reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
I think you've been picked on quite enough...but to your point about avoltronism being a lack of belief is simply intellectually dishonest.
I don't know how many times I will have to post this but here it goes:
Proposition "VOLTRON EXISTS"
I don't know (agnostic about Voltron)
Notice how all of these are in the affirmative.
No, that's simply wrong. You could take every single ridiculous thing, and play semantics to make it sound like it's a positive assertion. Voltron,
Russels Teapot, Magic Sandwiches, Tonberries, all could be worded for it to sound like a positive assertion.
But no, it's bunk. It doesn't work like that. Someone could argue for the existence of Voltron. If all the arguments for his existence are
deconstructed and proven to be bunk, it doesn't mean you have to have positive evidence against his existence. If there's no rational evidence for
something being asserted to exist, the burden of proof
is not on the one
who doesn't accept it. I'm sure you personally aren't bothered that you can't prove that there's no Magic Sandwich, or no Tonberries.
Spend, half an hour studying mythological creatures. Assume the fact that people used to believe in these creatures as one argument that they existed.
You'll have no evidence that they didn't exist, only the assertion there is a lack of evidence to lead you to conclude that they did. You will not
just start believing because you can't disprove, because it'd be ridiculous to do so, That's the same stance most atheists have on gods.
There's no burden of prove on skepticism. If there was a single piece of concrete evidence for any god's existence, then there may be a burden of
prove, or a burden of prove to disprove the supposed evidence. There isn't such evidence though, nor is there any evidence that does near as much as
suggest a creator.
It's impossible to disprove Gods in general. It's a vague term that covers nearly everything imaginable. The Problem of Evil for example, can be put
against many Gods, but any that aren't Benevolent, Omniscient, or Omnipotent, aren't phased by the Problem of Evil.
Individual Gods may be argued against, especially so if they come with a holy book that'd have to be true for them to exist. Gods in general,
I think it's funny you accuse atheists of arguing semantics; because you're the one who's doing just that.