LogFAQs > #897162079

Dustin1280 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

I don't agree. The only reason why an atheist's "beliefs" are even being questioned is because something that has no basis in time/reality is being proposed. Therefore stating that an atheist is actively not believing in something is pretty disingenuous as that rhetoric is purely to aid the theist's side semantically.

Based on what we know, it is impossible to prove that gods exist or do not exist. Somehow assuming that the "gods don't exist" is the default position based on no facts that prove such a default position is taking a side and believing that your side is correct even though there isn't anything to prove it.

Atheists believe that gods don't exist (even if they want to try to sidestep such a belief with phrases like "lack of belief") is just as impossible to prove as theists who believe their gods do exist.

I personally don't believe in any theist nonsense, but I am not arrogant enough to proclaim that they are all loons and 100% wrong.

I don't think "lack of belief" is a side step though and I think that there should be a clear distinction between lack of belief and actively believing against. Lacking belief is the default because atheists aren't proposing a lack of God. They aren't proposing anything and are coming from a state of rationality, or at least should be. While theists are proposing something without basis and asking for proof against whatever they're proposing while not providing proof it exists to begin with because you can't prove it exists. Circular reasoning.
---

Posted with GameRaven 3.4