Atheism is a world view.

My opponent claims that I have been somewhat deceitful in my execution thus far, which forces me to demonstrate first that this is false, and merely a distraction from the subject. My opponent:"I urge voters to take this bait and switch into account. Here are the proper definitions:"Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist."[1]"My opponent (quite amusingly) falsely attributes this quote to Antony Flew and his essay titled "The Presumption of atheism". In reality, my opponent sourced this (mis)quote from wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org... If you wish to consider this beyond my claim, I provide a link below the following quote to the essay in it's entirety in which Flew argues (quite rightly) not that 'positive atheism' is the denial of the possibility of all gods, but that it should be presumed that the standard for all debates regarding the proposition of a god is that one does not exist, to this he attachés the term 'negative atheism'."If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic"http://www.commonsenseatheism.com...Positive atheism then, is not alone the presumption that a god does not exist, as this is already presumed to be the case. Positive atheism, rather, is the active denial of particular gods. Positive, strong, explicit, critical, negative, weak, implicit - these are all terms to describe varying shades of the atheism spectrum, the various stages of denial of a god. None of these arguments explicitly deny the possibility of the existence of a deity per se, instead it is the denial of specific gods and their accompanying weltunshauung. My opponent misunderstands this concept, he demonstrates the fallacy (usually promoted by apologists) that atheism in any sense is the denial of the possibility of all deities. This is not the case, and lends itself openly to a reductio ad absurdum. In support of this I will ask the following; Imagine the world as presented by Antony Flew, where the non-existence of gods was universally presumed. This world has no propositions regarding a god, or in other words, no theisms. How busy is the atheist in this world?! How does the atheist in this world title his books?! Obviously, he does not, it is an absurdity that the atheist be actively atheistic in this case in any sense.We (atheists) in any sense described, do not deny gods, we deny theisms, the proposed gods. We do not accept theisms, and without theism, the term atheism is rather impotent. It is, and can only be, the denial of a proposition. The proposition in this case carries with it a world view, theism is a single point of perspective which often gathers for itself religiosity which thus characterizes all that is interpreted by the theist. Atheism is a single answer to a single claim which can be applied in each case of the proposition.Without the proposition, the negation of such does not exist - and it is on this, that which exists only as a rejection of a proposition, that my opponent claims can be defined as a world view. "Negative atheism, the position of not believing a theistic God exists... Positive atheism: the position of disbelieving a theistic God exists... Clearly, positive atheism is a special case of negative atheism: Someone who is a positive atheist is by necessity a negative atheist, but not conversely." - Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification"What Is A World View, And Is Atheism One?"As if it were necessary, I will clarify For the sake of this debate that I am as positive an atheist as is logically credible. That is, I positively reject all theisms that I have thus far been presented with. In rejecting these theisms, what have I gained? A proposition is an idea. Let's imagine that my idea is that carrots are that by which all morality should be measured. If you reject this proposition, however explicitly, have you gained an alternative proposition? Could the explicit denial of such a proposition constitute a 'world view'? Even if we were to allow that the denial of this claim was in some way a proposition in itself (which it isn't) can we consider this as a 'world view'?My opponent offers us his definition of 'world view'...Pro: "What is a world view? It is simply a view of the world!"...which I would say is definitive only in its exceptional inadequacy. To assist us I have taken the following from the fantastically named Professor Funk of Oregon state University and his consideration of 'world view' http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu...In "The Question of a Weltanschauung" from his New Introductory Lectures in Psycho-Analysis, Sigmund Freud describes Weltanschauung as ... an intellectual construction which solves all the problems of our existence uniformly on the basis of one overriding hypothesis, which, accordingly, leaves no question unanswered and in which everything that interests us finds its fixed place. In Types and Problems of Philosophy, Hunter Mead defines Weltanschauung as [a]n all-inclusive world-view or outlook. A somewhat poetic term to indicate either an articulated system of philosophy or a more or less unconscious attitude toward life and the world ... In his article on the philosopher Wilhelm Dilthy in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, H.P. Rickman writes [t]here is in mankind a persistent tendency to achieve a comprehensive interpretation, a Weltanschauung, or philosophy, in which a picture of reality is combined with a sense of its meaning and value and with principles of action ... The elements of one's worldview, the beliefs about certain aspects of Reality, are one's: epistemology: beliefs about the nature and sources of knowledge; metaphysics: beliefs about the ultimate nature of Reality; cosmology: beliefs about the origins and nature of the universe, life, and especially Man; teleology: beliefs about the meaning and purpose of the universe, its inanimate elements, and its inhabitants; theology: beliefs about the existence and nature of God; anthropology: beliefs about the nature and purpose of Man in general and, oneself in particular; axiology: beliefs about the nature of value, what is good and bad, what is right and wrong. http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu...My opponent must convince us that atheism, in any sense, contains within it that which is described above.Matt Dillahunty of the ACA:"What "code of ethics"? No such code exists. Atheism is a single answer to the general question, "Do you believe in a God/god/gods?" For atheists, the answer is no. For theists the answer is yes. Apart from a position on the concept of God, there are no tenets, dogma, creed or code associated with atheism."http://www.atheist-community.org...