Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
We're not redefining anything David.
You're redefining "hard atheism" as "antitheism", which will require you to redefine "antitheism" as something else, since that refers to opposition to theism, and not just a belief that no Gods exist.
A = not and Theism = God Belief.
And as I pointed out in my original response, it could also be "athe-ism", that is "Athe = No God", "Ism = Belief". Thus atheism can also mean "Belief in No God".
The bottom line is that an atheist does NOT have God belief. And what has happened is that apologists will try and paint a picture of atheism as a positive belief as you're doing right now.
No. As I've said repeatedly, atheism can be either "belief in a lack of God(s)" or "lack in a belief of God(s)". It's not exclusively a positive belief.
They do this because they want to try and make atheists responsible for the burden of proof that no God exists. Pay attention, because this is a critical lesson boy. An atheist carries NO such burden of proof. Why? Because no POSITIVE claim has been made.
That depends on whether they're a "soft/negative" atheist or a "hard/positive" atheist. For the "soft" atheist, I agree that no positive claim has been made, and thus there's no burden of proof on them.
Those idiots who deviate AWAY from atheism are then and therefore subject to the burden of proving that no God(s) exist, in the very same way that theists carry the burden of proving that God(s) do exist.
But they aren't "deviating away from atheism", but simply moving to "positive/hard" atheism. The problem is that if you want to come up with a new term to describe those who claim that no God(s) exist, you need a better term than "antitheist", since that term refers to those who are opposed to theism. You can't come up with a new term, if that term is already being used for something else. If we start referring to people who believe God doesn't exist as "antitheists", then what are we going to call those who are actively opposed to theism? Are we going to come up with a new term for them as well to keep them separated from those who believe no God(s) exist?
The fact is that it's not necessary to come up with a whole new term for those who believe no Gods exist, since we already have one - "hard atheists".
Just start trying to ask atheists out there to provide the burden proof that God does NOT exist and you'll be faced with a whole hell of a lot of what we've been trying to tell you here.
That would depend on whether I'm asking the "hard atheist" or the "soft atheist", wouldn't it? I agree that the soft atheist has no burden of proof, and I don't impose one on them.
When many theist's cross over to atheism they are generally ignorant about what atheism is in the first place, and also agnosticism too which is simply a non-committal position. The atheist does commit to a lack of God belief, however. It's a committal position as opposed to a non-committal position like agnosticism. And so many theists crossing over bring along their positive assertion tendencies from theism and then try to apply them to atheism. And they're subject to getting called out on it, just as you've been called out here.
Excuse me, but in my original answer, I clarified that atheists could be either those who don't believe there is a God, or those who believe there is no God. I never, at any point, assumed that all atheists were making positive assertions. I know enough atheists to know that while some make positive assertions, others do not. So I don't know what you think you've "called me out on" here.
What most people think about something doesn't necessarily make it so, David. The word "atheism" defines itself with no gray area as a negative, not a positive, regardless of what most naive people out there tend to think about it with no real education or experience on the matter.
Atheism does not "define itself", since it can mean either "lack of belief in God(s)" or "belief in a lack of God(s)", as I pointed out in my original response, and again up above.
What is untrue? A hard atheist is AGAINST the belief in God(s), they are in fact anti-theistic and completely opposed to God belief by stepping forward and holding the positive belief that no God(s) exist and therefore taking a type of God Belief, the No God Belief:
No, a hard atheist is one who believes that no God(s) exist. That doesn't automatically mean that they are opposed to other people believing in God, or want those who do believe in God to stop believing. If you're going to call them anti-theists, then you are declaring on their behalf that they are actively opposed to theism, even if that's not the case, which it isn't for many of them. Not all hard atheists believe that religion is a bad thing, or that belief in God is a bad thing. Many agree that it makes the world a better place, but they still believe it isn't factual. Would you also say that those who believe Santa Claus doesn't exist are "anti-Santa"?
Theism = belief that God(s) do exist.
Anti-Theism = belief that God(s) do NOT exist.
So not only do you redefine atheism, you also redefine anti-theism? Go to Google and type in "define: antitheism", and see if any of the hits you get define it as "belief that God(s) do not exist".
Wikipedia defines it as "active opposition to theism".
Skeptic's Dictionary defines it as "active and vocal opposition to belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity".
Urban Dictionary defines it as "A person who holds the view that organized religion when considered throughout the centuries has been a destructive force in society".
Rationalwiki defines it as "outspoken opposition to theism and religion".
This is essentially what antitheism has meant for about two centuries now (the term dates to 1833, maybe earlier), yet you want to redefine it to mean "belief that God(s) do not exist", when we already have a term for that, which is "hard atheism"? Why not just stick with what's working, rather than cause all of this confusion by redefining words and mixing groups together into a single definition, even if the two groups believe in different things?
So the radicals out there are in fact against theism, they are precisely against God belief and oppose it very aggressively as such, hence the term "strong" or "hard."
So you're declaring that all of those who believe no God(s) exist are "against God belief" and "oppose it very aggressively"? All of them? Because I'll bet you I can find at least a dozen "hard atheists" who do not aggressively oppose belief in God.
The passive folk you speak of are not "strong" atheist's, by definition, but rather weak atheists which is really what basic atheism is. You have confused yourself to no end and trying to get you back down to earth seems near impossible at the moment.
What the heck are you talking about? In my original response, I clarified that many atheists were "soft atheists" who merely lack a belief in God. I don't know what you think I've confused myself about. What would be confusing is to redefine "hard atheism" as "antitheism", and then having to either redefine "antitheism", or declare that all of those who believe no Gods exist must also be aggressively opposed to religion, whether they are or not. It seems to me that referring to those who "lack belief in God" as "soft atheists", and those who "believe in a lack of Gods" as "hard atheists", and those who oppose belief in God as "anti-theists" makes everything very clear. Changing the definition of the second group to merge it with the third group sounds like it would cause great confusion for no good reason.