Kind of dumb..
Quote:
|
To which I reply: “So you’re now saying that atheism is the lack of belief in God by a creature that has the ability to form beliefs?” This is a different claim entirely—indeed, it’s a positive claim. The atheist is now claiming to believe that the external world really exists (thus she is rejecting metaphysical idealism), that other minds exist, that the human mind can form beliefs, and that our cognitive faculties are broadly reliable.[3] Each of those is a hotly debated area in philosophy.
|
Well yes, that's true of anyone claiming belief or lack of belief in anything at all. Not believing in Santa Clause also is a positive claim by this criteria.
Just because a lack of belief depends on some axioms being true (like the world really existing) doesn't make it a positive claim, it's just a claim within a given set of axioms.
Quote:
|
atheist’s job to give evidence for each of the philosophical positions they are encamped on
|
No it isn't, just like it's not the atheists job to give evidence for gravity every time they tell their friend that if they jump off a bridge they'll fall.
The author then goes on to attempt victory by re-definition of the word, tries to draw false equivalences between the social importance of God and the tooth fairy, and even claims that human rights are based on a Judeo-Christian value, using that in an appeal to consequences. Makes up some imaginary principles (beliefs attract beliefs like gravity) and confuses cause and effect for an atheist's beliefs. And finally misinterprets social behaviour as evidence of belief.
The whole thing is a pretty terrible effort from a PhD. Reads like he started with his belief and worked backwards to find things that support it.