The true definition of Atheism, and burden of proofs
in Philosophy

ZeusAres42 · July 2019

The true definition of Atheism

What I am actually going to do in this first bit of the discussion is not tell what I think is the true definition of Atheism. What I am going to do however is point out that I have noticed in some discussions involving Theism and Atheism some people somewhere along the line get stuck and start arguing about definitions.

Now, instead of trying to refute each other's idea of how something is or should be defined I think a much more pragmatic approach should be for both parties to come to an agreement on an idea about that "something" so it can continue to be explored.

So for example, if you are an Atheist defining Atheism as a lack of belief instead of the outright denying of the existence of God and a Theist claims your definition is flawed then invite the theist to accept or at least entertain this definition and then explore it.

The burden of proofs

So in an argument about the existence of God does the burden of proof rest on the Theist or the Atheist? Now, if the Atheist in question is someone that claims there is no such thing as God then the burden of proof rests on both the Atheist and Theist as they are both making unfalsifiable, untestable claims.

If on the other hand, if the Atheist is someone that doesn't deny the existence of God but doesn't believe in God either because they see no good reason as of yet to do so, then the burden of proof will always be on the Theist who outright claims that God does exist. Without Belief does not equate to the denying of something or believing that something doesn't exist; without belief is simply that; without belief.

Also, after reflecting on this for a bit I've thought that if I myself was a theist I'd more comfortable debating someone that denies the existence of God as it gives me the opportunity to put the burden of proof on them first. You can't do this with someone that is simply without belief; it's like asking a silent person to prove something they never claimed. Hence, I also think this why some Theists that I've witnessed from my experience start resorting to having arguments about the definitions; it makes their position much easier to defend.

AlexOland · July 2019

@ZeusAres42

Although I think that the definition of atheism is something definite (the definition is literally in the name itself), I pretty much agree with everything you say here.

ZeusAres42 · July 2019

@AlexOland

Interestingly, "Atheism from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts)." - https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheist

ZeusAres42 · July 2019

This is also rather interesting:

Linguistic structure
Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without," hence "atheism" is therefore concisely characterized as "without theism."
See also: Lack of belief in gods (educational YouTube video; 10 minutes)

https://www.defineatheism.com/

MayCaesar · July 2019

Here is a how I see it. There is a null hypothesis essentially stating that we know nothing about the world. So whenever someone makes a statement claiming some truth about the world, the burden of proof is on them, since by default we know no truths. When a theist claims that the god exists, it is up to them to prove that this is true.

On the other hand, the atheist's claim that the god does not exist, the burden of proof is also on them to prove that this is the case. It is very hard, if not impossible, to prove that something does not exist in the Universe, but nonetheless one cannot claim it without a good evidence.

But when someone claims that we have no knowledge of any gods, and it is reasonable to assume that, by default, gods do not exist - that is a position not requiring proof. The null hypothesis is that we know nothing about the world, and we know nothing about what exists - and, since the space of the entities that can in principle exist is infinite, assuming that anything can exist without proof is philosophically problematic.

As such, I subscribe to the following set of rules:
1) If you claim that something exists, prove it.
2) If you claim that something does not exist, prove it.
3) If you do not know if something exists and have nothing to go on, then assume that it does not.
4) If you do not know if something exists, but have solid arguments in support of its existence, then assume the neutral position: "It may or may not exist".

ZeusAres42 · July 2019

@MayCaesar

As such, I subscribe to the following set of rules:

3) If you do not know if something exists and have nothing to go on, then assume that it does not.
4) If you do not know if something exists, but have solid arguments in support of its existence, then assume the neutral position: "It may or may not exist".

You make a lot of good point in your post. However, the only issue I have is with 3 and 4 but only a little bit of an issue haha. The thing is that I would say if you do not know if something exists or not then just accept that as is for the time being; make no assumptions or inferences about it until evidence comes to light enabling you to make inferences.

The thing with 4 is that in order to have solid arguments you need to have a certain degree of solid evidence, and if this is the case then I would say that accept that there is a degree of probability that something does exist while at the same time there exists a degree of possibility that it may not exist.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Pasteurization working to kill bird flu in milk, early FDA results find

In this Debate

The true definition of Atheism, and burden of proofs
in Philosophy

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Pasteurization working to kill bird flu in milk, early FDA results find

In this Debate

The true definition of Atheism, and burden of proofsin Philosophy

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

The true definition of Atheism, and burden of proofs
in Philosophy