Atheism is a response to the claim that deities exist. They are fictional characters who are said to exist with literally zero proof of their existence.
How much evidence is needed to prove something doesn’t exist? How do you prove that something doesn’t exist?
Reserving judgement is a geeat stance, but how many more thousands of years of disproven religious and spiritual claims are needed to be enough to say gods don’t exist any more than bigfoot, ghosts, vampires, and werewolves?
The lack of evidence for something to exist is not inherently a problem. Take for example black holes, they were only theorized before discovery.
You don’t need to prove something doesn’t exist, it’s just a moot point. For any skeptic, as a matter of epistemology, not having any proof is as redundant as having proof for its nonexistence.
The lesson religious people need to learn, is as aforementioned; not having proof should be the disqualifying factor, not proof to contradict their established beliefs
Perhaps a bad example. My definition of unicorn is that it can’t be invisible, and is the size of a normal horse.
Still, you can prove the non-existance of a thing given certain parameters like location or time.
So all of human history when we are proving that deities don’t exist.
Not exactly, because we can’t prove the non-existance of a spiritual realm we can’t measure.
In this case it’s less about burden of proof, and more about the basic epistemological stance of reserving judgment until evidence has been provided.
Atheism is a response to the claim that deities exist. They are fictional characters who are said to exist with literally zero proof of their existence.
How much evidence is needed to prove something doesn’t exist? How do you prove that something doesn’t exist?
Reserving judgement is a geeat stance, but how many more thousands of years of disproven religious and spiritual claims are needed to be enough to say gods don’t exist any more than bigfoot, ghosts, vampires, and werewolves?
The lack of evidence for something to exist is not inherently a problem. Take for example black holes, they were only theorized before discovery.
You don’t need to prove something doesn’t exist, it’s just a moot point. For any skeptic, as a matter of epistemology, not having any proof is as redundant as having proof for its nonexistence.
The lesson religious people need to learn, is as aforementioned; not having proof should be the disqualifying factor, not proof to contradict their established beliefs