For Skeptics Only: Would you ever accept the burden of proof for atheism?

[InterestedAtheist]

See poll. This poll is directed at all non-theistic skeptics in general, including agnostics, hard/soft atheists, agnostic atheists, apatheists, igtheists, ignostics, existentialist atheists, etc.

Note: The "A" in Atheism means "without." The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)" The same "without" makes it a negative claim regarding theism itself.

Before I answer the poll and the question, what would it mean if I said "yes"? If I said "I accept the burden of proof for atheism," what would I be undertaking to do?

 

[Kylie]

@Lion IRC would you be willing to change your mind regarding your belief in God if given good evidence to do so?

 

[jayem]

I’ve posted this before. It’s an argument, not a proof. And it’s an argument against supernaturalism—not against any particular god. The human brain evolved to seek explanations and reasons. When these aren’t obvious, we make them up. We don’t tolerate uncertainty very well. From the earliest times, we’ve attributed events that weren’t understood—such as weather, diseases, earthquakes, volcanic activity, and many others—to be the products of gods, spirits, or other supernatural powers. But as our knowledge has improved, we know all of these are natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation has never been valid for anything. So, by inductive reasoning, why should anyone accept a supernatural causation for all those things we still don’t understand?

 

[Bradskii]

I was wondering where Paulo had got to. Then I saw he'd been out shootin' bear:

Is this a head with a sore bear?

 

[Kylie]

"Lack" is lexically ambiguous.

NOUN

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

^ Please do not try to claim this is more than one definition. It is definition #1. Not #2, which even has the same ambiguous "or" in it. Clizby already tried that with me.

And since atheists have been trying to pull this one on me for years, it's deliberately ambiguous. That's why so many atheists prefer it.

Despite your insistence, it is two different definitions.

I could say, "I lack cake."

This could mean that I have zero cake and I require some.

It could also mean that I have some cake, but I am not satisfied with the amount of cake that I have and I require more.

There is a definite difference between having zero amount and having a non zero amount.

 

[Kylie]

The actual topic is, "Would you ever accept the burden of proof for atheism?"

I have never encountered an atheist who was willing to take on the burden of proof for their negative claim, and you are continuing to fail to deliver on that claim, as predicted.

I'm not aware of any atheist who claims to know for a fact that God does not exist.