Re: The logic of atheism

On 18 Mar 2006 07:28:35 -0800, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachDELETETHENAME@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Why invent falsehoods as ad hominem reasons for your misinterpretation
of honestly held positions that you can't even be bothered to try and
understand?

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.

They're abstract logic exercises about something that isn't even part
of the weak atheist's worldview.

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.

Good thing it's just your straw man then, isn't it?


Regards
PH
.