Lots of arguments rely on premises which are self-evident (which that one is not). The argument being made is: If God existed, there'd be good evidence for their existence. There is no good evidence for their existence. Therefore God does not exist.
Atheism as a lack of belief may be stated: There is a lack of evidence for the existence of divinity (agnosticism). It is irrational to believe in things for which there is a lack of evidence. I wish to be rational. ∴ I do not believe in divinity (atheism).
-
-
"There is lack of evidence for the existence of divinity" is not agnosticism. "There isn't sufficient reason to believe both atheism and theism" is what agnosticism is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
i.e. you can be an atheist without explicitly denying the existence of divinity Or summed up: "I don't know, therefore I don't believe."
-
Tweet unavailable
-
It's what it still means now. Only a minority of atheists actually accept the definition put forth by the "agnostic atheist" crowd. Even Dawkins uses the earlier definition.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
And, for the record, I am an atheist. I believe that there is no god. And I'm willing and able to defend my position.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.