Alright, I want a good, clean fight. Simply state your side, your argument/counter-argument/comment and whatnot. I'm not trying to troll this, just wanting a good debate, so let's have one. (Atheist by the way)
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 2:22
Atheism is not believing in (a) theism. it's not rejecting, or trying to disprove any theisms out there it simply just doesn't believe in what a theism believes in. It's a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't have any burden of proof because they don't claim anything. If no one had come up with and idea of a deity we would all be atheistic by default, just as if no one had introduced the concept of deception we would all only be capable of telling the truth. Atheism only arises as an option because theism exists.
Theism is believing in a higher power, be it God, Gods, or nature as a whole as a sentient being (Gaia), that can affect the lives of creatures (humans), inanimate objects (the stars), and environmental occurrences (the weather). Theism makes many claims of how the world works according to either a general set of rules set by said deities or by the will of said deities and is therefore subject to the burden of proof (extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof). Theism generally addresses much criticism of these claims by either citing the will of the deity and purposeful drastic changes of any previous rules (miracles that defy the laws of physics) or by citing observation in a book of theistic dogma written as historical accounts (The Bible). The major claim of a deity itself in any theism is addressed through either citing previous claims and their subsequent evidence (many chalked up to miracles) or faith. the first method being prone to the fallacy of circular logic (God (exists because)> described in theistic scripture (inspired by)> God) the second is based off the method of believing in that which has no evidence as truth.