cursuswalker wrote:The importance of whether a phenomenon is proposed is that the burden of proof lies with someone who does allege one.
Indeed. Isn't it because you can't prove a negative?
With the "burden of proof" in the other camp (theism) it makes sense, since proving negatives is more than difficult! lol Passive atheism becomes a good technical description in this way.
cursuswalker wrote:Passive atheism (simply lacking belief) proposes nothing.
Passive atheism itself, yes, but a strong/active atheist talking about weak/passive atheism could be proposing something (or promoting something). It can be in the best interests of many atheists to promote their own ideas and language, just as it is for theists to promote their language and ideas. The language, though objective and logical, may not have a neutral intention behind it, especially for strong atheists. This quote describes it well...
"If words are symbols or metaphors, then our speaking is never neutral. Whenever we speak, we select
linguistic symbols in order to evoke those particular meanings
that will communicate our view or sense of reality
. This nonneutrality of speech is what in in a broad sense characterizes its rhetorical quality." Andy Fisher
I think it's well established here that "passive atheism" has a good objective basis (burden of proof on positive - god exists, not negative - god doesn't exist, which is convenient for atheists). The objectivity of the term is the not the issue, it's the possible strong atheist rhetoric that could lie behind it.
In the same way that a Christian who does not believe Thor exists proposes nothing with regard to Thor. They simply lack that belief.
Makes sense. But when they use phrases like "one true god", and describing their belief system as monotheism, that's proposing something about Thor, even if they don't know him.
Active atheism is a different matter, as it is more about coming to realise that what you thought was evidence is not.
Yes, or not finding sufficient reason to believe.
Personally I found the lack of evidence of intention in nature convincing, but I don't consider it the prime basis for my atheism. What undermined my own view of theism was more the diversity of theisms in the world. I took them all seriously, giving them all a fair try, until in the end taking them all literally became superfluous. It was interesting but largely unnecessary to live my life.
It's not that I didn't find sufficient evidence (objective) to believe but I just didn't find sufficient reason (subjective) to believe.