A
Short Introduction to the Question
The belief that God does not exist, which is what defines an atheist, is a belief that needs defending. For those of you who would say that the burden of proof is on religion I would say I agree with you fifty percent. Much of atheism is based on its attacks on religion but not, ironically, on attacks on the existence of God. Atheist can play an offensive game, no pun intended, by attacking various religious doctrinal beliefs because the burden of proof is on religion to defend those beliefs. But atheist must switch to defense when they change their arguments from those of attacking religious doctrine to those of declaring their own doctrinal belief that God does not exist.
I will pause here for those few of you who will tell me that you cannot prove a negative, and use that statement as an argument that atheist do not have a burden of proof for the doctrine that God does not exist. Of course you can prove a negative. I can prove I am NOT a German shepherd. I can prove my water glass is NOT filled with crude oil. I can prove that I am NOT a resident of Mars, although it is true my Martian citizenship has been proposed as a theory for my personality my entire
life.
Any dictionary will tell us that atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Saying that God does not exist is a declarative statement that goes far beyond the belief that religion is false.
The Question
If atheism is not just the faith based shadow of religious belief,
then what are its reasoned intellectual foundations for the notion that God does not exist?
then what are its reasoned intellectual foundations for the notion that God does not exist?
I look forward to your comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment