Atheisms existence is dependant on theism being wrong, theisms existence is independent of atheism, why?

Because theism posits as positive assertion- "God is."

So, theism is either true or not true within itself.

Atheism, especially as atheist's put it today, in not an assertion in regard to God at all. Today's atheist wants to say it is a "lack of belief, due to lack of proof".

Therefore, atheists have placed themselves in a position where the truth of God's existence is dependent on how (or if) a theist can present arguments or evidence sufficient enough to prove God's existence to them.

Atheists have been attempting to skirt the obligation for supporting their beliefs by positing a lack of evidence that is entirely upon the theist to present. While intellectually lazy, it does provide a degree of cover by shifting the burden of proof to the theist. And of course "proof" short of getting God to appear to the atheist will always be insufficient. It's a "Head's I win, Tails you lose" game.

= = = @Sebastian

<and Jim V: when someone asserts something, or presents a theory it is up to them to prove that said assertion or theory is correct. when you assert that God exist, the only evidence you have is a book...>

Two things to say:

- you prove my point by illustrating that atheists feel they need not support their position.

- there is more evidence than just "the book". Evidence from science that points to a designer and a transcendent and personal First Cause. Evidence from philosophy and reason. Evidence from history. There is more than enough evidence to make Christianity entirely reasonable.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Atheism is no more dependent on theism being wrong than theism is dependent on atheism being wrong. It's true to say that, in order for the premise of "hard" atheism to be true (that no gods exist), the theistic premise (that one or more gods exist) would have to be false, but if that's your argument then it's also true that in order for the theistic premise to be true, the "hard" atheist premise must be false. That's the accurate dichotomy suggested by your argument, but you've apparently avoided recognising the variation you've employed to support your position. And you're also ignoring the fact that "hard" atheism only represents a minority of those who identify as atheist - the majority of self-identified atheists fall into the "soft" camp, which is essentially nothing more than non-acceptance of unsupported theistic claims.

I would accept the argument that the term "atheism" wouldn't exist without "theism", but this only an artifact of the theological dominance over philosophical debate until relatively recently (historically speaking). The actual premise of atheism is dependent only on the fact that theistic claims are entirely unsupported by verifiable evidence, not on the claims being wrong; any claim asserted without supporting evidence will result in the claim not being accepted by some people, entirely regardless of whether or not the claim is actually true. And the non-acceptance of god-claims as a basic position would pertain universally if no god-claims were being made - we wouldn't call it "atheism" without "theism" to contrast with, but the basic position held by everyone in that situation (no god-claims being made) would be functionally identical to that which we currently describe using the term "atheist". Or at least, for those of us who use the term accurately.

Because theism is dependent upon the existence of a god. If there were no atheists in the world, there would still be religion.

Atheism, on the other hand, is defined as a lacking of belief in a god. If there were no belief in gods in the first place (theism) there would be no atheism. So, atheism is dependent because it is defined by what it is not.

Atheism is independent from theism , theisms existence is dependent on theists imagination being right...

atheism exists with or without theism

your statement was incorrect,,,I have corrected it for you

No, atheism existance is initially dependant in someone claiming up the concept of god and posterior belief, before that there was no atheism, as both concepts were Alien

Theism is dependent on atheism. You can't have the concept of God without the concept of no God

atheism and theism are direct opposites. Niether one can be true while the other is true. What you said was false. If theism is true atheism is false. If atheism is true theism is false.

We've been in the babylonian age of worldwide theism with all its wars and chaos and paranoia - atheism is the new age of peace.

Completely false.

I lack belief in any gods. If there were no theists, I'd still lack belief in any gods. My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with theism.

You appear to need a great deal of education, or some lessons in honesty (I can't tell which). Life is short, I suggest you get started.

So, if atheism is right, then theism still exists?

Oh, wait..