Comment: Atheism is not something that

(See in situ)


Atheism is not something that

Atheism is not something that one defends.

It is an admission that there is no proof.

You use the word proof, but you use it wrongly.

Empirical data is ALL that is there. Perhaps for you there are some 'signs'. Perhaps those signs led you to conclude 'god' is talking to you. But there is no proof of anything. Why won't your 'god' talk to you so I can listen as well?

My view is that you have (sadly) metaprogrammed your own mind to construe certain abstract and free-floating thoughts as 'the voice of god' and that the idea of 'knowing him personally' is just internal dialogue.

But you can't prove anything.

You might argue that I can't prove he does exist, but the burden of proof is on the person making positive statements. You can't be called upon to prove a negative.

Furthermore, there is no empirical data for the proposition AND conceptually, it is an impossibility, so I think that far from being a not-so-good explanation of what atheism is, I think I've hit the nail on the head.

No proof AND the concept makes no logical sense. Double whammy.