nice try. There is no evidentiary basis for that necessary being but the necessity of the proponent’s faith aforehand.
It’s the positive assertion requiring verifiability not provided but assumed.
Friend, besides all of the stuff you’re conveniently sidestepping, I noted, “Before raising the issue of, ‘objectively verifiable evidence’ you need to justify your demand for such, on your worldview” but rather than doing so, or even attempting it, you merely double down by referring to supposed lack of an, “evidentiary basis.”
Oh, and on your worldview there’s no such thing as, “It’s the positive assertion requiring verifiability not provided but assumed,” right?
Theism makes the first positive assertion. The onus of responsibility lies entirely upon those making the assertion. Atheism is based entirely upon the complete lack of any evidence to justify such a belief. There is no reason to believe as there is no basis for it.
For such an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. Theism makes the assertion and has never verified it as ‘real’. Initially, one can consider it aspirational, after millennia without verification, it’s a con.
If it were but a singular assertion, one could, perhaps, view it differently; but millennia of such assertions being made, in myriad flavours, none substantiated evidentiarily, leads the rational mind to dismiss them.
There is nothing sidestepped, because no objectively verifiable evidence has been offered to do that with.
And self appointed spokesfolk are not a solution to the lack of appropriate evidence.
Victims of the cons involving imaginary beings are amusing in the fact that they do rank imaginary beings, notably pushing their flavour to the highest rank. But regardless of their rankings within the theist’s world view, as an atheist, they are all simply imaginary beings; some with more fan fic than others.
Have you ever considered the implications of your worldview and applied your worldview’s implications to your worldview?
It seems not, especially not that I’m begging you to do so and you just sidestep.
For example, you merely constantly begin with conclusions that you simply assert such as “Theism makes the first positive assertion. The onus of responsibility lies entirely upon those making the assertion…lack of any evidence to justify such a belief. There is no reason to believe…an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. Theism makes the assertion and has never verified it as ‘real’…leads the rational mind to dismiss them…no objectively verifiable evidence has been offered…lack of appropriate evidence…cons involving imaginary beings.”
Now, how, on your worldview do you accredit things such as demanding evidence and condemn things such as lacking such?
As a side note, please stop parroting well-within-the-box-Atheist-groupthink-talking-point-du jour: “extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence” is preposterous since 1. There’s no standard of extraordinariness, 2. if anything extraordinary evidence requires adequate evidence, and yet, 3. on Atheism nothing at all is ever required of anyone at all.
As for “as an atheist, they are all simply imaginary beings” that’s a positive affirmation you must prove.
It’s fascinating that you’re literally incapable of engaging issues so you childishly run away: which is THE Atheism 101 tactic.
And well, that ended it as no more replies were forthcoming.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.