Comment by Boomzy on September 9, 2010 at 10:20pm
Ramblings, ramblings, ramblings....
Comment by Mike de Fleuriot on September 9, 2010 at 10:24pm
Have not looked at it yet, but the face tells me that this is a mouth breather.
Comment by Doug Reardon on September 9, 2010 at 10:28pm
He's created an entirely new system of logic!
Comment by brant feivou on September 9, 2010 at 10:38pm
Is not a new system of logic. its called the null hypothesis.
Comment by BryanPaul on September 9, 2010 at 10:55pm
Atheism is not a neutral position. On a 100% scale atheism is the total disbelief in god, while theism is the belief in a god(s). Neither are neutral. If I say I am an atheist because I dont believe in god, then the burden of proof is mine for making the claim of non-existance. The Neutral is agnostic or just to say I have no proof for or against. You need to google both atheist and agnostic.
Comment by brant feivou on September 9, 2010 at 11:21pm
I'm an atheist and i wouldn't make a claim that god doesn't exist. though i do not accept any claims that a god does exist as they have not met the burden of proof. Not accepting any claims for a gods existence makes one an atheist right? by not accepting a claim no positive assertion is made and therefore a neutral position.

Is it that difficult of a concept?
Comment by brant feivou on September 10, 2010 at 1:17am
I think that because of the lack of evidence to the contrary, unicorns don't exist and either do gods. that is not saying my assumption could not be changed in light of impeding evidence.

The concept of god is an extraordinary one. Therefore the evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt would also have to be extraordinary. But to really be accepted it also would have to be repeatable.

There is nothing special about a person who believes in a god. They can not do anything more than a non believer who is equally capable.

God cannot be shown to exist at this time; i get no benefit from blind faith.

Therefore i have adopted the null hypothesis in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary. Because the null hypothesis is not believing in a god I am an Atheist.
Comment by brant feivou on September 10, 2010 at 1:46am
Science is an amazing thing. who knows what the future of science will come up with. don't get me wrong. I agree that it is logically acceptable to dismiss the existence of god. I am in no way on the fence about this.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 6 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service