Re: The logic of atheism

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

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?

Frankly, I have no intellectual trouble at all in understanding
atheism, weak or strong or whatever.

What do you mean by "invent falsehoods"?
That it is not the case that many non-believers consider their weak
atheism a free lunch, i.e. that they think they do not have to justify
themselves at all?
Well, experience teaches me that this really is the case!

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.

It's a matter of fairness to concede that there are sophisticated
theistic arguments (e.g. Platinga's Free Will Defense) which cannot
simply be brushed aside with a wave of one's hand.

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?

I didn't erect any straw man!
My practical experience (as a "strong" atheist among the irreligious)
has taught me that there actually are many so-called weak atheists who
are intellectually dishonest insofar as they stubbornly refuse to
accept that they too bear some burden of justification, for if some of
the theistic arguments should turn out to be sound, one would no longer
be rationally justified in /not/ believing in God's existence.

Regards
PH

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If the Muslims belief is justified, just how exactly is it justified?
    ... lost belief in Islam and God? ... are using as justification for disbelief in your fanciful theorizing? ... existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... would shield them from any burden of justification on their part. ... consider their kind of atheism a free lunch. ... In this respect weak atheism is not a totally free lunch. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: If the Muslims belief is justified, just how exactly is it justified?
    ... My response to VHT is based on his atheism in the strict context of this ... Islamic forum. ... The relevance to Islam rule and all that. ... you answered or even attempted to address the "justification" topic from ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: Childhood
    ... Evolution is perfectly logical. ... No 'Designing Intelligence' is ... That's not a justification for atheism; ...
    (uk.misc)
  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... atheism a free lunch, i.e. that they think they do not have to justify ... something to defend or, better, to justify. ... The theists may demand that their best rational arguments be taken into ... not being an ideologist's ideal free lunch. ...
    (talk.atheism)
Quantcast