Well, there’s a simple solution to that “lack of belief” shtick, which tries to avoid the burden of proof. Let’s play along with the game that atheism is a lack of belief. Yet practically all atheists, including Hee Zen, are naturalists. And naturalism is a positive belief with positive claims, and thus under the same burden of proof as theism.
See, make from an atheist a naturalist (which is practically always correct).
Problem fixed. How’s that?
Nice try, but no cigar. Bradski already showed your error, so I will take a different track. So:
- A theist is someone who believes that a god or gods exist.
- An atheist is someone who does not believe that a god or gods exist.
Now, let’s use the
same metaphysical approach:
1*) A naturalist is someone who believes that nature exists.
2*) An a-naturalist is someone who does not believe that nature exists.
And there are some a-naturalists, too. Some theists believe that this world is merely a figment of
their particular god’s imagination. Some people (solipsists) believe that the world is the figment of
their imagination.
Now the theist also might have an **auxiliary belief **about God’s alleged actions (created some stuff? loves his creation?). But we are not concerned with auxiliary beliefs - a theist is simply someone who believes in the existence of some gods. I am a naturalist, because I believe that nature exists. Are you an a-naturalist?
Next step. Since being a naturalist I proclaim a positive belief - namely that nature exists. Can I substantiate (not prove! proof is reserved for axiomatic systems) that my positive belief (nature exists) is true? Sure I can. I experience nature all the time. And I trust my senses, not because of some esoteric “proof”. Rather if someone wishes to “disprove” the reliability of the senses, what method can he use? (Epistemology bites again.) Yes he needs to rely on the supposedly “unreliable” senses, thereby cutting himself down at the knees.
Now I have this sneaky suspicion that you would like to redefine the concepts. I think that you would like to redefine the “naturalist” to mean something else - namely that nature is the
only thing that exists. I am afraid I cannot allow you to do that - unless you will redefine “theist” to mean that God is the
only thing that exists. Have to play fair, right?
Of course all this was offered as a
semi-tongue-in-cheek reasoning. (Not quite “semi”.)
You say that a naturalist has an obligation to “prove” his stance IF he requires the theist to “prove” his. Not so, because the two systems are
not mirror images of one another. The atheist’s stance
has no corollaries. It simply stipulates that the atheist does not believe in “some gods”, or, if you really insist that the atheist believes that “gods” do not exist. This belief (or lack of belief) does not place an obligation on the behavior of the “believer” or anyone else. There is no “transcendental” threat for the dissenters, or a “reward” for the adherents. This belief (or lack of it) offers no predictive value for the practitioners. As such it simply does not matter if one is an atheist.
On the other hand, the theists claim all sorts of corollaries. For the believers there is the “carrot” of eternal bliss, for the non-believers there is the “stick” of eternal punishment. Pretty strange that the “almighty” has to resort to such primitive methods to collect followers (we usually use it on non-thinking animals. like donkeys). If an otherwise very good person commits just one “mortal” sin, and stubbornly refuses to repent it, off to hell he goes. How “merciful”. Most human fathers are willing to forgive transgressions without requiring “repentance”.
No, my friend, if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to give substantial evidence that there is a God, and moreover, that this God is something like the one depicted in the bible, with all the horrors of the old testament.
