Anti theism - what are the logics?
To me, I don't find any points how one can be anti theist. Don't they fail in meeting the burden of proof just like the religious ones? Shout-out to yall there, enlighten me.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.i am not antitheist. i think belief in gods is silly but i think wearing pink stripes with green polka dots is silly too and i feel the need to go after people who do that. i am okay with people believing all kinds of silly crap. i am not okay with their legislating, executing or adjudicating it in any level of government (or public education). i am not okay with their trying to get ME to believe in, or act according to, their silly crap. i am anti-theocracy.
g
genessa
Level 8
Dec 9, 2018
0
My position as an Anti-theist is not a position that dictates I carry the burden of proof to demonstrate a god does not exist as the positive assertion that a god exists has has yet to be met by the theist, as you can not demonstrate a "not",
My position as an Anti-theist is a person who holds no respect for faith (belief without evidence) base claims such as the theist's "There is a god." asserted as a faith claim. I actively educate theists to enlighten those with faith. I argue with theists and expose their belief system as one devoid of truth or merit. I do this because I have seen many theists suffer greatly as a result of their faith leading to make bad choices - - including killing themselves so they can live with Jesus and their dead father in heaven.
I think you are trying to identify the term "positive or strong atheist"
NoMagicCookie
Level 8
Dec 9, 2018
1
Well, from your definition, it truly asserts positive or strong atheist, as i didn't find any difference from the fundamentals of atheism.
@Insane_God "fundamentals" are defined as "a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based."
Primary rule or principle of atheist?
No!
The vast majority of atheists I know do NOT assume the position of "positive or strong" atheist. As this changes the burden of proof "a god exists" from the theists to the positive strong atheist "A god does not exist" by default, an assertion is null until demonstrated.
For example: as a unicornist I have an invisible unicorn that orbits between Mars and Venus. This invisible unicorn sends me messages. It is my burden of proof to demonstrate my unicorn exists. If you do not accept my unicorn you are an a (not) unicornist = aunicornist. You are under no obligation to demonstrate my unicorn is not real as I have not demonstrated my unicorn is real. HOWEVER, if you assert my unicorn does not exist you are now a "Strong or Positive aunicornist. As you have asserted the positive assertion (there is no unicorn) you are burdened to demonstrate my unicorn does not exist. This is an unnecessary and not defensible position.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.