You seem to argue that a negative claim and positive claim are the same thing when they aren’t.
As an example, I should not have to prove that there is not a unicorn in my garage.
If–however–I claim that there is a unicorn in my garage, then I have a burden of proof to demonstrate this, such as providing (undoctored) photos, or–perhaps–unicorn feces that can be submitted for DNA analysis.
The standard for proof should be proportional to the claim. If I wish to claim that there is a unicorn in my garage, then I have a very, very high bar to clear . . . but this claim is not automatically impossible. DNA tests, photographs, foot prints, some hair and/or blood samples, or–even better–a unicorn captured with a tranquilizer gun would be great evidence.
If I wish to claim that there are cockroaches in my garage (and I do live in Florida, which is somewhat tropical), then the bar for evidence is much lower.
There is a difference between a positive claim and a negative claim, and the degree of evidence should mirror the claim.
It is a claim not to believe something, it is not a claim about that something.
Atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
If a person claims they do not believe any deity or deities exist, then they’re an atheist by definition, all they’ve expressed is the lack of a specific belief. They have made no claim(s) about the existence of deities.
yes, but it is a trivial claim. The claim is: I don’t think god is real.
However, you happen to be speaking to the world’s foremost expert on the subject of: what I think. So when some tells me that I’m wrong about atheism; they are in fact calling me a liar; suggesting I’m lying about what I think.
When any theist can objectively demonstrate that “metaphysical working” is possible, and exists, then I will care about their claim, until then those claims are filed with alien abductions and bigfoot sightings.
Some theists are absolutely convinced that you “know better” and are either in denial, or simply lying. Their beliefs are self-evident to them, and they project that on you. To give you any credence is to admit, however partially, that they could be wrong.
Here again … it’s something that sort of believer can’t get their brain around. Their god is real to them, and anyone not seeing him as real has to be claiming he’s not real. It’s assuming way too much on their part, but over there in black-and-white world, there is absolutely no nuance. At. All.
Proving that unicorn does NOT exist is in theory as easy to prove that one exists in your garage, as that is a limited space. The proof that it exists would indeed require good evidence, as most people would be inclined to believe they don’t exist in your garage…or anywhere.
LOL! an undoctored photo of your garage without a unicorn would be believable to most people. More, if not most people would question a photo which contains a unicorn.
Existence of unicorns anywhere is different. I think its probably correct that the burden of proof would be for the the claim they exist. Certainly it might be a bit easier, if they actually existed.
There is at least one religious cult based around UAPs, some people believe bigfoot is ‘Cain’ from the bible, or something like that. Based on some vague statement an LDS apostle said on the subject. Some believe big feet are actually trolls, and supernatural.
I heard about ‘table turning’ which was a curiosity to many people at some point. its supposed to be something like a seance.
People sit in a circle around a table in the dark, with hands on the table…and wait for something to happen. It could take hours! I can’t believe people actually had time to for anything like this. But they say that sometimes the table starts to move on its own, and sometimes violently. I don’t know if people have to say anything, or do anything.
Is it a testable claim? yes and no. As the theory goes, disbelief , especially strong disbelief will deactivate anything from happening. But that could be overcome with time…hence hours of waiting. Maybe some in the circle will believe enough to overcome the skeptics.
I don’t know if I would be among the skeptics, Maybe I might be a believer, as I am a bit fearful of what might happen, which sounds strange, as the biggest fear would be missing out on some extra sleep on a weekend.
Atheism is not a claim that a god or gods do not exist. But rather skepticism about that and related things. It seems pretty serious to me now, given that theists can do and say things which are so harmful.
Following the religious script when it comes to god proofs; even if you have a photo of the inside of the alleged garage and it turns out to be empty, it is only seemingly so. Because the unicorn is notoriously shy, and will only interact with people it trusts. Besides, for people it doesn’t trust, it is invisible.
Yes, that is moving the goalposts, but that is exactly what is used in religious apologetic thinking. You get a good argument that you are unable to counter? Move the goalposts so that the god is outside the reach of those arguments (god is beyond space and time, god works in mysterious ways, etc.). Rinse and repeat.
Honestly, animals can be weirdly resilient. I’ve seen pets bounce back from stuff that looked hopeless, could be adrenaline, could be they just needed rest, or maybe the injury wasn’t as bad as it looked.
I wouldn’t jump straight to “divine intervention,” but if the prayer helped your sister feel more hopeful and gave her energy to care for him better, that might’ve played a part too. Either way, glad the cat’s doing better.
Also, animals are masters at masking sickness and pain (below a certain threshold, of course). This is a survival mechanism that protects them from being singled out as prey by predators or lets them retain their social status in groups.
