3 ms·
No, an atheist is simply someone who does not affirmatively believe the claim that there are gods. This does not inherently entail the claim that there are no g
by krferriter 8y ago
No, an atheist is simply someone who does not affirmatively believe the claim that there are gods. This does not inherently entail the claim that there are no gods. If you do not accept the claim that there are gods, you are an atheist. Nothing about that breaches the Scientific Method. No evidence is required in order to neglect to accept a claim which was also not presented with scientific evidence.
The author says that atheists need evidence of absence to support their claim that gods don't exist, but atheism does not entail that claim, so the author has some pretty substantial misunderstandings about how the scientific method works and what claims are going on here and when evidence is needed.
I do not need evidence in order to reject a claim that the center of the earth is made out of Earl Grey tea. I can say "I don't believe that is correct" and then just continue on with my life as it was before someone told me that with no evidence.
- DanBC 8y agoWhich dictionary are you using for your definition of atheism please?
- krferriter 8y agohttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism (2) https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist And even if an atheist holds the position that a god does not exist, based on our current evidence, this is the default null hypothesis, and this rejection of the claim that a god does exist does not require a proof. The assertion that a god exists requires proof. The author's insistence that atheists who simply default to the null hypothesis in the question of whether a god exists need to provide evidence is the one violating the scientific method. If someone tells the author that BBQ pork sandwiches cure cancer does he just accept it as true until someone proves that they don't cure cancer?