Thanks for the responses guys. Strong vs. weak atheism doesn't quite address the point he was making though. I framed the debate wrong. Here's another post that will hopefully clarify it a little:
Actually, it does, because his "argument" boils down to a "begging the question" fallacy. Observe:
him restating his point broken record style wrote:
The point was regarding whether or not Atheists are making affirmative claims towards the nature of reality.
Sweeping generalizations much? WHICH atheists are making these claims? I certainly don't, but the word "atheist" is perfectly accurate when describing my beliefs. And the guy he is responding to is directly
contradicting his premise-- that atheists are making a positive claim about reality.
See, Punarbhava, this guy is trying to redefine terms to suit his agenda. Why let him do this? Do I get to redefine what a theist or christian is is? No, because that would be asinine especially considering that I am not a theist or christian
. He is not an atheist, and his pig ignorance is no excuse for butchering the term. Strong atheism makes such claims about reality, weak atheism does not. Simple as that. A weak atheist accepts that there MAY
be an entity or set of entities which could be defined as a deity or god-- emphasis on MAY
. Ask yourself why is he redefining the term, and what gives him that right? Why should you accept his definition of atheism? Why does he get to define who you
are? If he's doing this to try and make atheists look no better than theists or to paint them as close minded, he's just a stupid asshole who doesn't know what he's talking about and should be treated as such.
Just to knock down the rest of his garbage:
No one has to prove God exists either.
Does belief in god not effect matters of policy? Does belief in god effect matters of morality? Does belief in god effect matters of history and science? The answer is yes on every account-- hence, theists either have to prove their god exist, or get fucked. We do not have to do their homework for them.
You are not understanding what I am arguing at all. Put aside Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens for a minute.
Do you believe in Shiva? No? Then you can't dismiss the relevance of Dawkin's unicorn analogy.
Every time he handwaves away an argument, hammer him on it. He's trying to paint this as people talking past each other, when they aren't, he's just ignoring the point to suit his agenda.