A Gutsy Preacher

[Josiah]

Simply put, atheism means the absence of theistic belief. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real...Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.

Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist. Some atheists may indeed claim such certainty. These individuals are sometimes described as "strong atheists." Nobody disputes the existence of such atheists. The point is that certainty is not a necessary condition of atheism. One who asserts that there "probably" is no god is still an atheist. In fact, one need not assert anything to be an atheist. One need only refuse to accept the theistic belief claim.

Atheism: A = no, not. Theos = God, the divine. Atheism is a dogmatic insistence that there is no God, no divine.

Agnostic: A = no, not. Gnosis = certainty. Agosticism is the position that we simply do not have "certainty" but leaves all options as possibilities.

If my position is that there is no life currently on Mars - that is a dogmatic insistence, a position of certainty. And, yes one could argue that there is a 'burden of proof' involved: however, it might be difficult to agree on what "evidence" would or would not be accepted and how the arbitration would be processed. But it is a dogmatic position. If my position is that I don't know if there is life on Mars - that's simply the statement of an unknown; it leaves open the possibility but notes that I don't have confidence or assurance either way.


IMO, the opening poster is simply pointing out a philosophical point: there is no absolute certainty (about pretty much everything). I can't KNOW in any absolute, totally objective manner than I even exist ("I" certainly COULD be some program running on some machine on Mars) - we ALL assume/believe/chose MUCH, much that cannot be PROVEN in some absolute, objective sense. While I think it's good to acknowledge the universality of faith/belief, I think too much could be made of that.

For reasons that make no sense, Atheists often demand that the opposite position must present some PROOF (often in some absolute sense, often with "evidence" of a nature that excludes the possibility of the supernatural and thus contradicts the position). But they themselves entirely exclude themselves from offering the same for their own dogmatic position - that there is no divine. True - the Agnostic simply "opts out" by not taking a stand, one way or the other; leaving both positions as possibilities until, in their own view, sufficient evidence for one or the other is presented. IMO, the op is probably simply pointing out at in an absolute, objective sense - neither can actually do that, not the Theists or the Atheist (indeed, no one can do that for ANY position).



- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

Atheism is a dogmatic insistence that there is no God, no divine.

Incorrect. Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist. Some atheists may indeed claim such certainty. These individuals are sometimes described as "strong atheists." Nobody disputes the existence of such atheists. The point is that certainty is not a necessary condition of atheism. One who asserts that there "probably" is no god is still an atheist. In fact, one need not assert anything to be an atheist. One need only refuse to accept the theistic belief claim.

 

[Josiah]

Incorrect. Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist.

Then nor does the opposite: Theism. If you insist that the position of "NO GOD!" doesn't suggest a need for support, then equally you must hold that the position "IS GOD" also suggests no need for support.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then nor does the opposite: Theism. If you insist that the position of "NO GOD!" doesn't suggest a need for support, then equally you must hold that the position "IS GOD" also suggests no need for support.

Christians believe in God - it is an act of faith not of certain knowledge. Atheists do not believe. These are the true opposites rather than invented stories of absolute proof that there is no god, gods, goddesses, or goddess.

 

[MarkFL]

Then nor does the opposite: Theism. If you insist that the position of "NO GOD!" doesn't suggest a need for support, then equally you must hold that the position "IS GOD" also suggests no need for support.

Suppose person A claims that there are no gods. Person A therefore has a burden of proof, because they have made a positive claim. Person B would have no burden of proof to reject that claim. It is only when you make a claim that you have a burden of proof. Theists make a claim, while atheists do not. That's why theists have a burden of proof while atheists do not. In general, atheists do not make the claim of no gods, they simply reject the claim of theism. I have seen it many times over, where theists will labor to falsely impart a burden of proof upon those who reject their claim (atheists), and I understand why, because it is easier to try to fallaciously put the opposition in the same impossible position and claim equality of absurdity than to admit one's own unfounded position.

 

[MarkFL]

If you say, "I believe God exists" then you don't have a burden of proof because you are not claiming knowledge, you are simply demonstrating that you accept the claim regarding God's existence through faith. If you say "God exists" then you are making a positive claim, and if you are to actually convince others (who do not accept your claim) of the truth of your claim, then you have a burden of proof. Likewise, if I say "I don't believe God exists" I am only showing I reject the claim, that I am an atheist. If I say "God doesn't exist" then I am making a claim, and I have a burden of proof.

 

[Rens]

Yes, but if you give proof atheists don't believe it. There are so many documented miracles. It's like proving to a blind man that light exists.
I once got a dream about my dad, who is from the intelligent part from the family lol. He has seen miracles with family members and he was impressed, he even said to his non believing neighbour who was sick that she had to go to that meating and get healed. We don't believe in God they said. He said me neither, but I did see some amazing things. Then he was surprised they got mad at him. He said in my dream: I can't just believe like you do. Then I said in that dream: okay, shall I pray for you that God reveals it to you? That was okay and I did and he got saved. Hasn't happened yet irl, but it will. It's no use to discuss about it or throw all those raised from the dead movies on their Facebook oh no I mean my Facebook. Did they see it? I need to get up from my lazy butt and pray God opens the eyes of atheists. I wonder if some real miracle happened like pop an arm out if it would even convince some. Don't think so.
Atheists need to meet and experience Him, that's the best proof.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, but if you give proof atheists don't believe it. There are so many documented miracles. It's like proving to a blind man that light exists.
I once got a dream about my dad, who is from the intelligent part from the family lol. He has seen miracles woth family members and he was impressed, he even said to his non believing neighbour who was sick that she had to go to that meating and get healed. We don't believe in God they said. He said me neither, but I did see some amazing things. Then he was surprised they got mad at him. He said in my dream: I can't just believe like you do. Then I said in that dream: okay, shall I pray for you that God reveals it to you? That was okay and I did and he got saved. Hasn't happened yet irl, but it will. It's no use to discuss about it or throw all those raised from the dead movies on their Facebook oh no I mean my Facebook. Did they see it? I need to get up from my lazy butt and pray God opens the eyes of atheists. I wonder if some real miracle happened like pop an arm out if it would even convince some. Don't think so.
Atheists need to meet and experience Him, that's the best proof.

Most atheists are driven by skepticism. What constitutes "proof" for the believer fails for the skeptic. I have seen no documented miracles, only claims of miracles. I have seen evidence of unexplained things, but that doesn't mean I have to then say, "It must have been a god or other magical being at work there." It simply means there is lack of understanding, which doesn't mean I have to fill that gap with the supernatural, it just means I say it is not explained yet. If and when someone can point to compelling evidence, then I will reconsider my view, but until then I must remain a skeptic.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Most atheists are driven by skepticism. What constitutes "proof" for the believer fails for the skeptic. I have seen no documented miracles, only claims of miracles. I have seen evidence of unexplained things, but that doesn't mean I have to then say, "It must have been a god or other magical being at work there." It simply means there is lack of understanding, which doesn't mean I have to fill that gap with the supernatural, it just means I say it is not explained yet. If and when someone can point to compelling evidence, then I will reconsider my view, but until then I must remain a skeptic.

It is not scepticism (philosophically) but either a lack of credibility on the part of the claimed evidence or else a decision that the evidence cannot bear so great and weighty a conclusion as that God truly IS. The former is very common while the latter is up to the individual.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, when I used the word skepticism, I meant doubt as to the truth of something. I doubt all claims made without compelling evidence. Most of us do in every aspect of life except religion.

 

[Josiah]

Christians believe in God - it is an act of faith not of certain knowledge. Atheists do not believe. These are the true opposites rather than invented stories of absolute proof that there is no god, gods, goddesses, or goddess.

Credo - I believe. Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism..... none of those deal with what we "believe." These are two dogmatic positions (antithetical opposites, both dogmatic) and the third that simply embraces both possibilities without expressing a working embrace about EITHER.

Yes, I suspect the OP is talking about how ALL of us believe since NOTHING can be absolutely, objectively PROVEN.... we all make our choices, our assumptions... we all choose to accept some things, reject some things. In a purely philosophical sense, he has a point: no one is absolutely CERTAIN about anything (or can anyone be); a philosphical point I don't dispute (and yes, it applies to the divine - and to everything else).

IMO, when dogmatic positions are made (for example: God IS and the antithesis of that, God is NOT) then I suppose one could demand the sort of absolute, objective PROOF the opening poster seems to relate is impossible - but not for one dogmatic position while not for another. If the one holding to the GOD IS NOT dogma insists on such proof for the GOD IS dogma, then.... well.... what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Seems hypocritical to demand proof for others while exempting the position of self from the same.

But in view of the opening post, yes, ultimately, it can be affirmed: neither position (in fact NO position) is provable in such an absolute, objective sense. Ultimately, we are all believers - just not in the same things... we all live by faith - just not the same faith. Kierkegaard was right: ALL life is filled with "the leap of faith."



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Credo - I believe. Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism..... none of those deal with what we "believe." These are two dogmatic positions (antithetical opposites, both dogmatic) and the third that simply embraces both possibilities without expressing a working embrace about EITHER.

Yes, I suspect the OP is talking about how ALL of us believe since NOTHING can be absolutely, objectively PROVEN.... we all make our choices, our assumptions... we all choose to accept some things, reject some things.

But IMO, our esteemed friend Mark has raised a different issue - to KNOW in this absolute, objective sense. IMO, when dogmatic positions are made (for example: God IS and the antithesis of that, NO God) then I suppose one could demand the sort of absolute, objective PROOF the opening poster seems to relate is impossible - but not for one dogmatic position but not for another. If the one holding to the NO GOD dogma insists on such proof for the GOD dogma, then.... well.... what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Seems hypocritical to demand proof for others while exempting the position of self from the same.

But in view of the opening post, yes, ultimately, it can be affirmed: neither position (in fact NO position) is provable in such an absolute, objective sense. Ultimately, we are all believers - just not in the same things.



- Josiah

People cannot prove anything absolutely if for no other reason than that people have finite being, knowledge, duration, and perception. Yet to say that people cannot do this is not to say it cannot be done.

 

[MarkFL]

Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism..... none of those deal with what we "believe."

This is where I firmly disagree...theism is an acceptance of the belief in god/gods, and atheism is the rejection of that belief (and not the belief in no god/gods). A theist has a belief, and an atheist has no belief (not a belief in the opposite), but both deal explicitly with what is believed.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is where I firmly disagree...theism is an acceptance of the belief in god/gods, and atheism is the rejection of that belief (and not the belief in no god/gods). A theist has a belief, and an atheist has no belief (not a belief in the opposite), but both deal explicitly with what is believed.

Quite right. It is a matter of belief and unbelief. To have faith or not to have it. The matter of atheism is the matter of unbelief and lack of faith. Some take these words in a very negative sense yet they are accurate and descriptive. Atheism is an absence of religious faith rather than faith in the absence of supreme being(s).

 

[Josiah]

This is where I firmly disagree...theism is an acceptance of the belief in god/gods, and atheism is the rejection of that belief (and not the belief in no god/gods). A theist has a belief, and an atheist has no belief (not a belief in the opposite), but both deal explicitly with what is believed.

Yes, THEISM is the dogmatic insistence that GOD IS. ATHEISM is the dogmatic insistence on the antithesis, the opposite of that: GOD IS NOT. They are both dogmatic positions.

Here's where I think we disagree: If one position demands that the other prove it in some absolute, objective manner..... I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander, then so does the other position. But I usually don't see a lot of Theist demanding that the Atheist prove - to the absolute - their position true (God is not), it's usually the Atheist doing that (and mandating that nothing but what "fits" the Atheist's reality be used so nothing can challenge it). Frankly I've always felt that kind of "proof" is.... well..... fruitless.

Our friend MoreCoffee raised the belief point. And yes, I think that's a point the OP is trying to make, too. Ultimately, we are all people of faith.... we all believe...... we all make our choices, our assumptions.... we all have faith just not in the identical same reality, we all live by faith just not the same faith, we all are believers.

It is a matter of belief and unbelief. To have faith or not to have it. The matter of atheism is the matter of unbelief and lack of faith. Some take these words in a very negative sense yet they are accurate and descriptive. Atheism is an absence of religious faith rather than faith in the absence of supreme being(s).

I disagree. The word is Atheism, not acredoism. It is a dogmatic insistence that God is not. It is not some affirmation they they choose to not believe something. What you are talking about is - in a very loose, broad sense - what Agnosticism is. Actually, agnosticism doesn't have to do with beief either (note the absence of "credo") but with certainty, the agnostic AFFIRMS and DENIES nothing, the agnostic takes no position (dogmatic or otherwise) on the issue of the divine. The Agnostic simply embraces that there is insufficient certainty for he/she to rely on EITHER position. The Agnostic says NEITHER: God is (Theism) or God is not (Atheism)..... relies on either...... rejects neither..... affirms neither..... the "verdict" is "out." THAT (from a Christian perspective) could be considered having no faith but it's entirely unrelated to Atheism.



- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, THEISM is the dogmatic insistence that GOD IS. ATHEISM is the dogmatic insistence on the antithesis, the opposite of that: GOD IS NOT. They are both dogmatic positions.

You misunderstand what atheism in general is. You use strong atheism in place of the more general atheism. As I stated, I understand the reason for this, dishonest as it may be.

Here's where I think we disagree: If one position demands that the other prove it in some absolute, objective manner..... I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander, then so does the other position. But I usually don't see a lot of Theist demanding that the Atheist prove - to the absolute - their position true (God is not), it's usually the Atheist doing that (and mandating that nothing but what "fits" the Atheist's reality be used so nothing can challenge it). Frankly I've always felt that kind of "proof" is.... well..... fruitless.

If I as an atheist were to claim that there is/are no god/gods, then yes I would have a burden of proof. Those who actually make a claim do have a burden of proof, no matter what their claim. But, I make no such claim, I merely reject a claim. As such I have no burden of proof.

Our friend MoreCoffee raised the belief point. And yes, I think that's a point the OP is trying to make, too. Ultimately, we are all people of faith.... we all believe...... we all make our choices, our assumptions.... we all have faith just not in the identical same reality, we all live by faith just not the same faith, we all are believers.

I have no belief regarding god/gods. I reject any claim made regarding the supernatural on lack of evidence, because I am skeptical of any claim made without evidence, and it does not involve faith. This is not a belief, if is a rejection of a belief, a lack of belief, an absence of belief...and this is very different than believing the negation of a belief.

 

[MarkFL]

Quite right. It is a matter of belief and unbelief. To have faith or not to have it. The matter of atheism is the matter of unbelief and lack of faith. Some take these words in a very negative sense yet they are accurate and descriptive. Atheism is an absence of religious faith rather than faith in the absence of supreme being(s).

Exactly...you nailed it. :thumbsup:

 

[Josiah]

double post, sorry

 

[Josiah]

I have no belief regarding god/gods. I reject any claim made regarding the supernatural on lack of evidence, because I am skeptical of any claim made without evidence, and it does not involve faith. This is not a belief, if is a rejection of a belief, a lack of belief, an absence of belief...and this is very different than believing the negation of a belief.

Then you are not an Atheist or a Theist. You aren't even an Agnostic. Maybe a discussion of nihilism or solipism might be helpful, perhaps you relate more to something like those (perhaps applied to only one issue)?

But here's where we disagree: You CLAIM you reject anything without evidence..... yet you provide no evidence of your choices of reality, I think MAYBE you miss the point of this thread: nothing is absolutely, objectively provable (true in that sense), nothing is void of "faith" (a working reliance that something is real).

If you seek absolute, objective PROOF - you will always fall short. You might begin by PROVING in this absolute, objective sense that you even are. Trying doing that without any faith - without any assumptions, without any reliance upon anything as being reliable, real. Friend, we are all people of faith.... we all walk by faith..... we are all believers.



:smile:



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Then you are not an Atheist or a Theist. You aren't even an Agnostic.

I am an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are. Most of us reject theism because of skepticism, and strong atheism is subject to the same skepticism as theism.