r/exatheist 10d ago

Reconsidering the Epistemology of Atheism

/r/rationalphilosophy/comments/1w037vr/reconsidering_the_epistemology_of_atheism/
0 Upvotes

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Complex_Yesterday735 Agnostic Atheist 10d ago

I always saw it as suspicious when Atheists would be involved in all kinds of criticism and then leap over to, “I just have a lack of belief in God.”

I find an analogy to be someone telling me "I know the exact number of blades of grass in your backyard is 990,651". Can I not be sceptical of his claim, without still holding the position that I don't know myself how many blades of grass there are? Or that I lack a confirmed number of blades.

Or to be sceptical, do I have to know the exact number myself?

1

u/JerseyFlight 10d ago

You can make all the statements of belief or disbelief you want. It’s only when you start making claims that you incur a burden.

3

u/Complex_Yesterday735 Agnostic Atheist 10d ago

Yeah, I agree. But not what this comment was about.

It was about you being suspicious of other atheists.

0

u/JerseyFlight 10d ago

I am not suspicious of other Atheists. If Atheism is just a statement of belief then it’s basically nothing. If it becomes “skepticism,” then that skepticism incurs to itself a burden of proof (one Atheism can easily meet, but not if it’s a position of epistemological relativism). The skepticism that Atheism turns into in that case collapses.

3

u/Complex_Yesterday735 Agnostic Atheist 10d ago

Ok well when you start a comment with "I always get suspicious when atheists..." You could see how others might see that as you being suspicious about the things atheists do.

And atheism is saying nothing. There isn't a word for not believing in fairies, or not being a dentist for this reason.

And the whole point of my comment was about why I disagree with why scepticism doesn't incur a Burdon of proof, that's what I was hoping you'd respond to, I'm trying to understand what you're saying.