Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Agnostics may threaten agnostic atheists with a burden of proof. [View all]cbayer
(146,218 posts)10. It's a lazy and easy argument that is used all the time.
I agree with your assessment of it. In addition, there is no need to prove anything. If someone does not believe and will not believe until there is proof, that is fine. Who cares?
If someone insists that there is a god, then they do have the burden of proof. If someone just believes there is a god, they don't owe anybody anything.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Agnostics may threaten agnostic atheists with a burden of proof. [View all]
Htom Sirveaux
Jul 2014
OP
does this map to the "strong atheist" / "weak atheist" terminology i've seen thrown around?
yodermon
Jul 2014
#1
I wasn't endorsing one model over the other, just attempting description. nt
Htom Sirveaux
Jul 2014
#39
The fuss is about the hatred and stigma attached to the word "atheist," cbayer.
trotsky
Jul 2014
#19
This has been partially addressed on DU, as 1) a-theists, vs. 2) anti-theists.
Brettongarcia
Jul 2014
#20
"2) Anti-theists were those who stated positively (or negatively?) that there is no god."
Warren Stupidity
Jul 2014
#28
Does the person's desire not to claim either label make any kind of difference? nt
Htom Sirveaux
Jul 2014
#37
I don't claim any racial titles, yet the government sees fit to classify me at every turn.
AtheistCrusader
Jul 2014
#40
Um, yes. Because if you're not an atheist, you're a theist. This is not difficult.
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2014
#57
I'd say your definition is ahistorical, but you'd probably be able to find one drop of...
stone space
Aug 2014
#58
I'm sorry, but with all due respect, you are the one playing word games here.
stone space
Aug 2014
#60
That's a lot of words for you to ignore that it is a boolean proposition.
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2014
#61
It was not a diversion, however much you wish to pretend it was to escape a losing position.
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2014
#79
You still don't seem to understand what I was saying, since you insist I was rounding down.
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2014
#82
I'm not a contestant and I have all kinds of other terms that can be included under
cbayer
Aug 2014
#68
Since I don't know what you are talking about, it's going to be hard for me to stop.
cbayer
Aug 2014
#70
"You maintain that agnostic is meaningless. I reject that and maintain that it is."
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2014
#71
I guess that I'm just an old school atheist. I believe that there is no God or Gods.
stone space
Aug 2014
#49