Why Must Atheism Be a Belief In Itself?

[muichimotsu]

I constantly hear this question framed by certain believers in God in regards to atheism, seemingly of the mind that an atheist necessarily makes the assertion that God does not exist rather than reserving judgment in terms of inconclusive and faulty evidence presented.

That does not mean atheists in having a lack of belief in God are fence-sitting, but they are not making a positive claim in regards to God's existence or nonexistence, only that it is not reasonable to conclude existence over nonexistence (because reasonable people would not make a claim on an entity of such a nature that, barring particular definitions, could conceivably exist, even if the notions attributed to it may be mistaken, like revelations, etc)

There is the distinction of strong and weak atheism, but honestly, something in the vein of antitheism or a similarly strong position would fit better with the characterization that an atheist must definitely claim God does not exist rather than assert they are not convinced by the evidence.

The epistemological equivocation that appears to be going on is that someone saying they are not convinced of a claim is the same as them saying the contrary of that claim is true.

If someone tells me they believe jackalopes exist and I don't see reason to believe based on the evidence they present, that is not the same as me claiming jackalopes do not exist, though the nature of a claim in regards to God existing and a jackalope or other more paranormal versus supernatural entities existing is qualitatively different.

And that's not even getting into nontheism as a broader umbrella term that covers theological noncognitivism, apatheism, etc.

But why is atheism framed in such a way as if it's just the general idea rather than utilizing a descriptivist language model where a word can have multiple meanings and usages, but in a given context, we shouldn't constrain it needlessly?

Historically, atheism just meant godless, it didn't mean they were claiming gods didn't exist, they merely didn't believe in them. Also, it was attributed as much to pagans and Christians as much later uses in regards to deism or pantheism even before atheism as a response to theism was something that wouldn't get you lynched or ostracized from society.

And as a sidenote, I also find it bizarre that atheism is constantly noted as some broad worldview, when even theism doesn't necessitate any particular metaphysics, etc, associated with it, they're both speaking about a particular topic: the existence of divine entities, not whether life was created or came about by natural processes, etc.

 

[HTacianas]

I constantly hear this question framed by believers in God in regards to atheism, seemingly of the mind that an atheist necessarily makes the assertion that God does not exist rather than reserving judgment in terms of inconclusive and faulty evidence presented.

That does not mean atheists in having a lack of belief in God are fence-sitting, but they are not making a positive claim in regards to God's existence or nonexistence, only that it is not reasonable to conclude existence over nonexistence (because reasonable people would not make a claim on an entity of such a nature that, barring particular definitions, could conceivably exist, even if the notions attributed to it may be mistaken, like revelations, etc)

There is the distinction of strong and weak atheism, but honestly, something in the vein of antitheism or a similarly strong position would fit better with the characterization that an atheist must definitely claim God does not exist rather than assert they are not convinced by the evidence.

The epistemological equivocation that appears to be going on is that someone saying they are not convinced of a claim is the same as them saying the contrary of that claim is true.

If someone tells me they believe jackalopes exist and I don't see reason to believe based on the evidence they present, that is not the same as me claiming jackalopes do not exist, though the nature of a claim in regards to God existing and a jackalope or other more paranormal versus supernatural entities existing is qualitatively different.

And that's not even getting into nontheism as a broader umbrella term that covers theological noncognitivism, apatheism, etc.

But why is atheism framed in such a way as if it's just the general idea rather than utilizing a descriptivist language model where a word can have multiple meanings and usages, but in a given context, we shouldn't constrain it needlessly?

Historically, atheism just meant godless, it didn't mean they were claiming gods didn't exist, they merely didn't believe in them. Also, it was attributed as much to pagans and Christians as much later uses in regards to deism or pantheism even before atheism as a response to theism was something that wouldn't get you lynched or ostracized from society.

And as a sidenote, I also find it bizarre that atheism is constantly noted as some broad worldview, when even theism doesn't necessitate any particular metaphysics, etc, associated with it, they're both speaking about a particular topic: the existence of divine entities, not whether life was created or came about by natural processes, etc.

To answer your question: The Internet.

With the advent of the internet -chat rooms, discussion forums, etc., atheists invaded theological discussion forums and advanced atheism as a worldview. Granted Christians have certainly invaded atheist discussions to advance their worldview as well. There have been any number of atheist movements online including The Blasphemy Challenge, etc., that have created all those things you mentioned above. Evangelical Atheism is alive and well.

 

[muichimotsu]

To answer your question: The Internet.

With the advent of the internet -chat rooms, discussion forums, etc., atheists invaded theological discussion forums and advanced atheism as a worldview. Granted Christians have certainly invaded atheist discussions to advance their worldview as well. There have been any number of atheist movements online including The Blasphemy Challenge, etc., that have created all those things you mentioned above. Evangelical Atheism is alive and well.

Uh, you actually haven't supported the claim in itself, you're talking in generalizations, and clearly don't understand what a worldview is. Christianity is a worldview, sure, atheism is not, because it isn't answering questions of various spheres of inquiry (cosmology, ethics, epistemology, etc), unlike Christianity, so you'd have to be more specific and in that case, you're not talking about all atheists, because the only thing they share is not believing in divine entities

Me discussing atheism is not advancing an atheist worldview, at best it's my individual worldview, which only muddies the water with multiple meanings of the same word. If anything, you might mean ideology, though that has some major baggage involved if not used in a more academic manner.

But one having their own set of beliefs, etc, is one meaning of worldview, but you're clearly using it as some monolithic organized structure, but atheists coming together does not mean atheism is the ideological point under which they are gathering in the slightest. If anything, you'd need to change the title of your target to secularism, but that's not exclusive to atheists, technically

You can characterize it as such, that doesn't actually mean 1) it's a worldview and 2) it doesn't really answer the initial question, which is why one would assume atheism is making a positive claim rather than not being convinced by the claims of others regarding what they believe in.

What you're referring to is as much anti religion and anti theism, but not atheism, which you've falsely conflated because you refuse to make a nuance in terms of something that you find does not agree with your worldview and is asserting itself, not being silenced by notions that they don't have the right, etc. Me participating in something associated with a group does not mean I am automatically affiliated with them

 

[HTacianas]

Uh, you actually haven't supported the claim in itself, you're talking in generalizations, and clearly don't understand what a worldview is. Christianity is a worldview, sure, atheism is not, because it isn't answering questions of various spheres of inquiry (cosmology, ethics, epistemology, etc), unlike Christianity, so you'd have to be more specific and in that case, you're not talking about all atheists, because the only thing they share is not believing in divine entities

Me discussing atheism is not advancing an atheist worldview, at best it's my individual worldview, which only muddies the water with multiple meanings of the same word. If anything, you might mean ideology, though that has some major baggage involved if not used in a more academic manner.

But one having their own set of beliefs, etc, is one meaning of worldview, but you're clearly using it as some monolithic organized structure, but atheists coming together does not mean atheism is the ideological point under which they are gathering in the slightest. If anything, you'd need to change the title of your target to secularism, but that's not exclusive to atheists, technically

You can characterize it as such, that doesn't actually mean 1) it's a worldview and 2) it doesn't really answer the initial question, which is why one would assume atheism is making a positive claim rather than not being convinced by the claims of others regarding what they believe in.

What you're referring to is as much anti religion and anti theism, but not atheism, which you've falsely conflated because you refuse to make a nuance in terms of something that you find does not agree with your worldview and is asserting itself, not being silenced by notions that they don't have the right, etc. Me participating in something associated with a group does not mean I am automatically affiliated with them

I can tell that we're getting nowhere here. You began with "I constantly hear this question framed by believers in God in regards to atheism". In doing so, "you're talking in generalizations". But then when I respond to your generalizations you tell me "you're talking in generalizations". You then go on, "[m]e discussing atheism is not advancing an atheist worldview", but I never said that you were advancing an atheist worldview, or even that you had a worldview to advance.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not saying all Christians believe that, I can rephrase it, though I can't say if you'd still understand anyway, tone is tricky online with that

By all means, talk to me then instead of all the atheists you supposedly are aware of, as if that's anymore representative than me necessarily insinuating that you are like other Christians I've heard (I didn't say that)

 

[zippy2006]

History, academia, the obvious anti-religious animus among New Atheists, atheists' fundamental theological orientation, the practical nature of human belief, etc.

There was actually a fairly intelligent atheist who used to frequent CF and we argued on this topic a few times. Now he rarely posts publicly, but sometimes we PM. One of the messages he sent me after leaving CF explained how he changed his position on this matter. Reasonably, he was convinced when he found the same arguments I had given, except voiced by an atheist rather than a theist. Here is a link to those arguments.

 

[muichimotsu]

History, academia, the obvious anti-religious animus among New Atheists, atheists' fundamental theological orientation, etc.

There was actually a fairly intelligent atheist who used to frequent CF and we argued on this topic a few times. Now he rarely posts publicly, but sometimes we PM. One of the messages he sent me after leaving CF explained how he changed his position on this matter. Reasonably, he was convinced when he found the same arguments I had given, except voiced by an atheist rather than a theist. Here is a link to those arguments.

None of your points establish it being a belief by necessity or a worldview more expansively. I don't deny there is variance and the general shared idea is just that of not believing in God (which is not the same as believing God does not exist). Atheists are not necessarily in agreement with each other even in terms of enumerating skepticism, etc, so it stands to reason such things would come about and that's perfectly fine

Also, not sure it's fair to use the New Atheists as representative of all atheists anymore than it would be to take the Religious Right to represent all Christians.

Not sure what you're meaning by theological orientation: having a position on God in terms of how believers describe it is not making claims about an existent God you believe in, nor is making observations in regards to the patterns without suggesting you actively believe in any such entity

I hesitate to define atheism purely as a lack of belief in God, but I also don't think it necessarily works to frame it as a belief rather than a disbelief, not being convinced (which is not the same as being convinced of the contrary in the absolute sense)

The argument brings in agnosticism/gnosticism as a distinction, but I don't think it necessarily entails a requirement of absolute certainty or uncertainty, it's a varied epistemological spectrum that can go to the extreme that we cannot know God or we can know God as existing or not.

I'm an agnostic atheist in that I'm utilizing a particular epistemological framework (agnostic skepticism) in regards to holding a particular position on God that isn't a belief of its nonexistence, but that arguments for its existence remain unconvincing, focusing on that aspect rather than making a metaphysical claim in regards to the existence or nonexistence of a conceptual entity. Just as a Christian would not be saying Thor doesn't exist, but that they're not convinced it is real as believers describe it (unless they think Thor is a demon that masquerades as the Norse god of thunder?)

 

[Mathetes66]

I can tell that we're getting NOWHERE here. You began with "I constantly hear this question framed by believers in God in regards to atheism". In doing so, "you're talking in generalizations". But then when I respond to your generalizations you tell me "you're talking in generalizations". You then go on, "[m]e discussing atheism is not advancing an atheist worldview", but I never said that you were advancing an atheist worldview, or even that you had a worldview to advance.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[muichimotsu]

My thoughts exactly.

When things are framed as if "Evangelical Atheism" is somehow representative of anything common in atheism, it's not like you aren't generalizing or otherwise being vague in pointing out some aspect of things and concluding it must reflect the truth of the entirety, a compositional fallacy

 

[Uber Genius]

I constantly hear this question framed by certain believers in God in regards to atheism, seemingly of the mind that an atheist necessarily makes the assertion that God does not exist rather than reserving judgment in terms of inconclusive and faulty evidence presented.

That does not mean atheists in having a lack of belief in God are fence-sitting, but they are not making a positive claim in regards to God's existence or nonexistence, only that it is not reasonable to conclude existence over nonexistence (because reasonable people would not make a claim on an entity of such a nature that, barring particular definitions, could conceivably exist, even if the notions attributed to it may be mistaken, like revelations, etc)

There is the distinction of strong and weak atheism, but honestly, something in the vein of antitheism or a similarly strong position would fit better with the characterization that an atheist must definitely claim God does not exist rather than assert they are not convinced by the evidence.

The epistemological equivocation that appears to be going on is that someone saying they are not convinced of a claim is the same as them saying the contrary of that claim is true.

If someone tells me they believe jackalopes exist and I don't see reason to believe based on the evidence they present, that is not the same as me claiming jackalopes do not exist, though the nature of a claim in regards to God existing and a jackalope or other more paranormal versus supernatural entities existing is qualitatively different.

And that's not even getting into nontheism as a broader umbrella term that covers theological noncognitivism, apatheism, etc.

But why is atheism framed in such a way as if it's just the general idea rather than utilizing a descriptivist language model where a word can have multiple meanings and usages, but in a given context, we shouldn't constrain it needlessly?

Historically, atheism just meant godless, it didn't mean they were claiming gods didn't exist, they merely didn't believe in them. Also, it was attributed as much to pagans and Christians as much later uses in regards to deism or pantheism even before atheism as a response to theism was something that wouldn't get you lynched or ostracized from society.

And as a sidenote, I also find it bizarre that atheism is constantly noted as some broad worldview, when even theism doesn't necessitate any particular metaphysics, etc, associated with it, they're both speaking about a particular topic: the existence of divine entities, not whether life was created or came about by natural processes, etc.

Not complex, but requires some history. Which for many theses days is a four-letter word.

Antony Flew was the one responsible for changing the definition (or at least popularizing that approach to arguing for atheism), back in the early 1970s.

Flew recognized that Atheism was traditionally the claim to know there was NO SUCH THING AS GOD OR GODS.

By conflating the definition and recasting (equivocating) the definition he attempted to make atheism the default position. It worked! Well...somewhat.

Although many philosophers saw through it as a cheap fallacious trick, the approach was taken up by none other than that New Atheist enfants terrible Richard Dawkins.

But the issue is simple to resolve.

What is the knowledge claim range?

There is a God

There is NOT a G(g)od.

That is it.

"I don't know," is definitionally NOT a knowledge claim.

So weak agnosticism, the statement that "I personally don't know," has little in common with the knowledge claim "THERE IS NO GOD."

One can actually read Flew, when he first introduces this equivocation, claiming that he is moving away from the traditional use of atheist which means claiming there is no God. I will try and locate his quote once I get back to my library.

P.S. I recall reading Peter Boghosian's street epistemology and him using this equivocation as the centerpiece of his argument. Ironic since epistemology is the very philosophical branch that falsifies Flew's and Boghosian's equivocal approach, but to be fair, he runs his argument to uneducated crowds, not his fellow philosophers, so he can get away with hypocrisy fairly easily.

 

[bling]

When things are framed as if "Evangelical Atheism" is somehow representative of anything common in atheism, it's not like you aren't generalizing or otherwise being vague in pointing out some aspect of things and concluding it must reflect the truth of the entirety, a compositional fallacy

I fully agree we have to deal individually with every agnostic and atheist.
What I discuss with them is living as if there was no God and how they justify their own behavior.

 

[Mathetes66]

When things are framed as if "Evangelical Atheism" is somehow representative of anything common in atheism, it's not like you aren't generalizing or otherwise being vague in pointing out some aspect of things and concluding it must reflect the truth of the entirety, a compositional fallacy.

"That does not mean atheists in having a lack of belief in God are fence-sitting, but they are NOT making a positive claim in regards to God's existence or nonexistence, only that it is not reasonable to conclude existence over nonexistence..."

This is like the term 'doublespeak' in George Orwell's '1984.'

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. It may take the form of euphemisms, rephrasings, that try to make some claim to truth more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak DISGUISES the nature of the truth.

Multitudes of often famous, militant activist atheists, are not lacking in showing just the opposite of your assertions. I prefer not to use my education & intelligence to talk 'above' the normal people on CF but in normal language most can understand. However, I can do it if need be.

More of the same philosophical nonsense quoted above & some false conclusions based on words of condescension & demeaning, typical rhetoric. Yet recognized vocal atheists continually & effervescently boil over on their delight in maligning theists & boastingly assert in their BELIEF that there is no God, that Jesus Christ never existed, its a myth, etc.

David Silverman, President of "AMERICAN ATHEISTS:

His CHRISTMAS billboard CAMPAIGN in NYC, 'You Know It's a Myth' is an effort in futility, as most people recognize that he can't 'prove' its a myth just like he can't prove that God doesn't exist. Second, he arrogantly makes a propositional false assumption that 'YOU KNOW' its a myth when just the opposite is true. He states in derogatory sexual debasing terms that 'religion is my b+tch.'

Wrath James White, bloggist on 'Words of Wrath' & regular contributor to 'Atheist Nexus' says, “I am saddened & somewhat disgusted by the very idea of a Black Christian. It would seem to me that after having so recently escaped our slavemasters that we would have had enough of masters.”

Christopher Hitchens wrote the book, 'God is NOT Great: How Religion Has POISONED EVERYTHING', a consistent & assaultive diatribe on ridiculing theists' view of God as good & everything that religion touches poisons it. It is not enough to not believe in God or that there doesn't seem to be evidence for God, but 'evangelical' fervor in attacking that belief & the vitriolic hatred against God.

"Valuable in the HUMAN STORY are the reflections of intelligent & ethical people who listen to the voice of reason & who allow it to vanquish BIGOTRY & SUPERSTITION."


Richard Dawkins wrote the book, 'The God Delusion' & that in itself is a false proposition again in that he cannot disprove the existence of God but that ONLY IN HIS OPINION is it a delusion. He continues to live in his own delusion & assertions.

He says this about Dan Barker, another vocal atheist activist against theism, who wrote the book, 'Godless' on his own life experience:

"The most eloquent witness of internal delusion that I know―a triumphantly smiling refugee from the zany, surreal world of American fundamentalist Protestantism―is Dan Barker.”'

Oliver Sacks, the famous brain surgeon, said this about himself when in Feb., 2010 he was names as one of the 'Freedom From Religion' February 2010, Sacks was named as one of the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Honorary Board of distinguished achievers: he was "an old Jewish atheist."

When commenting on Dan Barker's book, he said this: "I don’t think anyone can match the (devastating) clarity, intensity & honesty which Dan Barker brings to the journey―faith to reason, childhood to growing up, fantasy to reality, intoxication to sobriety.”

As if that wasn't enough, Dan Barker also wrote another book, 'God: The Most Unpleasant Character In All FICTION.'

It ISN'T enough to say that it supposedly is a myth but the grandiosity & pomposity of such claims as 'religion poisons everything' or 'God is THE MOST UNPLEASANT CHARACTER IN ALL (not some) FICTION' goes beyond mere ridicule--it is caustic, maligning of the worst kind & exponentially exaggerated hyperbole. The Bible calls it BLASPHEMY!

Armin Navabi , a former Muslim from Iran & founder of 'Atheist Republic', wrote the book, 'Why There is No God.' Again he cannot prove that God doesn't exist, yet he confidently asserts in his deliberate ignorance, why there is no God. His 'Atheistic Republic' was set up as a 'worldwide community' for atheists to feel safe & share their ideas. He has a million members in it.

Stephen Jay Gould puts it this way: "Now the conclusions of science MUST BE ACCEPTED A PRIORI--& religious interpretations MUST BE finessed & adjusted to match UNIMPEACHABLE RESULTS from the MAGISTERIUM of natural knowledge!" Science calls the tune & religion dances to its music."

If this isn't militant against God, if this isn't a worldview, then one would be intellectually absent to hold otherwise. Atheists are their own vocal publicists. Its a WAR on ideology, make no mistake about it or have people try to deceive you that it isn't.

But us Christians, for example, who follow the Lord Jesus Christ, are very cognizant of these debasing & humiliating attacks & are not surprised at the vociferous hatred spewed at us. When in power, atheistic regimes seek to not only silence us, but exterminate us. History is replete with the bloodshed of the martyrs of Christ, from the Roman Empire on.

But despite the diatribe against us, we remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Matthew 5:2-11 And He opened His mouth & taught them, saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger & thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you & persecute you & utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. Rejoice & be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor & hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies & pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."

So we pray for you, Muichimotsu, who spits on perfection, that you may come to know that the Lord Jesus Christ, the prophesied Messiah predicted thousands of years ago & fulfilled over 350 of these long ago prophesies, is the Savior of the world & BY faith in Him you CAN KNOW the existing living God & find forgiveness for your wrongdoings & find eternal life in Him.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is like the term 'doublespeak' in George Orwell's '1984.'

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. It may take the form of euphemisms, rephrasings, that try to make some claim to truth more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak DISGUISES the nature of the truth.

Multitudes of often famous, militant activist atheists, are not lacking in showing just the opposite of your assertions. I prefer not to use my education & intelligence to talk 'above' the normal people on CF but in normal language most can understand. However, I can do it if need be.

Hi there. I see that you've professed yourself to be wise. I'd like to nudge my way in here and see what becomes of this.

More of the same philosophical nonsense quoted above & some false conclusions based on words of condescension & demeaning, typical rhetoric. Yet recognized vocal atheists continually & effervescently boil over on their delight in maligning theists & boastingly assert in their BELIEF that there is no God, that Jesus Christ never existed, its a myth, etc.

Hmmm, no. We don't believe that God exists, but that doesn't mean we believe that God doesn't exist. I hope that clears it up for you.

David Silverman, President of "AMERICAN ATHEISTS:

Er, well, former president. He was removed because atheists don't have a policy to protect and/or promote sexual predators.

His CHRISTMAS billboard CAMPAIGN in NYC, 'You Know It's a Myth' is an effort in futility, as most people recognize that he can't 'prove' its a myth just like he can't prove that God doesn't exist.

But it is a myth.

Myth:

a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Of course, colloquially, a "myth" is (mis)understood to be a fabricated story. But it's just a question of where the goalposts are to disprove a "myth." Can we regard the tale of Zeus et al as a "myth" even though it's impossible to actually prove it?

Second, he arrogantly makes a propositional false assumption that 'YOU KNOW' its a myth when just the opposite is true. He states in derogatory sexual debasing terms that 'religion is my b+tch.'

A lot of Christians know it is a "myth" but they go along with it out of perceived obligation. That is the target audience.

As for his sexually derogatory comment, I haven't seen the context but I'm sure that was obviously figurative.

But regardless of how militant atheists are, that does not make atheism a belief in itself.

Wrath James White, bloggist on 'Words of Wrath' & regular contributor to 'Atheist Nexus' says, “I am saddened & somewhat disgusted by the very idea of a Black Christian. It would seem to me that after having so recently escaped our slavemasters that we would have had enough of masters.”

Uh, yeah. Obviously.

Christopher Hitchens wrote the book, 'God is NOT Great: How Religion Has POISONED EVERYTHING', a consistent & assaultive diatribe on ridiculing theists' view of God as good & everything that religion touches poisons it. It is not enough to not believe in God or that there doesn't seem to be evidence for God, but 'evangelical' fervor in attacking that belief & the vitriolic hatred against God.

As an atheist I think that Islam is clearly the worst religion in the world, and in many ways it's not even close. But that doesn't absolve Christianity. That doesn't remove it from the list of terrible religions. Don't act like Christianity is an innocent victim being attacked. That's just bizarre. They've raped thousands of children and protected not the child, but the rapist. All while operating tax free. Some of us are saying that enough is enough.

"Valuable in the HUMAN STORY are the reflections of intelligent & ethical people who listen to the voice of reason & who allow it to vanquish BIGOTRY & SUPERSTITION."

You put this one in bold. Do you hold bigotry and superstition dear in your heart? Or do you despise intelligence and ethics? What exactly is your problem with this one?

Richard Dawkins wrote the book, 'The God Delusion' & that in itself is a false proposition again in that he cannot disprove the existence of God but that ONLY IN HIS OPINION is it a delusion. He continues to live in his own delusion & assertions.

So... do you think that all other gods are a delusion but that Jehovah is not? Or what exactly is your position on that?

And why do you keep mentioning "prove" and "disprove"? We have proofs in mathematics. For propositions about physical reality, we just have to be reasonably sure. And we're reasonably sure that Jehovah doesn't exist. Not definitively sure, not sure enough that I can claim it as an absolute fact without having first examined all of existence, but reasonably sure. Presumably just like how you're reasonably sure that Zeus does not exist.

I'll cut it off here because I don't know if I'm intelligent enough to merit your attention or response.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not complex, but requires some history. Which for many theses days is a four-letter word.

Antony Flew was the one responsible for changing the definition (or at least popularizing that approach to arguing for atheism), back in the early 1970s.

Flew recognized that Atheism was traditionally the claim to know there was NO SUCH THING AS GOD OR GODS.

By conflating the definition and recasting (equivocating) the definition he attempted to make atheism the default position. It worked! Well...somewhat.

Although many philosophers saw through it as a cheap fallacious trick, the approach was taken up by none other than that New Atheist enfants terrible Richard Dawkins.

But the issue is simple to resolve.

What is the knowledge claim range?

There is a God

There is NOT a G(g)od.

That is it.

"I don't know," is definitionally NOT a knowledge claim.

So weak agnosticism, the statement that "I personally don't know," has little in common with the knowledge claim "THERE IS NO GOD."

One can actually read Flew, when he first introduces this equivocation, claiming that he is moving away from the traditional use of atheist which means claiming there is no God. I will try and locate his quote once I get back to my library.

P.S. I recall reading Peter Boghosian's street epistemology and him using this equivocation as the centerpiece of his argument. Ironic since epistemology is the very philosophical branch that falsifies Flew's and Boghosian's equivocal approach, but to be fair, he runs his argument to uneducated crowds, not his fellow philosophers, so he can get away with hypocrisy fairly easily.

Tradition is hardly the primary or even sole factor we use to determine the definition of a term unless you're using a prescriptivist framework for linguistics

I wouldn't say atheism is the default position, but nontheism in that the latter is more a general lack of belief, while atheism is at least cogent of arguments for and against the existence of God by contrast. A child doesn't innately have God belief anymore than they innately have morals in the complex sense we'd grant around 8 or so (at baseline anyway)

The question becomes justification rather than certainty: I may, in this simplistic notion of having to make that knowledge claim absolutely, state I don't think there is a God, but that isn't the same as claiming I'm saying it's justified to the extent someone would claim their belief God exists is, which is not subject to critical thought in contrast to me simply finding the arguments for God's existence wanting.

Agnostic atheism as distinct from gnostic atheism, is helpful in making the nuance of the epistemological certainty and justification to a degree, because one is making teh strong claim based on certain justifications while the other is saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and are not making a certain claim

"I don't know" doesn't have to be a knowledge claim to be intellectually honest in regards to the claims made regarding the existence of a transcendent being. Sometimes it's as much a matter of responding to a claim rather than making an assertion of your own

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi there. I see that you've professed yourself to be wise. I'd like to nudge my way in here and see what becomes of this.



I'll cut it off here because I don't know if I'm intelligent enough to merit your attention or response.

When they end a post with "I'll pray for you," methinks it's time to just cut your losses and move on from someone who's unwilling to even listen, but constantly generalize and not even correct mistakes in the slightest. To say nothing of the soapbox-style rhetorical angle instead of actually substantiating claims with evidence, and equivocating demonstrate and prove.

 

[muichimotsu]

I fully agree we have to deal individually with every agnostic and atheist.
What I discuss with them is living as if there was no God and how they justify their own behavior.

Then the question is turned around: why justify your behavior based merely on obedience rather than actually demonstrating the validity of the commands in themselves?

I can defend my actions as moral and be corrected and that's far more reasonable than just boiling down morality in any meaningful sense to obeying the commands of a deity because it knows better, etc, when you can't remotely demonstrate its existence

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When they end a post with "I'll pray for you," methinks it's time to just cut your losses and move on from someone who's unwilling to even listen, but constantly generalize and not even correct mistakes in the slightest. To say nothing of the soapbox-style rhetorical angle instead of actually substantiating claims with evidence, and equivocating demonstrate and prove.

I believe the correct response to "I will pray for you" is "And I will think for you."

 

[muichimotsu]

Multitudes of often famous, militant activist atheists, are not lacking in showing just the opposite of your assertions. I prefer not to use my education & intelligence to talk 'above' the normal people on CF but in normal language most can understand. However, I can do it if need be.

More of the same philosophical nonsense quoted above & some false conclusions based on words of condescension & demeaning, typical rhetoric. Yet recognized vocal atheists continually & effervescently boil over on their delight in maligning theists & boastingly assert in their BELIEF that there is no God, that Jesus Christ never existed, its a myth, etc.

So cherry picking and hasty generalization to compositional fallacy, first off

If this isn't militant against God, if this isn't a worldview, then one would be intellectually absent to hold otherwise. Atheists are their own vocal publicists. Its a WAR on ideology, make no mistake about it or have people try to deceive you that it isn't.

But us Christians, for example, who follow the Lord Jesus Christ, are very cognizant of these debasing & humiliating attacks & are not surprised at the vociferous hatred spewed at us. When in power, atheistic regimes seek to not only silence us, but exterminate us. History is replete with the bloodshed of the martyrs of Christ, from the Roman Empire on.

More cherry picking and equivocation of the position having to be polarizing and partisan in nature, against you because you seemingly have to have someone victimizing you to claim martyrdom and being a social pariah as a Christian

And then there's the notion that atheism is somehow the basis behind communist regimes that I'm pretty sure most atheists would condemn, because they weren't based in atheism, but statism and totalitarian regimes, a cult of personality around a leader.



But yeah, this is becoming such that one may have to just ignore the poster entirely (especially when they seemingly refer to themselves as we, unless that's meant to just pull in any other Christians that agree with them in some hivemind "we")

 

[Pavel Mosko]

That does not mean atheists in having a lack of belief in God are fence-sitting, but they are not making a positive claim in regards to God's existence or nonexistence, only that it is not reasonable to conclude existence over nonexistence (because reasonable people would not make a claim on an entity of such a nature that, barring particular definitions, could conceivably exist, even if the notions attributed to it may be mistaken, like revelations, etc)

Actually many atheists are fence sitters. I say this because it comes across in their conversation which is often derogatory towards Christianity and similar belief systems that they do not believe in the notion of a God/ god. And this indicates to me that their position is similar to that of classical atheists aka the general belief that God or gods do not exist.

In the late 1800s, in American their was a very influential atheist whose name I forget, but he defined atheism in much the way we see it now with the New Atheists, of skepticism or belief that there is no credible evidence for the belief in a god / God. And his definition, has been largely adopted by atheists because it is a stronger position as far as debates etc. goes.

But a lot of things are about posturing and burden of proof shifting. In Epistemology usually the new kid on the block has to make their case. And since atheism is the new one that would normally be the burden of proof would be with them. But by changing the terms and the definition you can try to shift that burden to the other guy. But I see this as being a bit of sophistry, because while their can be people that are true skeptics etc. it really comes across that many actually believe more in the sense of classical atheism that all religion is superstition etc. And they are basically trying to have it both ways. They claim skepticism conveniently to help them in debates, even though it is obvious that their position is much more negative than that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually many atheists are fence sitters. I say this because it comes across in their conversation which is often derogatory towards Christianity and similar belief systems that they do not believe in the notion of a God/ god. And this indicates to me that their position is similar to that of classical atheists aka the general belief that God or gods do not exist.

Uh... what? They're fence sitters while also being aggressive and making bold claims?

In the late 1800s, in American their was a very influential atheist whose name I forget, but he defined atheism in much the way we see it now with the New Atheists, of skepticism or belief that there is no credible evidence for the belief in a god / God. And his definition, has been largely adopted by atheists because it is a stronger position as far as debates etc. goes.

But a lot of things are about posturing and burden of proof shifting. In Epistemology usually the new kid on the block has to make their case. And since atheism is the new one that would normally be the burden of proof would be with them.

I must've missed that part. Silly me, I thought the burden of proof was on the person making a claim.

But by changing the terms and the definition you can try to shift that burden to the other guy. But I see this as being a bit of sophistry, because while their can be people that are true skeptics etc. it really comes across that many actually believe more in the sense of classical atheism that all religion is superstition etc. And they are basically trying to have it both ways. They claim skepticism conveniently to help them in debates, even though it is obvious that their position is much more negative than that.

Huh?