I Find It Offensive; How About You

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Statler, since we have our split thread now I'm going to repeat a statement that was moved, for the benefit of lurkers here. YOU have defined atheism as a positive belief in the non-existence of gods because it is a convenient way for you to shift the burden of proof upon those who do not agree with you.

It is a word with greek roots where "a" means "without" or "not"; and where "theos" means god. There is in fact a greek word for belief, "pisteuo" and I would like to kindly point out that it does not appear anywhere within the confines of the word "atheist". It has already been defined, and is not open to a re-translation for the purposes of supporting your argument.

---

I was not shifting the burden of proof, I was pointing out that it lies on both sides equally. I find it interesting that you do not even want that, I think it is probably because you know that atheism is completely indefensible when it is asked to do so.

Secondly, you act as if I am just making up a new definition of atheism. I am doing nothing of the sort; the traditional definition of the term coined in the late 16th century was an affirmation of the non-existence of God. This new "lack of belief" definition didn't come onto the scene until much later, probably once atheists realized that they cannot deal with the burden of proof.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (one of the most widely used sources in philosophy) states....

‘Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’ [Emphasis added]