Is there any burden of proof on atheists to disprove the existence of a god? [Spirituality & Religion]
I would say no because atheism is not a claim to know god is not real but a position that the evidence is insufficient to accept the claim that a god exists.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
i personally dislike this wide definition of atheism because it overlaps with the definition of agnostic and leaves no specific category for people who actually believe that there is no god. when i was younger and going to school there were 3 seperate, non-overlapping categories: atheists, agnostics and believers. 1:belives there is no god, 2:doesnt know, 3:believes there is a god. to me this was a much more practical terminology because the use of one of these words gave a clear idea of where someone stands. with this wide definition of atheism one cannot just say he is an atheist, he must specify exactly what type. the usefulness of words IS to not have to use a full definition, because the word replaces the definition. but when a word has various meanings it becomes less useful. like in this case, if simply saying atheist doest really tell you where someone stands, why even use the word, just say " i think there is not enough evidence" or " i think there is no god" since you will have to define your particular use of the word if you use it.
Meh. I have no issue with specificity. After all, if you're having a conversation with someone, they're stance will soon become clear even if the language has evolved past what you learned in school.
@Pikachu you didnt really address my argument and it is a pretty solid one. language is just a tool and should be made to reflect reality, there are not many other avenues than to admit it would make more sense unless you can surprise me with an actual argument about why the present use of these words is more practical.
[quote] language is just a tool and should be made to reflect reality,[/quote]
Agreed. And it does.
The reality is that if you're an agnostic you don't have a belief that a god exists and that actually makes you an agnostic atheist. You can also be an agnostic theist or gnostic theist. You can even be a gnostic atheist if you're an idiot.
The fact that you think there should be one word with no overlapping meaning isn't actually an argument, it's just a preference.
