What is Reddit's opinion of J.G. Fichte and the Atheism Dispute (1798–1800)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

>Both Edwards and Thiselton define atheism as a positive denial, they just differentiate between narrow and broad atheism based on the gods being denied.

exactly. that's the point . however let's move on form this and return to it at the end. 1

> I've never once seen a Hindu or a Buddhist referred to as an atheist for denying the Abrahamic god's existence.

your personal opinion doesn't worth anything without evidence. its irrational to extend your personal experiences limited as they are to history and every individual as a whole. I think you have a gr8 point here. remember the <strong>atheism dispute</strong> and its influence. also recall that atheism was subjected to a great deal of change after agnosticism and Communism , before that, atheist was mostly considered an insult ( no one would imagine calling himself an atheist). looking at the works of D'holbach and <strong>Russel</strong> we can see the change . the atheist is not the same as the 18^th century atheist and of course the same with god. 2

>but 'd point out that it's still a positive conscious attitude, just a vaguely defined one. Rejection can take many forms...

nice. you're sharp to see the "vaguely defined one". and yeah, rejection can take many forms so lets keep this. 3

> ...but it's always a conscious attitude that involves the belief that a proposition cannot be justifiably believed.

here's the problem ,again lets keep it 4 you said it takes many forms and yet you say it is positive claim in all forms !

> ...What I'm saying is that they're a very small coterie and not at all well-represented in academia, scholarship, or even in general discourse.

I don't care about that , I care about evidence. applying the same standard by this view we should all be theists because most of the philosophers of religion are theists or we should be Moral realist because most philosophers are moral relist . this isn't rational. this doesn't prove the moral skeptic or Moral noncognitivists wrong. lets not keep this.

> ...as he's completely getting the etymology of atheism wrong. "atheism" was never intended to mean "not theistic" in history.

that is the cheapest and the most obviously wrong claim I've ever read. then do it yourself . lets keep this for the end. 5

> while you have shown that there are some idiosyncratic definitions of atheism out there

gr8 , lets keep this. 6
.

---

.

OK , lets do this , I mean how many times do you get this opportunity to look back where you were exactly 9 years ago.

[1&4] it seems that for some reason you're claiming that atheism needs "the belief that a proposition cannot be justifiably believed." and that "it's always a conscious attitude". all I need to do then, is to create a set of conditions that makes "always" wrong.

there's a box in front of you and me. none of us can open it. we don't know what's in it. all we know is that on the box it says holy-books. you tell me that they are Satanist Bibles. now I didn't claim anything. all I need to keep my default position is that ,the evidence and reasons offered by you must fail as a convincing case that ,they are all Satanist Bibles. - this doesn't mean that I'm saying there are no holy books in the box.
- this doesn't mean that I need to believe ,that this can't be believed justifiably. maybe it could be , in future.
- I don't need a conscious attitude there and therefore you're wrong
. applying the same standard then.

[ 2,3&6] if you were to claim that whats inside the box is out of time and changeless (or saying that specifically what's written on it) then of course your claim becomes much more "idiosyncratic","vaguely defined one" and "anachronistic" . my default position is a reaction to your claim , I'm not holding a position. so If you're position is vaguely defined then of course my default position would be vaguely defined too. that's why. the position of the atheist is as good as the god-claim offered and proposed.atheism is a bunch of responses to different claims that may differ from one box to the other. we may not look at all of them the same as the other.
[5] - here do it by yourself. I got used to this because of my anarchism (stateless government , there's no necessity to be against state , the offered case -famously said by Chomsky- for the state should fail to substantiate itself so that I can be justified in holding my default position.)

Root	Meaning in English	Origin language	Etymology (root origin)	English examples
ab-, a-, abs-, au	away from	Latin	ab	abnormal, abrasion, absent, abstain, abstraction, auference, aversion

the same with anarchism

• atheism can be a result of a positive worldview too , like say someone is a materialist, and he/she comes to this conclusion by the positive claim (nothing independent or not reducible to matter and energy) in their views but generally there is no such necessity. in this sense (strong) then I would be the one claiming a positive and your case being failed is not enough alone for me to be correct and I need to add reasons and evidence against yours.
  BYW : English; not my first language.