The 'burden of proof' thing in relation to god, is a kind of problem for me. And every time somebody mentions it, I try and explain it in a different way.
In the example above I'm trying to show you, and myself, that knowledge is necessary on both sides in order for 'burden of proof' to work. For example:
I'm using this as an example because I don't understand it, and I'm hoping you don't understand it also.
But this is proof that Kinetic energy is equal to the integral of the dot product of velocity of a body and the change of the bodies momentum at a point in time.
My point in regards to 'burden of proof' is: unless the person explaining the above equations and the person listening to the explanation understand every line of each equation, 'burden of proof' is meaningless. Both sides have to have knowledge of the specific subject before 'burden of proof' can be used.
Therefore when we say 'the burden of proof' lies with another person, this is true, but, in order for us to understand their explanation, we also need some prior knowledge of the subject at hand.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no god. No knowledge of god exists. So the 'burden of proof' thing can never be applied to god. And this is my problem.
But you kind of answered my question anyway. When you talked to the Christians about hell. Except the knowledge about hell should have been the other way around. Oh well. You gotta love them Merican Christians.
The person who originally wrote it understands it, yes. Plus, if we know nothing about maths, we can learn how to count, and after studying a bit more, we can all learn to understand the equation. And that is why 'burden of proof' works for things that exist.
I just have a continuous problem with the burden of proof argument for things that don't exist. I feel a need to research for myself the other side of the story. I consider it lazy if no research is done by the listener. But when it comes to things that don't exist. How can I research it? The best I could do with god was the Oxford dictionary. But that just defines the word not the man/spirit or what ever.
it says 'to'
How can somebody be a Gnostic Atheist? It doesn't make sense.
To all the agnostic atheists out there:
If you are an agnostic atheist, you don't believe in Gods existence because there is no evidence of gods existence. You are making a decision based on no evidence. How is it possible to make a decision, about something that exists, based on no evidence? Surely decision making, in regards to things that exist, require evidence.
The agnostic atheist point of view doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, if you are making a philosophical decision, then no evidence of the existence of anything is required, only philosophical logic is required.
The agnostic atheist point of view is a lazy point of view, because no thought process has been applied to the decision made, and this is by your own admission.
As for the pure-Atheist or the Gnostic-atheist. All you have to do is read this thread and you will see the effort and thought that has been put into the subject of gods non-existence.
I'm trying to clarify my own thoughts in regards to agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.
I understand the definitions but how can they work in the real world.
I find gnostic atheism easier to understand so I thought I'd start with agnostic atheism, which is harder for me to understand. So I wrote the above, to try and get somebody who is an agnostic atheist to clarify their own thoughts for me.
Even though you, Michael, are a gnostic atheist, I will talk it over with you.
"If you believe that we cannot for sure have knowledge that God doesn't exist, but you don't believe He does...."
The problem for me comes down to 'knowledge'.
If I can see my computer in front of me, I have knowledge my computer exists. I therefore know my computer exists in front of me. It's a fact, because visible knowledge exists, there is no belief involved.
If I turn around, then my computer no longer exists in front of me. I know it is on my table behind me. I know I can not see it. My computer does not exist in front of me. This is a fact. No belief involved.
I turn around and face my computer. I look at the space next to my computer. I can not see any computer next to my computer. This is a fact.
But according to the agnostic atheist, there might be an invisible computer next to my computer because God put one there. And there is no evidence to the contrary. Even though I can not see an invisible computer next to my own. If I say it is a fact there is no god given invisible computer next to my own computer, this could be labelled as dogma.
But the agnostic atheist, would never say the above. Through experience, they have learnt to say nothing. They only say 'prove it'. If they said they did not believe in god and left it at that, then ok. But this is not the case. They also say, 'it has not been proven' or 'I have seen no credible evidence' 'therefore I don't believe in god'. And this is where I get confused. Do they want evidence of gods existence? If they do not want evidence of gods existence, then why ask for it. And if they do want evidence for gods existence, why not try and prove it to themselves. If they want neither, why speak? Why make the 'no credible evidence' statement in the first place.
If they label themselves as 'agnostic only' then ok. The 'no proof' statements makes sense. But if they put 'atheist' on the end of their self definition, I find it hard to understand their stance. I can't understand what they are saying. What is their point?