The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie???

[tertius]

The word atheism has two slightly different meanings, both of which you mentioned. The prefix "a" (meaning "not") can, like you said, be:
1. a simple lack of belief in god (not having belief in a god)
but it can also mean
2. a belief in the lack of a god (believing there is not a god).

The problem is we don't agree on what the standard meaning is.

Terry Pratchett handles this split very humorously in many of the Discworld books, with virulent atheists who adamantly disbelieve in gods, even when the gods show up and interact with them. I suspect this is intended as a bit of a jab at Dawkins and the like.

I'd put myself in category one for atheism and category two for agnosticism.

[George Christiansen]

Only if you think that "God exists" should be the default position.

No.

Making any declarative statement put the burden of proof on the person making it.

[51M0n]

What if there is actually a creator and the differing religions are just man's interpretations of the creator's works? What if it doesn't matter what religion you believe in, just that you believe? What if heaven turns out to be whatever you believe it will be.

So you get a Diskworld heaven then (have you got your potatoe?).

[wal]

Threads on this board go in weird directions often...

That is because most of the folk on this board are weird, but of course I am not, I am just religious.

[dpg]

No.

Making any declarative statement put the burden of proof on the person making it.

So if I understand you, you are saying that we would not be justified saying, "Unicorns don't exist," but we would be justified saying, "There's insufficient evidence to support the existence of unicorns."

[bugbomb]

No.

Making any declarative statement put the burden of proof on the person making it.

"There is no God."

"I do not believe God exists."

You're right about the first, but I was thinking of the second. Both would be described as atheistic positions. Sean H laid this out novel a few posts back.

[wal]

So if I understand you, you are saying that we would not be justified saying, "Unicorns don't exist," but we would be justified saying, "There's insufficient evidence to support the existence of unicorns."

The word unicorn is "uni" one, "corn" from cornis meaning horn. The Indian Rhinoceros is Rhinoceros Unicornis, which means nose-horn one-horn, thats if your interested. So you could say Unicorns do exist and you would be correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rhinoceros

[Adam Skillin]

The word unicorn is "uni" one, "corn" from cornis meaning horn. The Indian Rhinoceros is Rhinoceros Unicornis, which means nose-horn one-horn, thats if your interested. So you could say Unicorns do exist and you would be correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rhinoceros

Except that, in English, the unicorn is a mythical horse-like creature with a horn on his forehead. This is kind of like saying the world being created in 7 days doesn't mean 7 actual days. You're saying words don't really mean what they really mean to make them mesh with your foregone conclusion.

[Pluripotent]

No.

Making any declarative statement put the burden of proof on the person making it.

Exactly. Saying "God exists," as well as saying "the universe is random, indifferent and without meaning," both require evidence. Both of these statements require the same devotion to believe without facts, and the latter is definitely not the same as saying there is no God.

[wal]

Except that, in English, the unicorn is a mythical horse-like creature with a horn on his forehead. This is kind of like saying the world being created in 7 days doesn't mean 7 actual days. You're saying words don't really mean what they really mean to make them mesh with your foregone conclusion.

http://www.savingrhinos.org/2010/03/...inerstein/2067

Like unilateral training or bilateral training, which one is the myth, or maybe their both true.