FSM

there's a discussion on andrew sullivans blog about atheism so naturally i will chime in.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/spaghetti-monst.html

thats the most recent post and the reader makes the following points

"They are treating it as an intellectual puzzle rather than what it actually is for every last of us: a lived commitment. "

"Atheists should be forced to articulate their positive position (say, secular humanism) as price of admission to the conversation. So when your reader wants to "put the burden of proof on the one making a specific, positive claim," I simply point out that living your life is a specific, positive claim, and thus everyone has to bear the burden of proof equally."

fine points, if the conversation is "what is the meaning of life", which i think this particular reader would say has a lot to do with god.

but if the question is "is there a god?", then how people live their lives doesnt play any part in that conversation, since, if you posit that god exists, you must posit that he would exist even if there were no people (unless you have some really weird concept of "god"). but we (atheists) certainly all allowed to go on the attack on that question.

so in short, that reader is wrong (or rather is discussing a different question).