(August 15, 2014 at 11:34 am)Ben Davis Wrote:(August 15, 2014 at 11:31 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Anti-theism has the following burden of proof to meet:Like it's been said earlier, that depends on the definition of anti-theism that you're using. If the definition is 'the positive claim of the non-existence of a theistic proposition' (e.g. God doesn't exist) then there's a burden of proof other than those you've stated.
1) To demonstrate that superstitious beliefs are, all things considered, harmful to human progress and modern society.
2) Refute any purported inherent connection between superstition and the good done in the name thereof.
Anti-theism is not required to dispel any particular notion of God.
That's not anti-theism... That's Gnostic/Strong atheism, the belief no gods exist. Anti-theism is the opposition to belief/god concept and not the assertion that god can't exist. I'm mostly an agnostic atheist and I'm an anti-theist.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you