You say "no" explicitly and "yes" implicitly. Your claim is that God is not worthy of belief, as I noted in post #20. "It lacks the evidence to justify the belief, therefore God is not worthy of belief." This is obvious.
Sure. And I can motivate that, by pointing at all the shortcomings of what theists present as "evidence". However, and this is the important part...
that's not a claim about the existance of gods or the supernatural.
It's rather an evaluation of the attempt of theists to meet their burden of proof concerning their theistic claims...
But you make other claims as well. "There is not sufficient evidence to justify the belief." That is a claim that atheists make. How about a little intellectual honesty?
Like above: I can motivate that, by pointing at the shortcomings of theistic arguments.
And again, that's NOT a claim concerning the existance or non-existance of gods or the supernatural.
Do try to keep up.
Nonsense. Every atheist holds the belief that God is unworthy of belief.
Let me rephrase that in something more accurate:
Every atheist considers the arguments in support of theistic claims to be insufficient to justify accepting those claims as true or likely true.
It can stand alone; it is a claim.
No, it isn't.
Let's again give an example to illustrate.
Let's imagine a room without windows and a locked door. Neither you nor I can enter that room or look inside.
You
claim "there is a golden chair in that room".
I
respond with "I have insufficient evidence to accept that claim as true".
I'm not making any claims about what is or is not in the room.
I'm just responding to
your claim about what is or is not in the room.
I don't have a burden of proof (either pro or con) concerning said chair in that room. YOU DO.
An atheist can be unconvinced by an argument, but that doesn't mean that they don't make claims specific to atheism itself.
That is
exactly what it means.
See above for the chair example. I only respond by saying that I have insufficient evidence to accept it as true.
I'm not making any claims about what is or is not in the room.
I'm
just saying that I have no reason to accept
your claim as true. And that's all there is to it.
The point is reality and truth. According to the definition of a claim, "There is not enough reason to accept theism as true" is a claim.
As above: fine. And I can motivate it as well. I can explain why I find the theistic claims unconvincing.
It is not a claim concerning the existance or non-existance of gods.
So now you're changing your tune?
Nope. Just used different words to say the exact same thing.
First you said that all claims have the burden of proof and that if two debating parties each make contradictory claims then they both have the burden of proof.
Indeed. But the theist-atheist debate is not a debate concerning
contradictory claims.
It is a debate about a SINGLE claim, made by the theist.
Drill it into your head: atheism is not the claim that there are no gods.
Now you've excepted yourself due to inconvenience.
I most certainly didn't. You just don't seem to comprehend that the topic of the "debate" is a single claim, not contradictory claims.
When a theist claims that god exists, then the atheist response is "i don't believe you". The response is NOT "no, he does not".
That's what a debate is: a contest with two contradicting claims
That is just not true. A debate is more often then not about a single issue.
Consider a court case again. The issue being debated there is "guilt". Not innocence.
When a defendant wins, the jury rules "not guilty". It does not rule "innocence".
I explained this before.
There are two options:
- god exists
- god does not exist.
The debate is about the FIRST. Not the second.
"There is insufficient evidence to justify acceptance." That's a claim, like it or not.
It's not a claim about the existance or non-existance of gods.
It's a claim
about the evidence (or lack thereof) in support of the claims of theism.
And in doing so he implicates himself in a claim that is capable of standing alone.
That claim being "There is insufficient evidence to accept your claim".
That claim is NOT "it is not heads" or "it is tails".
It is a claim
about the argument presented by the other side.
Are you paying attention or even trying? "I don't believe X is true" implies "X is unworthy of belief," which is a claim. No one has said it implies the falsity of X.
Then we are in agreement and I wonder what you are objecting to.
For the record: this entire thread is EXACTLY about the implication that atheists make claims
about the existance or non-existance of gods/the supernatural. Which is simply false.
When it comes the existance of gods/the supernatural, the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.
Exactly what I've been saying all along.
Your strawmen are falling like rain.
what strawmen?