Making up definitions and calling them whatever you want doesn't benefit anyone. You keep using Burden of Proof without demonstrating you know what it means. You are still wrong.
Replies
I’m not making up definitions. Soft/weak atheism = what you describe: no evidence → no belief. That’s personally fine, but it’s not a truth claim—just non-commitment. Strong/hard atheism is “no gods exist.” My point is about the stance’s strength, not its legality under burden of proof.
aug 11, 2025, 10:23 pm • 0 0 • view
I described the definition of Atheism, which is the rejection of the assertion. I didn't say anything about belief. I reject any assertion wherein a negative claim is used. I reject the philosophical notion of a hard atheist. It is illogical and stupid.
aug 11, 2025, 10:28 pm • 1 0 • view
So you’re a “rejectionist” atheist—no belief, no claim. Great! It's your life to live. But philosophy still recognizes hard atheism (that no gods exist). You can call it illogical, but the philosophers who write your logic textbooks keep it in the discussion.
aug 11, 2025, 10:35 pm • 0 0 • view
Never said anything about belief.
aug 11, 2025, 10:44 pm • 1 0 • view
I mentioned belief; some atheists say, “I believe no deity exists.” Back to burden of proof, it lies with the prosecution in criminal court. The defense only needs to show “not proven.” That’s why the weak ‘burden of proof’ lets people get away with murder.
aug 11, 2025, 11:03 pm • 0 0 • view
I've never heard an atheist say that. If they did, then they need to select better words because of people like you. You still fail to demonstrate your understanding of Burden of Proof.
aug 11, 2025, 11:08 pm • 1 0 • view
Thinkers Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew, Michael Martin & Richard Dawkins define strong atheism as believing no gods exist. They distinguish it from mere lack of belief. It’s a solid philosophical stance, not casual doubt. On “Burden of Proof”—show how it's not getting away with murder.
aug 11, 2025, 11:22 pm • 2 0 • view
We're talking about logic, not criminal proceedings.
aug 11, 2025, 11:28 pm • 0 0 • view
Just curious — in your no-godism, do you mean it as an absolute claim or simply that no god exists in your personal experience or worldview? There’s a big difference between belief as a fact and belief as a personal stance.
aug 11, 2025, 11:53 pm • 0 0 • view
WTF? Did you read anything I typed? Holy shit.
aug 11, 2025, 11:55 pm • 0 0 • view
I reject the notion. AGAIN, claiming a negative is illogical. The burden of proof in logic refers to the obligation to provide sufficient evidence to support a claim. It's the responsibility of the person making the assertion to demonstrate its validity, rather than requiring others to disprove it.
aug 11, 2025, 11:28 pm • 1 0 • view
I took both 101 & 102: Or, "In Logic 101: claimant asserts P (“God exists”) and must prove it. Rejecting P, withholding belief (¬P) isn’t illogical—it’s skepticism. Claiming “negatives can’t be claimed” flips logic; it’s now your positive assertion that bears the proof burden.
aug 11, 2025, 11:40 pm • 0 0 • view
I'd ask for your money back.
aug 11, 2025, 11:52 pm • 1 0 • view