As an agnostic atheist, I don't feel it is necessary for me to provide any positive argument for the non-existence of God. The burden of proof is on the theist to provide rational justification for their belief in God. Most atheist use the concepts of God most often found in religious texts such as the Bible, Quran, etc., and criticize those on the account that the existence of those God concepts contradict the very nature of the world. Even this is unnecessary. Nevertheless, it is good to demonstrate to some theists that their conception of God is untenable.
I will leave it up to the theist to provide an argument justifying the belief in God that is neither question begging, invalid, unsound, or reduces God down to something insignificant, in which case God would not add anything significant to our best explanation of the world. Until that burden of proof is shouldered, it is rationally unjustifiable to believe in such a being. Furthermore, the position of agnostic atheism is the only rational position to hold.
Your Helen Keller argument is a bad one. Helen Keller can feel her parents which is a sensory perception. So your analogy falls apart. The argument from lack of sensory evidence is a general assertion that we have not encountered reasonable evidence supporting God's existence. It doesn't disprove God's existence, it just makes belief in God significantly more unreasonable.
"Atheists have done a good job in arguing against their own theistic concepts, but in doing so they have only discredited their own self-serving theological straw men."
Well, like I said earlier, provide the accurate concept of God through argumentation that is neither question begging, invalid, unsound, or makes God insignificant. Until then, non-believers in God are just as justified as non-believers in unicorns.
Thank you so much for you comments, you make some good points.
Pardon my delay in approving your comment and writing back but my computer was down with a virus for some time, I was also out of state, started a new job, etc., etc.
First, let me state that I was not asking for any sect of atheist to prove God’s non-existence. My point was that, as your comment makes very clear, it would be a waste of time and energy for a theists to presume to provide evidence for God’s existence if the atheist was going to merely deny that any of the alleged evidence does not count.
For example, I would ask you first to provide detailed definitions of: Question begging. Invalid. Unsound. Or what would reduce God to something insignificant.
Yes, Hellen Keller could feel her parents but she did not know that she was feeling her parents. That is to say, she did not know who they were. She was told by them, “We are your parents” and she believed them on authority. They could have been her second cousins’ next door neighbor’s sister’s parents for all she knew. I cannot see of feel wind but I see wind’s effect and I feel the particles that the wind is pushing against my skin.
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
As an agnostic atheist, I don't feel it is necessary for me to provide any positive argument for the non-existence of God. The burden of proof is on the theist to provide rational justification for their belief in God. Most atheist use the concepts of God most often found in religious texts such as the Bible, Quran, etc., and criticize those on the account that the existence of those God concepts contradict the very nature of the world. Even this is unnecessary. Nevertheless, it is good to demonstrate to some theists that their conception of God is untenable.
ReplyDeleteI will leave it up to the theist to provide an argument justifying the belief in God that is neither question begging, invalid, unsound, or reduces God down to something insignificant, in which case God would not add anything significant to our best explanation of the world. Until that burden of proof is shouldered, it is rationally unjustifiable to believe in such a being. Furthermore, the position of agnostic atheism is the only rational position to hold.
Your Helen Keller argument is a bad one. Helen Keller can feel her parents which is a sensory perception. So your analogy falls apart. The argument from lack of sensory evidence is a general assertion that we have not encountered reasonable evidence supporting God's existence. It doesn't disprove God's existence, it just makes belief in God significantly more unreasonable.
"Atheists have done a good job in arguing against their own theistic concepts, but in doing so they have only discredited their own self-serving theological straw men."
Well, like I said earlier, provide the accurate concept of God through argumentation that is neither question begging, invalid, unsound, or makes God insignificant. Until then, non-believers in God are just as justified as non-believers in unicorns.
Thank you so much for you comments, you make some good points.
ReplyDeletePardon my delay in approving your comment and writing back but my computer was down with a virus for some time, I was also out of state, started a new job, etc., etc.
First, let me state that I was not asking for any sect of atheist to prove God’s non-existence. My point was that, as your comment makes very clear, it would be a waste of time and energy for a theists to presume to provide evidence for God’s existence if the atheist was going to merely deny that any of the alleged evidence does not count.
For example, I would ask you first to provide detailed definitions of:
Question begging.
Invalid.
Unsound.
Or what would reduce God to something insignificant.
Yes, Hellen Keller could feel her parents but she did not know that she was feeling her parents. That is to say, she did not know who they were. She was told by them, “We are your parents” and she believed them on authority. They could have been her second cousins’ next door neighbor’s sister’s parents for all she knew. I cannot see of feel wind but I see wind’s effect and I feel the particles that the wind is pushing against my skin.
aDios,
Mariano