Atheism is a belief

‘theism' The belief in god(s) ‘a' – Greek meaning without Atheism: Without belief in gods. My opponent commits the fallacy of Begging the Question: attempting to argue that atheists should not define atheism broadly by assuming the truth of the narrow definition which religious theists would prefer. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods, it's not making any claims about the existence of gods, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves. Atheists might assert that some or all gods do not or cannot exist, but that isn't a prerequisite for atheism and it shouldn't be assumed that any particular atheist does so (again my opponent will be an atheist in regards to gods other than those of his/her faith). The idea that this narrow definition is the most appropriate one is, however, precisely the issue being debated. It is not legitimate to argue that something is wrong by assuming that the alternative which you favour is correct. The narrow definition indicates that my opponent probably doesn't have a valid argument to offer and is just grasping at straws in an effort to have some sort of argument. It's true that with the broad definition of atheism, there is little to attack, the burden of proof however, or at least the burden of support if there is nothing to prove, lies with whoever is making the positive claim. In context of atheism and theism, this burden of proof lies primarily or entirely with the theist because this is the person who is claiming that at least one of some sort of being they call a god exists. The minimum, an atheist needs to perform is to examine whatever support is offered for theistic claims and show how and why they might be inadequate. If a theist does or cannot offer any support, there is little more that the atheist can do but ignore them. If there is no rational support for their claims, then they have no interest in engaging in rational discussion on the issues. The justification of atheism, if required, can only proceed from whatever is fundamental and necessary to atheism. Atheism is simply non belief; that means that little or no justification is required. Only after the theist has presented coherent and rational arguments might the atheist need to explain why she does not accept them. At that point, justification of atheism is based upon inadequate justification for theism. Remember the atheist has tools other than religion to explain the natural universe; they do not need a concept of god for everything to be. Therefore, when the claim that a person is an atheist because they, "deny the existence of God," we see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. Firstly, "God" hasn't been defined (which god, which religion), so how an atheist regards it cannot be routinely assumed. You cannot merely assert that whatever you have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that however this god is defined, the atheist must automatically deny it. The idea might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial. It is fair to say then, the entire attempt to deny the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods is an attempt by theists to avoid expounding and defending their own theistic position. Claims that atheists are making their own assertions, allow theistic claims to fade into the background and not be subject to the critical examination, and critique they warrant. Theists can therefore quietly remain theists without having to do any of the work necessary to justify it. Proving the negative: Eight is not equal to seven The ancient Aztecs did not watch Seinfeld The tsetse fly is not native to Antarctica Clearly, it's possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is the nature of the positive statement being refuted. Science progresses by proving negatives. More specifically, it is by constructing possible models (a hypothesis), and then testing them (falsification), that we advance and build on the knowledge that we already have. By doing so, we have proven many negatives along the way. We arrived at the conclusion that oxygen is the necessary gas in burning because we were first able to disprove the existence of phlogiston, which was the reigning scientific position at the time. More exactly, we now say that oxygen is a better explanation of burning than phlogiston, because the first fits all the facts while the second does not. The idea of proving negatives by testing is also part of a basic epistemic principle, Occam's Razor. If you have two models explaining the same data, and one is simpler than the other, then the simpler one is true and the complex one is false. Occam's Razor is not just a preference or a probability. Occam's Razor is essentially the fundamental rational standard that, to assert something you must have objective evidence. If there are two competing models, and one is more complex than another, then the complex ones has additional processes which have no evidence to validate their existence. Logic and science indicate that there must be a basis (either in substance or in thought) for a contention or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. Religion cannot define god. Resolving this must take place before any significant discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions, without any beliefs about God; they have no reason to do so. The onus rests upon the theist. The mention of one's belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists. Additionally, rejecting an assertion does not imply burden to justify it. The evidence needs to be provided by whoever makes the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by stating that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply, that what is true for others might not be true for them. But this is folly, this turns its back on productive thinking, it is solipsism, and states that every person lives in their own reality, and what is true in their life might not be true for others. The statement "you cannot prove a negative" is used here simply as a different way of saying "You can't prove me wrong because I don't even know what I'm talking about. " "If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless" ~ Carl Sagan.