CaptainWoody -Pretjah -CaptainWoody -
If you want to go down the path of history, you can't just overlook the treatment of people who didn't believe. The religious were in control, they got to write the narrative. Saying "I don't believe" is harmless, they twisted it into being nefarious and making positive claims against the church and state....then they could be "dealt with"
If what you're saying is true, you surely could present writings and documentation of historical atheists doing what you say is the "original" meaning.
It was the church's meaning....but not the truth.
listen if you want to disagree with me fine
reality is the word for the vast majority of it's existance meant DISBELIEF not nonbelief. it has also come to meannonbelief which is fine but to say it only means non belief is an untruth in any sense of the word.
if a person says the sky does not appear to be blue, the proof is not on the person who says it appears blue to prove to the person saying it doesn't appear blue. the proof is on the person saying it does not appear blue. whether you think it's blue or yellow has no bearing on the disbelief in it being blue to the other person.
if you say 2+2 does not equal 4 the burden is on you to prove 2+2 equals somethign else no matter if i think it equals 4 or 10 has no bearing on your assertion that it's not 4.
Your analogies are completely inaccurate to what we are talking about.
"if a person says the sky does not appear to be blue, the proof is not on the person who says it appears blue to prove to the person saying it doesn't appear blue."
Again, you're trying to imply that a disbelief or non-belief (doesn't matter) of a God was first. You are correct here, the burden of proof is on the person saying "the sky does not appear to be blue"...because it's the first positive belief claim. Just because it has the word "not" in it doesn't mean it isn't a positive belief claim. It also makes sense because we know what blue and sky are...that's the only way you could say this in this fashion...otherwise it would be ramblings of a crazy person.
Imagine no one has heard of a "sky"....whether the first person says it isn't blue or is blue wouldn't matter to the second person...they would just be thinking "Wtf is a sky?"
That's why claiming there is a God came first, it wouldn't make any sense the other way around and that's why the burden of proof is on that side.
Which god. Or do you mean gods came first. You need to prove the god of the trees and all the thousands of other gods that came before your god don’t exist for that stance to be logical.