Re: The logic of atheism

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachDELETETHENAME@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A wholehearted atheist shouldn't
hesitate to explicitly call her-/himself a denier of God's existence.

Please deomonstrate that there is anything to deny before using such
loaded language about an action most of us don't perform concerning
something as irrelevant as the hypothetical belief object of somebody
else's religion.

Many non-believers hide behind "weak" atheism because they think this
would shield them from any burden of justification on their part. They
consider their kind of atheism a free lunch.
But is that really so? -- As a matter of fact the theists have
presented arguments in favour of God's existence. Even the so-called
weak atheist cannot simply ignore these, for it's his job to analyse
those theistic arguments and to refute them. Only if he succeeds in
doing so, the weak atheist's standpoint is rationally justified.
The weak atheist does not have to present arguments which positively
prove God's nonexistence, but what he's got to do at least is disprove
the theist's arguments.
In this respect weak atheism is not a totally free lunch.

Regards
PH

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... hesitate to explicitly call her-/himself a denier of God's existence. ... loaded language about an action most of us don't perform concerning ... In this respect weak atheism is not a totally free lunch. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... hesitate to explicitly call her-/himself a denier of God's existence. ... consider their kind of atheism a free lunch. ... -- As a matter of fact the theists have ... but what he's got to do at least is disprove ...
    (talk.atheism)