Damouse writes:
Im not trying to be radical or abrasive, and i feel like my comments are being received as such. Apologies if they came out like that.
It is very hard to communicate (via text) with any kind of
assurity without appearing abrasive, etc. So my default position is to expect the best intentions from people.
I will skip over most of the points in your reply, as I feel that they have been accurately expanded upon by others. I think it has been discussed in other threads too.
(I would also like to avoid giving you the feeling that you are being outnumbered.)
Instead I would like to focus on an aside you made:
Damouse writes:
If a theist were to challenge either of us based on that, our conversation with him/her would have no impact on our belief or our current religious debate. It is, again, a semantic argument.
This was touched upon in Hooah's video.
I think many religious people think atheism is a belief because that is how their mind works. They are looking at an atheist's world from a theist's PoV. This is not the best way to understand the other side of the discussion.
There is also the aspect of:
quote:
When religious theists attack atheism, they prefer to attack strong atheism, the denial of the existence of gods, because it's a positive claim which can be evaluated and critiqued. They don't like dealing with weak atheism, the absence of belief in gods, because they forces them to defend and support their own claims. (Link)
If an atheist says:
"You can't prove there is a god. Why do you believe he exists?",
then a theist can reply:
"You can't prove there is NOT a god. Why do believe he doesn't exist?"
This reply only works if atheism is a belief.
Also,
belief is often incorrectly conflated with
faith.
Atheists have no belief in god => Athiests believe god doesn't exist => Athiests have faith that god doesn't exist => Athiests have faith in something without evidence.
"We've won!" cries the equivocating thiest.
Edited by Panda, : ytpo