Is what I think not what I think it is?
Map Coordinates: -67877, 2146
...does it even make sense?
...is it possible for the guy on the fence, the guy looking for the
third option, the guy who questions everything, to be the one who's
defending their own views?
I consider myself an agnostic, an atheist and an anarchist. These are
defined by what they are not. More to the point, none of them make a
positive claim.
Burden of Proof states that whoever makes a positive claim is
responsible for providing evidence to back that claim, otherwise we
should consider it false. For example, if somebody says unicorns exist
but has no evidence, we shouldn't believe them.
Even though it's considered a logical fallacy, the reasoning is more
practical. It'd be nearly impossible to prove a negative claim. In
order to be certain that unicorns don't exist, you'd have to recreate
the universe and comb all of space and time.
Thus, the theist has to prove God(s) exists, the statist has to prove
that authority is legitimate, and anyone who claims anything to be
objective truth has to prove that it is. It ain't like I haven't been
looking, especially since I don't even want to believe a lot of the
things that I currently do, but I at least find some kind of fatal flaw
in every philosophical argument that bears the burden of proof.
...but is it possible I have something to prove after all? Could it be
that my position isn't on the outside looking in? Could I be just as
guilty of protecting a worldview as the zealot, even after abandoning a
faith and changing my stance more than once before adopting one I
thought was secular and apolitical?