(April 11, 2012 at 8:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(April 11, 2012 at 5:50 pm)Voltair Wrote: The point of this post is that someone cannot validate their own claims simply by attacking everyone else's.You've just rendered the atheist position impotent.
The atheist position is 'I don't believe in a God'. That shouldn't be a matter for debate any more than the theist position of 'I believe in a God'. For 'gnostic' atheists (there is no God) and 'gnostic' theists (there is a God), their positions do appear to be equally impotent, provided no particular God is specified: many specific definitions of God can be eliminated as containing contradictions. The gnostic atheist can often justify claiming a specific version of God is not real. However, agnostic atheists (I don't know for sure that there is no God, but I don't know of any convincing reasons to believe there is) and agnostic theists (I don't know for sure there is a God, and I don't know of any convincing reasons to believe there is, but I do anyway) share a position that gnostic theists cannot support their position, and that claim is, and can only be, validated by critiquing the arguments and evidence presented by theists who assert God is real.
That is, Voltaire is mistaken in the case where the position being validated is that another position isn't adequately supported by evidence and logic.
