Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,726
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + +
Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism (view source)
Revision as of 20:28, August 10, 2019
, 20:28, August 10, 2019→Purpose of trying to dilute the definition of atheism
The purpose of all these exercises in redefinition is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers:
The purpose of all these exercises in redefinition is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers:
*Atheism lacks proof and evidence that is true.
*Atheism lacks proof and evidence that is true.
In the last twenty years or so atheists and theists have taken to debating on college campuses, and in town halls, all across this country. By using the above definition, atheists have attempted to shift the burden of proof. In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder admits that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." However, no assertions, no facts need be offered. Again, George Smith:
:If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed.
*By redefining atheism to include agnosticism, they both boost their numbers - there are many non-religious folks who will admit they aren't sure whether God exists, but far fewer who have the presumptousness to claim to know for a fact that He does not - and also make their case easier to make (an agnostic, to justify their agnosticism, need only overcome the positive evidence in favor of God's existence; an atheist, in addition to that, must also find positive evidence against God's existence)
*By redefining atheism to include agnosticism, they both boost their numbers - there are many non-religious folks who will admit they aren't sure whether God exists, but far fewer who have the presumptousness to claim to know for a fact that He does not - and also make their case easier to make (an agnostic, to justify their agnosticism, need only overcome the positive evidence in favor of God's existence; an atheist, in addition to that, must also find positive evidence against God's existence)
*By redefining atheism so that even babies are claimed to be atheists (see: [[Weak atheism]]), atheists try to falsely paint atheism as some sort of ''natural state'', despite the fact that religion is a universal across human cultures, up until modern times; there is no traditional culture which totally lacks religious beliefs, and religious belief goes back thousands of years
*By redefining atheism so that even babies are claimed to be atheists (see: [[Weak atheism]]), atheists try to falsely paint atheism as some sort of ''natural state'', despite the fact that religion is a universal across human cultures, up until modern times; there is no traditional culture which totally lacks religious beliefs, and religious belief goes back thousands of years