Here’s an interesting article courtesy of Rainbows which brings up an interesting question we haven’t addressed in a while. Given the number of new members, I think it begs readressing: The protection of Atheists as a minority group — Atheism as a religion. Specifically, we all know Atheism is not so much a religion as a philosophy. After all, we have no god to whom to pray, and no holy book, so we are not a religion by definition. Many have said that calling Atheism a religion is like calling dark a color.But the other side is that as a philosophy, and NOT a religion, we are not protected as a class by the Constitution. Now, some judges have ruled that we are “close enough” to be afforded a religious protection, but the case is not clear.And… do we want that? Do we want to be called a religion if it means equal rights?Personally, I say yes. Indeed, they can call me a baseball if I get what I want — equal protection under the law. I know and understand that I may be in the minority on this one, but hey, I’m used to that. Classification is irrelevant – equality is all that matters.Now, some of you are really pissed. Some of you think this is an attempt to lower ourselves to their level — to take us down a notch. Perhaps you’re right, and perhaps I’m caving in.Or perhaps I’m placating an enemy — and taking away his biggest weapon. Maybe, just maybe, we should swim downstream this once, and attack the big fish in the lake below.FYI this is not the position of American Atheists — it’s mine. I look forward to your many many comments.
Hi Nekay
Congratulations! (re: rainbow’s post)
So, aside for being instructive your comment politely pointings out that I should be careful when thinking, “burden of proof” would, by itself, mean there was a legal issue being presented?
Yeah, if we are simply talking about presenting a minority viewpoint to persons who hold a viewpoint that is culturally embedded in our collective psyche to the point that it hasn’t been adequately analyzed by most who hold that viewpoint, it seems that the “burden of proof” is always on the person presenting the minority view.
If we are talking specifically about the existence of a supernatural being that cannot be applied to the scientific method, that cannot be measured, qualified or quantified, then the minority will not be able to accomplish the impossible ? and that is, to prove a negative.
How exaclty does one PROVE something does not exist? Thus, the positive claim must be the one to provide proof.
You can’t use a logical fallacy (ad populum fallacy) to shift the burden of proof from the positive claim to the negative. It’s an utterly ridiculous position.