A common disagreement between theists and atheists is the proper definition of the term “atheist.” What exactly is an atheist? Theists prefer to define it as “the belief no deity exists” while atheists prefer “lack of belief in any deity.” The reasons for disagreement are obvious and related to a better positioning in the endless internet arguments: Under the former definition, atheism and theism are on equal ground as positive beliefs each with their own burden of proof; in the latter case, theism is a positive belief while atheism is merely a lack of the belief theism affirms and hence has no burden of proof. This argument has been going on for some time with repeating cycles where it suddenly becomes a major issue only to fade away once more. These often include some rather silly offshoot arguments such as whether babies, not yet capable of being theists, are atheists or neither.

This post will begin an examination of the issue and will make the assertion that the position that atheism is merely a neutral position is largely a farce among those in the New Atheist crowd. There are those who would call themselves atheists who are generally neutral but those who most often hide behind this veil are nothing of the sort. When one of these folks are challenged, the most frequent response is a wave of anti-theistic vitriol that often reflects a rather primitive anti-Christian bigotry. My purpose in these posts will be to analyze the top points those using the atheism as a neutral stance will usually raise.

Before examining the specifics of the arguments, it is important to first understand the logical structure of each defintion and the differences between them. If there is to be a real understanding of the issue of the differences between the two views, we need to first understand what those two views say. That will be our next topic ..