brennan
Argumentative Brit
I think Ziggy hit the nail on the head. "Atheism is a positive assertion" is a cheap way for believers to pass on burden of proof.
Al: you are wrong.
Al: you are wrong.
Atheism: A Positive Assertion That God Doesn't Exist?
- Thread starter Red Door
- Start date
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
There you go making the positive assertion the OP is all about.
BTW,
I've heard theists essentially say:
'I do not believe there is a God.
There is a God.
newfangle
hates you.
Your strawmen are among the most poorly constructed I've ever seen.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
As somebody has probably pointed out, there are 2 types of atheists. The one thing these 2 groups have in common is that they have no belief in God - a negative assertion.
Strong atheists make a positive assertion - that there is no God.
Weak atheists make a negative assertion - that they do not believe that God exists.
Why does it have to be relative to a god rather than none at all... I believe there is no god... Why can't I say something like "I believe in ....", or "Theists do not believe in ..." There's no word for it though. Atheism is the only thing I can think of which would vaguely fit in.
Why should atheism be viewed as the lack of a belief of something when it's still a collection of beliefs - like a religion is.
Why should atheism be viewed as the lack of a belief of something when it's still a collection of beliefs - like a religion is.
Leifmk
Deity
Because it's not a collection of beliefs. It's merely one single descriptor or attribute of such a collection.
Everyone has some kind of collection or system of beliefs (using the word in its widest applicable sense here, from the kind of belief that's expressed in the Nicene Creed to "I believe thus and such soccer team is the best in the country"), whether or not that includes the belief in one or more gods. But the only thing all atheists have in common is that their beliefs do not include the existence of gods. You could, for example, put me in a small room with an Objectivist and an old-fashioned Marxist-Leninist -- and maybe a sufficiently rarified Buddhist monk -- and while you might be correct in calling that a room full of atheists it's pretty unlikely that our separate systems or collections of beliefs would resemble each other very much.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Wrong - Atheism is a lack of beliefs.
What you are describing is strong atheism only.
It all depends upon the definition of "God". Chances are, somewhere in the definition you'll include a characteristic which I don't think is personified; at that point the God being described obviously does not exist.
Clever apologists try to reduce the intensity of the characteristics they ascribe to their god.
Clever apologists try to reduce the intensity of the characteristics they ascribe to their god.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
This a generality about me or are you referring to "theists" in the plural?
Why was it that when I left this forum for a year, no one used strawmen in response to anything, and then I read an article in the some magazine referring to George Bush and using the Strawman argument and soon after when I began lurking a bit, saw people responding to all manners of posts with strawmen?
Anyway, I'd hardly call that a strawman. Unless I used to be made out of straw. I used to take that stance on spirituality, and noticed others who did as well. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm using a strawman argument, unless you are convinced I am, in which case please go into detail. I'd rather make an accurate argument than one that suits my needs...
Similar threads
