• hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Anti-theists are “there is definitely no god”, .

    It’s more like active opposition to a theistic religions. For example many people think that “there’s no gods, and theistic religions are harmful to our society”

    and they have just as much evidence as believers

    This is very stupid way to put it. If you make a claim, you should provide the proof to support that claim. The claim is that there is a god or several, yet no proof to support that claim, which means that claim is plain made up shit and the logical conclusion “there’s no gods”

    See also Russell’s teapot

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      This is very stupid way to put it

      You have no evidence of no god.

      You could disprove specific religions making specific claims, sure. But to say there is no god anywhere in the universe of any sort? That is not a claim you can prove.

      Now if you want to reframe antitheists as anti-specific theology on Earth, then what you say makes sense. But you can’t both propose a new definition mid-conversation, and then argue that my statement that was based on the first definition is stupid because you’re using the second.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        The claim is not “there is no god”.

        The claim is that there is a god, or multiples of them

        There’s no need to claim that there is no god? It doesn’t make any sense to try to prove something like that. A claim requires evidence, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          For example many people think that “there’s no gods, and theistic religions are harmful to our society”

          The claim is not “there is no god”.

          I don’t know that to tell you. This seems internally inconsistent.

          • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Yes, “there’s no god” is not a claim, it’s just the logical conclusion from all of this.

            It’s like concluding that daddy long legs didn’t evolve from a Chinese dragon

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              “there is no god” is definitely a claim. It can be falsified with evidence (in theory. I don’t think such evidence exists).

              Perhaps you mean “I don’t believe there’s a god” or “I haven’t seen evidence to convince me there’s a god”? Those aren’t claims. Those can’t be falsified. They’re opinions based on evaluation of evidence.

              But we’re quibbling over minutia at this point.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      If you make a claim, you should provide the proof to support that claim.

      If your claim is that “there’s no gods,” then you’re making a claim. The assertion that there are affirmatively no gods at all is in fact just as empirically unfalsifiable as the assertion that there is definitely at least one god. In my opinion, the only reasonable position is to not make any claims about the presence or nonpresence of deities in the first place.

      Russel’s Teapot is fun, but I prefer Starman’s copy of Treasure Planet on DVD. Do you believe that I have a copy of Treasure Planet in my DVD collection? More importantly, if you answer no, is that the same as believing that I don’t have a copy of Treasure Planet on DVD? I think it would be equally silly to affirmatively assert that I do in fact have a physical copy of my favorite Disney movie, as it would be to assert that I do not in fact have a copy of it. You would have to come to my house and look at my DVD collection before reasonably making such a claim.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        There are no proof of god, there’s nothing that suggests that there is a god or gods. There’s only claims from some people that they’ve spoken with one. It’s rather like sasquatch and loch Ness monster. It’s the only logical conclusion that there’s no gods

        Do you believe that I have a copy of Treasure Planet in my DVD collection? More importantly, if you answer no, is that the same as believing that I don’t have a copy of Treasure Planet on DVD? I think it would be equally silly to affirmatively assert that I do in fact have a physical copy of my favorite Disney movie, as it would be to assert that I do not in fact have a copy of it. You would have to come to my house and look at my DVD collection before reasonably making such a claim

        This funny exercise makes the assumption that I’m too lazy to come visit your house to see if you have that DVD. As soon as I come grab a cup of coffee and a nice piece of sweet pastry with you and check your film collection, I’ll see if you were lying or not.

        However, maybe this is the time you tell me that you borrowed the film to your cousin who lives abroad rather than admitting the lie. That’d be what Christians have been doing the past 2 millennias as we have made new scientific discoveries that contradicted priests talks about their DVD collections.