|
tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/21/2011 12:55:01 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I don't believe that the evidence exists to justify either a belief in a deity or a belief that there is no deity.
Wouldn't the absence of proof negate the need to prove anything else?
Generally yes. Those asserting a proposition need to prove it or the proposition fails.
In this instance, the proposition that a deity exists fails, IMHO, due to lack of evidence. However there a number of views of what atheism is that cloud the issue.
Some people take atheism to be an absence of belief in deities, while others take atheism to be a belief that there are no deities, that the existence of a deity is impossible.
The first interpretation of atheism is, IMHO, incorrect. This position is better described as agnostic. It includes the "I don't knows" and the "I think it's un-knowables". Here absence of proof of a deity negates the need to prove anything else. But the possibility of deities existing is left open.
The second, stronger (and IMHO, more accurate) interpretation, that atheism asserts that there are no deities, the existence of deities is impossible does require proof IMHO. Specifically, it requires proof that the possibility of deities existing can be eliminated.
I hope I have made the distinction clear.
|
|
|
|
