I would say that claiming to know exactly what ancient mythology is correct and therefore you know exactly who created the universe is a bolder claim than stating that no divine being created the universe.

I look at it where no one should be arrogant enough to genuinely assume anything when it comes to the origin of our reality

Most atheists are agnostic, I'd say even most anti-theists are only certain about the nonexistence of certain specific gods, (which theist also do, thus the atheist motto "one god further").

Still I'd consider that a mute point since any theist would also falls under the exact same fallacy, the only way to escape it is to be totally apathetic and not participate in the discussion at all.

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 26, 2014, 11:20:10 PM

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; to claim that god doesn't exist requires substantiation. However, that's not what typical atheists believe, which is that there simply isn't evidence to believe in the existence of a god.

Wouldn't they simply be Agnostic then?

Agnosticism is about knowledge. In fact it's just being honest about how much you actually know or can know.

Atheism is about belief or faith. The two are entirely non-contradictory, it is entirely possible to acknowledge that you lack absolute knowledge about the existence of something but still make the pragmatic decision to doubt until such time as you are presented w/ satisfactory evidence.

For example I don't believe Superman exists(faith), but I acknowledge that there is no way to know whether he is actually non-existent. There is no evidence for his existence and subsequently no reason  for me to believe.

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 26, 2014, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 26, 2014, 11:20:10 PM

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; to claim that god doesn't exist requires substantiation. However, that's not what typical atheists believe, which is that there simply isn't evidence to believe in the existence of a god.

Wouldn't they simply be Agnostic then?

Agnostics don't think there's sufficient evidence to take either side; they neither disbelieve nor believe. It's kind of wishy-washy. Atheists do not believe in god because there isn't evidence. They disbelieve, but don't make a positive claim that there is no god.

Ok. Kinda got lost in your wording. Wasn't sure which you were referring to at first.

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:00:15 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 26, 2014, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 26, 2014, 11:20:10 PM

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; to claim that god doesn't exist requires substantiation. However, that's not what typical atheists believe, which is that there simply isn't evidence to believe in the existence of a god.

Wouldn't they simply be Agnostic then?

Agnostics don't think there's sufficient evidence to take either side; they neither disbelieve nor believe. It's kind of wishy-washy. Atheists do not believe in god because there isn't evidence. They disbelieve, but don't make a positive claim that there is no god.

What you call someone if they didn't believe in God and were 100% positive that he wasn't real?

Door

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:00:15 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 26, 2014, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 26, 2014, 11:20:10 PM

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; to claim that god doesn't exist requires substantiation. However, that's not what typical atheists believe, which is that there simply isn't evidence to believe in the existence of a god.

Wouldn't they simply be Agnostic then?

Agnostics don't think there's sufficient evidence to take either side; they neither disbelieve nor believe. It's kind of wishy-washy. Atheists do not believe in god because there isn't evidence. They disbelieve, but don't make a positive claim that there is no god.

What would you call someone if they didn't believe in God and were 100% positive that he wasn't real?

A liar.

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:17:50 AM

Quote from: Dustin c00lerth4nu on October 27, 2014, 12:11:59 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:00:15 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 26, 2014, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 26, 2014, 11:20:10 PM

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; to claim that god doesn't exist requires substantiation. However, that's not what typical atheists believe, which is that there simply isn't evidence to believe in the existence of a god.

Wouldn't they simply be Agnostic then?

Agnostics don't think there's sufficient evidence to take either side; they neither disbelieve nor believe. It's kind of wishy-washy. Atheists do not believe in god because there isn't evidence. They disbelieve, but don't make a positive claim that there is no god.

What would you call someone if they didn't believe in God and were 100% positive that he wasn't real?

A liar.

Wait what? Really? Please explain

Also lol @ how this was originally intended to be a trole thread

Please stop quoting me -_______-

Quote from: Dustin c00lerth4nu on October 27, 2014, 12:20:02 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:17:50 AM

Quote from: Dustin c00lerth4nu on October 27, 2014, 12:11:59 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:00:15 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 26, 2014, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 26, 2014, 11:20:10 PM

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; to claim that god doesn't exist requires substantiation. However, that's not what typical atheists believe, which is that there simply isn't evidence to believe in the existence of a god.

Wouldn't they simply be Agnostic then?

Agnostics don't think there's sufficient evidence to take either side; they neither disbelieve nor believe. It's kind of wishy-washy. Atheists do not believe in god because there isn't evidence. They disbelieve, but don't make a positive claim that there is no god.

What would you call someone if they didn't believe in God and were 100% positive that he wasn't real?

A liar.

Wait what? Really? Please explain

Also lol @ how this was originally intended to be a trole thread

Please stop quoting me -_______-

nu

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:17:50 AM

Quote from: Dustin c00lerth4nu on October 27, 2014, 12:11:59 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 27, 2014, 12:00:15 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 26, 2014, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 26, 2014, 11:20:10 PM

Burden of proof lies on the claimant; to claim that god doesn't exist requires substantiation. However, that's not what typical atheists believe, which is that there simply isn't evidence to believe in the existence of a god.

Wouldn't they simply be Agnostic then?

Agnostics don't think there's sufficient evidence to take either side; they neither disbelieve nor believe. It's kind of wishy-washy. Atheists do not believe in god because there isn't evidence. They disbelieve, but don't make a positive claim that there is no god.

What would you call someone if they didn't believe in God and were 100% positive that he wasn't real?

A liar.

Wait what? Really? Please explain

If someone claimed to have substantial proof that god didn't exist, I would call them a liar.

STAHP

would you stop shitposting

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 27, 2014, 12:26:53 AM

STAHP

go make a thread in septagon and bitch to cheat about it

no u

Well you can't do much to prove a negative

Technically you can, it's just rather difficult.