Atheism is a non-stance.

Welcome people of DDO! In this debate I will defend the view that atheism is an active stance. The difference between stance and non-stance seems to be analogous to the difference between belief and lack of belief, hence I am going to treat it as such.My opponent starts out by attempting to affirm the resolution with the following."the belief that the proposition 'There is a God' is False'."However this does not affirm the resolution (atheism is a non-stance) in any way. Let me demonstrate why.If I say 'rabbits exist' then this translates into Ex(Rx) => There exists an x, such that x is a rabbit. The negation of the proposition 'rabbits exist' translates into ~Ex(Rx) => It is not the case that there exists an x, such that x is a rabbit.The same applies to the existence of God:'God exists' is true => Ex(Gx) => There exists an x, such that x is a God.'God does not exist' is true or 'God exists' is false => ~Ex(Gx) => It is not the case that there exists an x, such that x is a God.To say, as my opponent does, that 'There is a God' is False' is equivalent to say 'God does not exist'. Hence Pro's opening statement does not affirm the resolution at all.But let me focus a little more on the resolution or more precisely let me focus on what it means to have a stance.Stance: A position or point of view | general emotional or intellectual attitude (1)If atheism would be a non-stance, then an atheist would be, per definition, someone without an attitude towards the existence of God. But this is blatantly false and ridiculous. Neither stones nor newborns nor my table have an attitude towards the existence of God. Claiming all these things are atheists is absurd.Moreover I and most if not all other atheists do have a specific attitude towards the existence of God. No atheist and especially not the new atheists are in a neutral state of mind when dealing with theistic questions.Sure many new atheists claim to simply to lack a belief in God or as Pro puts it, have no stance, but this diametrically opposed to their expressed opinions.Let's recap. We have seen a stance to be a doxastic attitude. Many claim it is impossible to "prove a negative" and that therefore no conclusive argument against the existence of God can be made. God then is like a teapot orbiting the sun.In this case I suggest a kind of Russellian agnosticism: "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."(2)(Own emphasis on the highlighted part, because Russell basically negates the resolution.)It is important to distinguish the views. If one does not think he is able to provide a conclusive argument, then he is not an atheist, he is an agnostic. We can of course attempt to redefine terms, but there is no point in redefining atheism in a way that simply replaces another already existing term.Especially since not only Russell, but also the rest of professional philosophers agree with me:"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God"(3)Sources(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) Bertrand Russell 1947, Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?(3) http://plato.stanford.edu...