Atheism Requires Justification Too

[Dontaskme]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

[Iwannaplato]

INteresting video.

I suppose in general I don't think either position or any of the positions require justification, unless you expect to convince someone.

One can just putter alone believing or not believing.

You want to convince someone, well suddenly there are hoops.

[Flannel Jesus]

INteresting video.

I suppose in general I don't think either position or any of the positions require justification, unless you expect to convince someone.

One can just putter alone believing or not believing.

You want to convince someone, well suddenly there are hoops.

I thought similar.

Perhaps part of the interviewees thoughts are a matter of convincing *yourself*. That's important too - why should you feel so convinced of this thing you've thought was true for so long? Atheists, intellectually, should be able to reflect on their beliefs and the reasons for them the same as theists I suppose.

[Skepdick]

INteresting video.

I suppose in general I don't think either position or any of the positions require justification, unless you expect to convince someone.

One can just putter alone believing or not believing.

You want to convince someone, well suddenly there are hoops.

Nothing to do with convincing other people. It's about meeting some minimal criteria necessary for participating in reasonable discourse.

No amount of reason can reason anybody out of a position they never reasoned themselves into.

Making any position exempt from justifications establishes precisely the sort of asymmetry necessary for playing burden tennis.

[Skepdick]

Perhaps part of the interviewees thoughts are a matter of convincing *yourself*.

It's about convincing others that you've convinced yourself.

Some people are simply parroting other people's words/arguments. That's not reason - that's blind faith with zero understanding.

[Iwannaplato]

INteresting video.

I suppose in general I don't think either position or any of the positions require justification, unless you expect to convince someone.

One can just putter alone believing or not believing.

You want to convince someone, well suddenly there are hoops.

I thought similar.

Perhaps part of the interviewees thoughts are a matter of convincing *yourself*. That's important too - why should you feel so convinced of this thing you've thought was true for so long? Atheists, intellectually, should be able to reflect on their beliefs and the reasons for them the same as theists I suppose.

I liked the part about focusing on behavior. I don't share the speakers certainty about how to determine other people's beliefs, but I don't think we need to take what they say their beliefs (and values) are as necessarily the case.

But what I meant was mainly that if you set yourself the goal of convincing others, then you may need justification. You might manage with charisma and passion, which can work as justification for others. But if others want to be convinced by rational means and you want to convince them, then justification is on the table. None of which is my assuming that reason is the right way to go, either. I've often been pleased by learning via doing. LIke someone says X is true. I say I don't think so or I don't know. They lead me to experiences. That's lovely: Of course you could look at that as justification, but I'd like to distinguish it from arguing and verbal demonstrations.

And perhaps it takes years of experiences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

Since the emergence of theism long ago, theists had been killing and committing all sort of evil upon non-theists [deemed as a threat to their theism] in the name of God whom they insist exist as really real.
Theists [especially Abrahamic] believe their God is so real to the extent that their real God had sent His only begotten Son to save the soul of humans with a promise of eternal life in heaven.
Even Christianity is overriding pacifistic, on the belief that God exists as real were driven by their own personal beliefs to kill non-Christians.
Islam on the other hand, permit the killing of non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion; disbelief is deemed to be a threat to the religion. Fervent Muslims has killed >50 millions since the emergence of the religion.
There are other theists who believe they are more superior to non-theists and therefrom commit evil upon non-believers.

As such, on the basis of rationality and the progress of humanity, that theists has the onus to justify and prove the existence of their God as real that warrant they evil acts they commit upon non-theists.

In the above sense which is the critical issue, non-theists do not have an onus to justify their stance.

Thus, the theists has to justify the existence of God as real and is not an illusion or fiction.

That non-theists justify why God does not exist is secondary.

For the sake of the progress and well being of humanity, there is a need to understand why theists believe in a God [illusory].
I have justified why
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
and there is a psychological basis why theist critically need to believe is a God [illusory] which they believe is really real.

[Will Bouwman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

Well, God is an hypothesis. It is consistent with the facts. In fact an invisible, almighty being is consistent with any facts you care to present, so it is pointless trying to argue that such a thing doesn't exist. But if someone wants to prescribe policy based on God's existence, then bloody right, they have a major burden of proof.

[Sculptor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

No such case is necessary.

[Dontaskme]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

No such case is necessary.

But what would you be without your story.
What can your mind do with nothing.

[Sculptor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

No such case is necessary.

But what would you be without your story.
What can your mind do with nothing.

There is more to the world than god.
I can do without it just fine.

[attofishpi]

Atheism does require justification when atheists ask for evidence and is provided with it, the justification would be a reasonable counter argument to the link below.

Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God':-- viewtopic.php?t=33214

[LuckyR]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

Not interested in YouTube videos, though I am interested in your opinion on YouTube videos (and why you have that opinion).

[Skepdick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

Well, God is an hypothesis. It is consistent with the facts. In fact an invisible, almighty being is consistent with any facts you care to present, so it is pointless trying to argue that such a thing doesn't exist. But if someone wants to prescribe policy based on God's existence, then bloody right, they have a major burden of proof.

Policies are mere implementation details. Policies exist in contexts of constitutions. Just so it happens that the UK constitution isn’t codified.

So when somebody says “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.” That seems like a policy statement based on religious (constitutional?) convictions.

How much do you feel somebody proposing such a policy should be burdened to prove it?

How heavy is the burden? Seeming as it isn’t codified.

[Dontaskme]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qgl0gu1BlQ

Not interested in YouTube videos, though I am interested in your opinion on YouTube videos (and why you have that opinion).

Not interested in chatting to people who are not interested in the opinions of those people who choose to create their own Youtube videos to voice their opinions.

Bye.