Atheism is the default status?

[mulimulix]

Hey christianforums,

There is a question I have seen asked by many atheists but, I believe, incorrectly answered by Christians. I came across this in my last post as well as many other Christians. The question is along the lines of:

"Why should I believe in a god?"

And the answer commonly given is:

"The same reason you do not believe in god; proof pointing you to that direction."

I strongly disagree with this answer because is atheism not the default belief (for lack of a better word. I realise it is not a belief but lack thereof). One does not need proof to be an atheist or agnostic, one just needs a lack of proof from the other side.

For example, in the court of law, if the jury cannot find enough evidence to charge someone guilty, he is not called 'innocent' he is called 'not guilty.' The difference is that innocent would assert that the person has done nothing wrong whereas not guilty asserts the defendant may have done it, but with the evidence currently available, we cannot deem that he committed the crime.

Same goes for religion. If one does not see enough evidence for believing in god, he does not charge god 'innocent' he charges god 'not guilty' as there is simply not enough evidence at the point in time.

I posted this to see what people have to say to this as well as the fact that many Christians were getting on my nerves for claiming you need evidence to be an atheist. Do you agree? Why/why not?

 

[drich0150]

"Why should I believe in a god?"

I hate to disappoint, but you shouldn't unless you seek earnestly an eternal relationship with Him.

I posted this to see what people have to say to this as well as the fact that many Christians were getting on my nerves for claiming you need evidence to be an atheist. Do you agree? Why/why not?

You don't need evidence to be an atheist, all you need is Faith in what you believe.

 

[mulimulix]

You don't need evidence to be an atheist, all you need is Faith in what you believe.

Do you really need faith to be an atheist? Technically, agnostics are atheists because they have a lack of belief in a god, but do they have faith?

 

[drich0150]

Do you really need faith to be an atheist? Technically, agnostics are atheists because they have a lack of belief in a god, but do they have faith?

They have faith that what they believe is truth, do they not?

They like atheists, take the same faith that could give to God, and place it with their educations, their experiences, or simply put they have faith in themselves and what they believe. No evidence is needed, but Faith no matter what you decide for yourself, is always required. (Even faith in your "indisputable evidence" is still faith.)

This is also why I believe one's final judgment can potentially be so damning.

 

[aiki]

Hey christianforums,

There is a question I have seen asked by many atheists but, I believe, incorrectly answered by Christians. I came across this in my last post as well as many other Christians. The question is along the lines of:

"Why should I believe in a god?"

And the answer commonly given is:

"The same reason you do not believe in god; proof pointing you to that direction."

I strongly disagree with this answer because is atheism not the default belief (for lack of a better word. I realise it is not a belief but lack thereof). One does not need proof to be an atheist or agnostic, one just needs a lack of proof from the other side.

"Lack of proof"? By whose standard? Obviously, an atheist has a vested interest in finding anything a Christian may put forward as evidence for God as insufficient. I think you should see the following video clip:

Stand to Reason Blog: Atheists' Non-belief (Video)

Peace.

 

[Hakan101]

Hey christianforums,

There is a question I have seen asked by many atheists but, I believe, incorrectly answered by Christians. I came across this in my last post as well as many other Christians. The question is along the lines of:

"Why should I believe in a god?"

And the answer commonly given is:

"The same reason you do not believe in god; proof pointing you to that direction."

I strongly disagree with this answer because is atheism not the default belief (for lack of a better word. I realise it is not a belief but lack thereof). One does not need proof to be an atheist or agnostic, one just needs a lack of proof from the other side.

For example, in the court of law, if the jury cannot find enough evidence to charge someone guilty, he is not called 'innocent' he is called 'not guilty.' The difference is that innocent would assert that the person has done nothing wrong whereas not guilty asserts the defendant may have done it, but with the evidence currently available, we cannot deem that he committed the crime.

Same goes for religion. If one does not see enough evidence for believing in god, he does not charge god 'innocent' he charges god 'not guilty' as there is simply not enough evidence at the point in time.

I posted this to see what people have to say to this as well as the fact that many Christians were getting on my nerves for claiming you need evidence to be an atheist. Do you agree? Why/why not?

Well what you're callings "Atheism" sounds more like "Agnosticism" to me. Agnostics don't believe in God, while *Atheists believe there is no God*. Atheism is the polar opposite of religion; Christians believe in God despite lack of evidence, while Atheists believe there is no God despite lack of evidence. Agnostics, however, recognize that there is no evidence and therefore don't believe and don't disbelieve. So really, the only person who *needs* evidence to make a decision is the Agnostic; Atheists and Christians have already put faith in their own decisions.

 

[Hakan101]

"Lack of proof"? By whose standard? Obviously, an atheist has a vested interest in finding anything a Christian may put forward as evidence for God as insufficient. I think you should see the following video clip:

Stand to Reason Blog: Atheists' Non-belief (Video)

Peace.

I watched that video, it changes my perspective on Agnostics. The guy in the clip makes a very good point: if you have knowledge of a topic, you will have an opinion on that topic. So I guess you can have non-belief ONLY if you have no knowledge of God, otherwise if you know about God you're either going to be a Christian and believe in him or you'll be an Atheist and believe he's not real. It doesn't matter if you have a lack of proof, you're still going to form an opinion on it regardless. You just don't know if your opinion's true; in other words, you are going to have *faith* in your belief.

 

[ebia]

Hey christianforums,

There is a question I have seen asked by many atheists but, I believe, incorrectly answered by Christians. I came across this in my last post as well as many other Christians. The question is along the lines of:

"Why should I believe in a god?"

And the answer commonly given is:

"The same reason you do not believe in god; proof pointing you to that direction."

I strongly disagree with this answer because is atheism not the default belief (for lack of a better word. I realise it is not a belief but lack thereof).

No. In practice Atheism involves a worldview and a set of assumptions as much as any other position. There is no neutral ground on which to stand while assessing all the positions.

For example, in the court of law, if the jury cannot find enough evidence to charge someone guilty, he is not called 'innocent' he is called 'not guilty.' The difference is that innocent would assert that the person has done nothing wrong whereas not guilty asserts the defendant may have done it, but with the evidence currently available, we cannot deem that he committed the crime.

That's a particular cultural choice of how we run court's in most of the English speaking world. It's not inherent (a lot of the world does not work that way) and it is still making an assumption. Wrapped up with atheism is a whole lot of enlightenment assumptions that are so bound up with modern Western culture you don't even notice they are there; but they are just as much unproven assumptions as with any other worldview.

Same goes for religion. If one does not see enough evidence for believing in god, he does not charge god 'innocent' he charges god 'not guilty' as there is simply not enough evidence at the point in time.

You can't simply address the question "is there a god" outside of the worldview in which you are asking the question. The problem with the whole way you are coming at this is that you are trying to divorce that question from the rest of the worldview in which it necessarly is framed and evaluated.

I posted this to see what people have to say to this as well as the fact that many Christians were getting on my nerves for claiming you need evidence to be an atheist. Do you agree? Why/why not?

I wouldn't put it that way. Atheism is part of the whole post-enlightment modern Western worldview. Worldviews aren't proved - they are just what we take for granted. They can be undermined (usually by story), but they aren't the result of so-called objective analysis and they aren't neutral.

 

[ebia]

Do you really need faith to be an atheist? Technically, agnostics are atheists because they have a lack of belief in a god, but do they have faith?

They have faith in the whole set of cultural assumptions in which their position on this question exists.

 

[mulimulix]

"Lack of proof"? By whose standard? Obviously, an atheist has a vested interest in finding anything a Christian may put forward as evidence for God as insufficient. I think you should see the following video clip:

Stand to Reason Blog: Atheists' Non-belief (Video)

Peace.

I watched the video, i disagree with some things:

He says the reason you do not have to give proof against the fairy living under my house is because there is no reason to believe it is there. How about Loch Ness Monster? For hundreds of years, people have told storied of seeing a huge dinosaur like creature in Loch Ness, yet if you were to tell me you don't believe in it, would I be allowed to ask "What proof do you have to say it doesn't exist?"

This is the same situation but avoiding his explanation of why you do not have to have proof for something absurd, but isn't this basically the same situation?

And on the topic of Atheism being a belief. The example he gives with the English rugby. Nothing is stopping him from finding stuff about English rugby, while still remaining neutral. I follow the rugby league in Australia but do not follow a specific team and I know more than the average rugby league follower. I have a disbelief in rugby league teams and who to go for, yet I could easily write a book on which teams are more likable than others. This is the same situation:

I'm an atheist, I happen to know quite a bit about Christianity, I could write a book on it.

Im an rugby league fan (unsupportive of a team), I know stuff about the teams, I could write a book about which teams are good/bad.

 

[aiki]

I watched the video, i disagree with some things:

He says the reason you do not have to give proof against the fairy living under my house is because there is no reason to believe it is there. How about Loch Ness Monster? For hundreds of years, people have told storied of seeing a huge dinosaur like creature in Loch Ness, yet if you were to tell me you don't believe in it, would I be allowed to ask "What proof do you have to say it doesn't exist?"

Greg Koukl remarks on the fairy-under-the-house thing because it is sometimes that to which a Christian's faith in God is compared. As Greg explained, however, the comparison doesn't wash. While there can be no reasonable arguments offered in favor of a fairy living under a person's house, there are quite a few very strong, very well-reasoned arguments in favor of God's existence.

To answer your question above, though, yes, you would be allowed to ask for proof that the Loch Ness doesn't exist. Why not?

And on the topic of Atheism being a belief. The example he gives with the English rugby. Nothing is stopping him from finding stuff about English rugby, while still remaining neutral. I follow the rugby league in Australia but do not follow a specific team and I know more than the average rugby league follower. I have a disbelief in rugby league teams and who to go for, yet I could easily write a book on which teams are more likable than others. This is the same situation:

Yeah, um, I don't think you understood what Greg was trying to get across in his example of the rugby team. His point was that if you know nothing about a certain topic (in this case English rugby) you cannot have a belief about it one way or another. This is what a non-belief amounts to: nothing. If an atheist says, "I have a non-belief in God," he is not saying, "I believe God does not exist," he is saying he has no idea whatsoever about God and thus has nothing to offer in a discussion about Him. Let me put this another way: If I say, "I believe Bob is in the next room," and you say, "I have a non-belief in Bob," you aren't saying Bob isn't in the next room, you're saying you have no opinion or thought one way or another about Bob. If you said, however, "I don't believe Bob even exists," in doing so you would have to acknowledge at least the concept of Bob, which acknowledgement, negative though it is, still constitutes a belief about Bob.

I'm an atheist, I happen to know quite a bit about Christianity, I could write a book on it.

Could you do so if you had a non-belief in Christianity? If you had no view of Christianity whatsoever - a non-belief - what would you write about? All you could do is transmit information about Christianity. The moment you express a personal point of view on the matter of Christianity, you cease to have a non-belief about it.

Im an rugby league fan (unsupportive of a team), I know stuff about the teams, I could write a book about which teams are good/bad.

And then you'd be expressing a belief about those teams, not a non-belief.

Peace.

 

[mulimulix]

To answer your question above, though, yes, you would be allowed to ask for proof that the Loch Ness doesn't exist. Why not?

So you are telling me that it would be perfectly normal for me to ask someone (else) who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster "Can you give me proof he doesn't exist?" This is a redundant question because they can't answer that! Then when they say "No" are they then supposed to believe in it because they don't have proof against it?

It works with any example. I just played a game of basketball. Can you give me proof that I didn't? Obviously not. Thus, you have to believe that I played basketball! It doesn't work like that.

Whether or not there is reason to believe in something is irrelevant.

Yeah, um, I don't think you understood what Greg was trying to get across in his example of the rugby team. His point was that if you know nothing about a certain topic (in this case English rugby) you cannot have a belief about it one way or another. This is what a non-belief amounts to: nothing. If an atheist says, "I have a non-belief in God," he is not saying, "I believe God does not exist," he is saying he has no idea whatsoever about God and thus has nothing to offer in a discussion about Him. Let me put this another way: If I say, "I believe Bob is in the next room," and you say, "I have a non-belief in Bob," you aren't saying Bob isn't in the next room, you're saying you have no opinion or thought one way or another about Bob. If you said, however, "I don't believe Bob even exists," in doing so you would have to acknowledge at least the concept of Bob, which acknowledgement, negative though it is, still constitutes a belief about Bob.

This example is also irrelevant. This only applies to people who know nothing on the topic, which is almost no one! Who doesn't know anything about god and/or Christianity? Those are the only people that this topic applies to.

 

[aiki]

So you are telling me that it would be perfectly normal for me to ask someone (else) who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster "Can you give me proof he doesn't exist?"

I didn't say anything about whether or not asking the question was "normal"... If you had good reason to think the Loch Ness monster did exist, asking such a question would be quite reasonable.

This is a redundant question because they can't answer that!

This makes the question unanswerable, not redundant.

Then when they say "No" are they then supposed to believe in it because they don't have proof against it?

At the very least, those who cannot prove 'Nessie doesn't exist, cannot say unequivocally that it is the case that she doesn't. The most that they can do if they refuse to believe the Loch Ness Monster exists is take an agnostic position on the matter.

It works with any example. I just played a game of basketball. Can you give me proof that I didn't? Obviously not. Thus, you have to believe that I played basketball! It doesn't work like that.

Not at all. I can quite reasonably adopt an "I don't know" position until you give me further evidence that you did, in fact, just play some basketball.

Christians have gone to great lengths to defend their faith in God and to offer powerful arguments in favor of His existence. They don't simply do as you have done above and assert something with no more evidence than their word.

This example is also irrelevant. This only applies to people who know nothing on the topic, which is almost no one! Who doesn't know anything about god and/or Christianity? Those are the only people that this topic applies to.

Yeah...Well, I think you're completely missing the point of the video clip I offered. I've tried to clarify and you still don't get it. Maybe you should check it out again and give more time to considering what he's saying.

Peace.

 

[lucaspa]

I strongly disagree with this answer because is atheism not the default belief (for lack of a better word. I realise it is not a belief but lack thereof).

Absolutely not. First, atheism is not a lack of belief. That's self-deception on your part.

You have a question: Does deity exist? There are 3 possible answers:

1. I believe deity exists.
2. I believe deity does not exist. (atheism).
3. I do not know whether deity exists or not. (agnosticism).

Agnosticism is the "default" position. BTW, we are not talking "proof", but rather "evidence"

One does not need proof to be an atheist or agnostic, one just needs a lack of proof from the other side.

For atheists, that is the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

For example, in the court of law,

Bad example. Courts are set up to have bias. Your example comes from the US courts. If you were to use French courts in the 1800s, the burden would be the opposite: the person was presumed guilty unless he could prove that he was innocent!

When we are looking for truth, there is no "default" position except "I do not know". Once you come down on one side or the other, you are no longer in a "default" position.

Atheists love to shift the burden of proof. Why? Because atheism is built on denying evidence. It's a very weak position intellectually.

I posted this to see what people have to say to this as well as the fact that many Christians were getting on my nerves for claiming you need evidence to be an atheist. Do you agree? Why/why not?

Yes. If atheism is to have any sort of respectability, it must be based on evidence. There is a way to do that. Base atheism on your personal experience (evidence) of deity. Since you have no experience of deity, then your conclusion is that deity does not exist. Of course, theists have personal experience that deity exists. Everyone places their personal experience above that of others. So you place your personal experience above that of theists and believe accordingly.

The price of this, of course, is that atheism and theism are on the same epistemological level. Atheists like to fool themselves that atheism is "fact", and they don't like this.

 

[Chesterton]

Hey christianforums,

There is a question I have seen asked by many atheists but, I believe, incorrectly answered by Christians. I came across this in my last post as well as many other Christians. The question is along the lines of:

"Why should I believe in a god?"

And the answer commonly given is:

"The same reason you do not believe in god; proof pointing you to that direction."

I strongly disagree with this answer because is atheism not the default belief (for lack of a better word. I realise it is not a belief but lack thereof). One does not need proof to be an atheist or agnostic, one just needs a lack of proof from the other side.

I somewhat agree with C.S. Lewis when he said that pantheism is the default position; the "permanent natural bent of the human mind". I see evidence for that in almost all atheists. They'll speak of the elegance and mystery of the universe as if they know something must be behind it, but they just don't care to follow that line of thought. Just like biologists will talk of single-celled life having a "will to live", seemingly without realizing that only a mind can have a will.

For example, in the court of law, if the jury cannot find enough evidence to charge someone guilty, he is not called 'innocent' he is called 'not guilty.' The difference is that innocent would assert that the person has done nothing wrong whereas not guilty asserts the defendant may have done it, but with the evidence currently available, we cannot deem that he committed the crime.

Same goes for religion. If one does not see enough evidence for believing in god, he does not charge god 'innocent' he charges god 'not guilty' as there is simply not enough evidence at the point in time.

What lucaspa said above is correct. But even if I go with your description of the burden of proof, the fact remains that something caused the universe to be. The choice is between God and "something else" (whatever it is). So why should I accept that believing in the "something else" is the default position?

I posted this to see what people have to say to this as well as the fact that many Christians were getting on my nerves for claiming you need evidence to be an atheist. Do you agree? Why/why not?

I agree you don't evidence to be an atheist. Just a lot of faith.

 

[lucaspa]

I watched the video, i disagree with some things:

He says the reason you do not have to give proof against the fairy living under my house is because there is no reason to believe it is there. How about Loch Ness Monster? For hundreds of years, people have told storied of seeing a huge dinosaur like creature in Loch Ness, yet if you were to tell me you don't believe in it, would I be allowed to ask "What proof do you have to say it doesn't exist?"

Yes. And that evidence would be the sonar searches of the entire Loch: no Lessie. If you have searched the entire search space (where the entity can be) and not located it, then that becomes falsification of the entity.

If you can dismiss entities because "there is no proof", then you destroy science. Why? Because nearly every hypothesis is put out there without evidence. None. The reason we put the hypothesis out there is so we can test it, with the object of showing the hypothesis to be false. If we must dismiss -- "not believe" -- things without evidence, then we would immediately dismiss all those hypotheses and science would come to a screeching halt.

And on the topic of Atheism being a belief.

Atheism must make positive statements that have no evidence. The prime one is that "natural" processes happen without God. There is absolutely no evidence supporting that. None whatsoever. What's more, because of limitations of science we can't get the evidence. But atheists must take that on faith or they cannot remain atheists.

 

[Orraez]

Hey christianforums,

There is a question I have seen asked by many atheists but, I believe, incorrectly answered by Christians. I came across this in my last post as well as many other Christians. The question is along the lines of:

"Why should I believe in a god?"

And the answer commonly given is:

"The same reason you do not believe in god; proof pointing you to that direction."

I strongly disagree with this answer because is atheism not the default belief (for lack of a better word. I realise it is not a belief but lack thereof). One does not need proof to be an atheist or agnostic, one just needs a lack of proof from the other side........

As an atheist, I just wanted to point out that I don't agree with the definition of atheism here or rather I believe it is limited.

1. Some atheists do assert that God or gods definitely do not exist so it is not always just a lack of belief in God/gods. These are known as strong atheists whilst the latter (lack of belief) are known as weak atheists.

2. The idea of atheism being the default position is based on the idea that a baby has no idea of the existence of God/gods or for that matter that it has a grandmother, family or any other such concept. This attempts to show that atheism is somehow natural and theism invented.

But there is a difference between someone, such as myself , who is aware of the concept of the existence of God/gods and does not believe and that of a person who has no concept of Gods or gods. But as I have shown by showing other concepts the new born baby is blithely oblivious of - the new born baby is A- any concept not just an atheist. It certainly is not an atheist in that it rejects the notion of theism!

3. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for a Christian to believe in God if he feels the evidence points in that direction. If you are brought up in a country with a strong Christian or other theistic tradition then one is usually aware of theism and one has reasons for rejecting it. One is not in the default position of a baby. It , therefore, does not seem unreasonable for a Christian to ask why one rejects what they consider to be evidence/proof for the existence of God. After all ones rejection of the concept of God is based on a rejection of the evidence supplied..

4. A strong atheist does have to provide proof for his positive assertion. I doubt he can do it in a scientific sense or an absolute sense. The best he can do is point to the improbability and point to weaknesses in the Christian argument.

 

[Greg1234]

Christians were getting on my nerves for claiming you need evidence to be an atheist. Do you agree? Why/why not?

There are a lot of illusions being circulated. Between God the Father and man there is a plethora of information and occurrences which are observed which we have knowledge of, and for which a beief system is established.

To say that atheists have no faith negates questioning. For example, atheists, have come from near and far proclaiming that the bible was written by ignorant goat herders. The illusion that "they have no faith" automatically proves them correct. To say that this is a faith based statement is then nullified.

Dawkins wrote a book "The God Delusion". He has no credentials in Theology or Philosophy. He makes a series of claims which have in fact been criticized by those who hold the proper credentials, but its correct. Why? Because Atheists have no faith. But on the other side of the coin, if an ID scientist were supposed to write a book criticizing Darwinism, without even reading the book, it is made or broken entirely on the background of the author. Why? Because all he has is faith.

On the origin of the concept of God and spirituality. Atheists are free to say that ancient man was too stupid to think so they "invented" God. This has to fit with the Darwinian paradigm that man held an entirely linear path in cultural evolution. Hence current man is the most advanced. This is automatically rendered correct. Because atheists have no faith. But the idea that you have no faith, is actually a faith based statement.

The "lack of" is also an illusion. The use of this word is supposed to relate to belief as a whole, but its only the lack of a particular belief. Theism can also use the "lack of". For example theism is the lack of belief that there is no God. The lack of belief that only one dimension of reality exists. The lack of belief that the infinite was derived from "ignorant" finite minds. A child is in fact born with all these "lack ofs". You cannot claim default status.

Another illusion is the "a" in atheism. We also have an "a". That is the "a" in "amaterialism". With both sides dealing with origin and the existence of reality in its entirety, both use the observable to pass a judgment. There are numerous cases Ive read by scientists who are left dumbfounded. They ask why isnt this accepted by the scientific community. They have produced verifiable repeatable results confirmed independently only to be rejected because they imply that there is more than one dimension of existence.

There is the conviction, that any indication of a supernatural state will be a step in the wrong direction. Why, because of the belief that men who invented God were stupid. Why? Because of the belief that men came from a material state. Why, because of the belief that only the material exists. Its all integrated. And the surfaced portion of their claims is part of a bigger picture. But you cant say anything as they are completely correct (Atheism is a lack of faith).

 

[Greg1234]

2. The idea of atheism being the default position is based on the idea that a baby has no idea of the existence of God/gods or for that matter

And you know this how? Thats a belief. We do in fact have toddlers who, when they begin to speak, exhibit theism. Strong theism. This also fits the theory that the material plane slowly subjugates the infinite mind, which is a dimension of mind independent of the material. Analogically, the same way you forget a dream born in the subconscious as the conscious begins to thrive.

 

[Orraez]

And you know this how? Thats a belief. We do in fact have toddlers who, when they begin to speak, exhibit theism. Strong theism. This also fits the theory that the material plane slowly subjugates the infinite mind, which is a dimension of mind independent of the material. Analogically, the same way you forget a dream born in the subconscious as the conscious begins to thrive.

Yes, it is a belief based on current ideas about human development. A toddler isn't a baby but I would be interested in your sources and what you mean by "exhibiting theism".

However, I was criticizing another atheist for saying that atheism was lack of belief. Some atheists positively assert that there is definately no God /gods. Such a position constitutes a belief. I also was arguing against the notion of the default position as an acceptable definition of atheism and pointed out that the idea that a baby has no concept of theism is not the same as having a concept of theism and rejecting it.

However, if a baby is capable of a rudimentary form of theism , it does raise the interesting question whether some babies are born with a disposition to theism and some to atheism. I have met one or two people who dismissed the notion of God as early as 5 years of age. of course if babies are born with a theistic or atheistic disposition doesn't constitute proof or disproof of the existence of God but still it is an interesting idea. I believe there has been some research to show that some people are more disposed to religious experiences than others and that this can be artificially induced.