Posted on 09/15/2013 12:19:55 PM PDT by NYer
When asked to prove atheism is true, many atheists say that they don’t have to prove anything. They say atheism is not “belief there is no God” but merely “no belief in a God.” Atheism is defined in this context as a “lack of belief” in God, and if Catholics can’t prove God exists, then a person is justified in being an atheist. But the problem with defining atheism as simply “the lack of belief in God” is that there are already another group of people who fall under that definition: agnostics.
The "I Don't Know's"
Agnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis) is the position that a person cannot know if God exists. A strong agnostic is someone like skeptic Michael Shermer, who claims that no one is able to know if God exists. He writes, “I once saw a bumper sticker that read “Militant agnostic: I don’t know and you don’t either.” This is my position on God’s existence: I don’t know and you don’t either.”[i]
A weak agnostic merely claims that while he doesn’t know if God exists, it is possible that someone else may know. Agnosticism and weak atheism are very similar in that both groups claim to be “without belief in God.”[ii] Pope Benedict XVI spoke sympathetically of such people in a 2011 address:
In addition to the two phenomena of religion and anti-religion, a further basic orientation is found in the growing world of agnosticism: people to whom the gift of faith has not been given, but who are nevertheless on the lookout for truth, searching for God. Such people do not simply assert: ‘There is no God.’ They suffer from his absence and yet are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness. They are ‘pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace.’
A Difference Without a Distinction
Because agnosticism seems more open-minded than atheism, many atheists are more apt to describe themselves like agnostics, who likewise have “no belief in a God,” even though they call themselves “atheist.” They say that an atheist is just a person who lacks a belief in God but is open to being proven wrong. But saying you lack a belief in God no more answers the question, “Does God exist?” than saying you lack a belief in aliens answers the question, “Do aliens exist?”
This is just agnosticism under a different name.
For example, can we say agnosticism is true? We can’t, because agnostics make no claims about the world; they just describe how they feel about a fact in the world (the existence of God). Likewise, if atheists want us to believe that atheism is true, then they must make a claim about the world and show that what they lack a belief in—God—does not exist.
Belief on Trial
An illustration might help explain the burden of proof both sides share. In a murder trial the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the murder. But if the prosecution isn’t able to make its case, then the defendant is found “not guilty.” Notice the defendant isn’t found “innocent.”
For all we know, he could have committed the crime, but we just can’t prove it. Certain kinds of evidence, like an air-tight alibi, can show the defendant is innocent. But it is the responsibility of the defense to present that evidence.
Likewise, even if the theist isn’t able to make his case that God exists that doesn’t show God does not exist and therefore that atheism is true. As atheists Austin Dacey and Lewis Vaughn write, “What if these arguments purporting to establish that God exists are failures? That is, what if they offer no justification for theistic belief? Must we then conclude that God does not exist? No. Lack of supporting reasons or evidence for a proposition does not show that the proposition is false.”[iii]
If he wants to demonstrate that atheism is true, an atheist would have to provide additional evidence that there is no God just as a defense attorney would have to provide further evidence to show his client is innocent as opposed to being just “not guilty.” He can’t simply say the arguments for the existence of God are failures and then rest his case.
That's not true by definition.
They just see God as the enemy to be defeated.
That would be either misotheism or maltheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Maltheism
Ah, but atheism is only definable if you actually believe what the atheists say. Most of the time, you can’t - it’s like trying to find firm ground in marxism.
Suckers game.
Atheists will demand to be married in a church and can’t be told no.
It is a belief that they know where we came from and what is out there and the belief there is nothing like a god or higher being or spiritual universe. They cannot provide facts to back up their claims, therefore, it is simply their beliefs, a religion in itself.
There is belief; and unbelief. pick one. choose wisely.
Some may know because they have direct observation or experience of God intervening in their life.
Not so. Atheism is definable independent of what any particular atheist says. In short, it's simply the denial of the existence of a deity or deities, or a lack of belief in a deity or deities.
If one fulfills either of these, one is an atheist.
Yep.
Once they make the argument “Which God” they have revealed their bluff.
I see no point in arguing with them or discussing God unless they have questions and at that point they are again conceding the possibility and all I do is create arguments of influence not some imperitive that a decision must be made now.
They feel manipulated and to date I count one aetheist who came to Christ of his own volition because something was missing and once he realized that he was compelled to ask “Is it God? If he is real and I can ask questions of him, will he return an answer?”
Once he asked those two questions he asked for God to come into his life if it would fill that void.
Example? Is there an instance in which the government has forced a church to marry a pair of atheists?
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I've never heard of such a case...in the United States, at any rate.
Once they make the argument “Which God” they have revealed their bluff.
What bluff? How is asking for a definition of terms a "bluff"?
While you've asserted that there's no such thing as an atheist, you haven't demonstrated it. Why, when someone tells you that they have no belief in a deity, would you think they couldn't possibly be telling the truth?
Example: I, personally, have no belief in any deity.
Do you think I'm lying?
I am predicting for you, based on regularly reported hostilities from modern day atheists.
Alternately, they have experienced something that they think is a supernatural experience which in fact has a naturalistic explanation.
Why does it matter? I don’t see that it does one whit.
I misunderstood; from the way you phrased it, I thought you were asserting that such a thing had already taken place.
For the record, I don't foresee atheists being able to force churches of which they are (presumably) not a member to perform weddings for them.
I suppose in practical terms it really doesn't. It just makes good fodder for internet discussion. Beyond that...
Exactly.
But the atheists denial, very often, is plainly not credible and even loud classification of people as atheists (such as Rand) being misplaced.
The whole dance is about the atheist trying to prove that he doesn’t believe, and being unable to.
Why?
The whole dance is about the atheist trying to prove that he doesn’t believe, and being unable to.
Using the same argument, a believer is every bit as unable to prove that he does believe, yes?
Why would anyone need to "prove" what they do or don't believe? Why not simply take their statement at face value?
Yet not only does our government give preference to it, it uses its full powers to support it in everything it touches at the exclusion of all other beliefs.
Outside interest. There’s ideology going on here, or dialectic, or whatever.
Rand has been dinged as an atheist because of her disdain of Heaven/afterlife. but seen another way, that is simply the ortodox judaic view. Just an example. But I don’t think anyone would try and claim that orthodox Jews are atheists because they have no place for the afterlife.
What I’m saying is that the argument, in itself, is artificial and not going anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.