Is there such a thing as a true atheist

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Are you an Atheist? Well I am going to prove to you that you are not an Atheist in its true sense.
You may think that this is a rather arrogant thing to say, but if you bear with me you will see that the logic in this statement is irrefutable. First of all I want to define 3 different stances that people have about the existance of God.

Believer: A person who believes in the existance of God.
Agnostic: A person who isn't sure whether God exists or not.
Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in the existance of God.

If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search every square inch of that country in order to confidently say there was no gold. I would also have to search every person to make sure that there were no gold fillings and search every aeroplane in Chinese airspace. Such a mammoth task would be near impossible but would be necessary in order to prove my statement.
Now lets look at the amount knowledge that a human being can possess. It is obvious that even the smartest person who has ever lived couldn't possess even 1% of all the knowledge in existance. But lets imagine that there existed an Atheist who possessed 1% of all the knowledge in existance. This is of course a huge exaggeration, but for the sake of this argument lets say that someone did possess this amount of knowledge. If this person was honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves God's existance. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. Now back to the example. If I found gold in the tooth of one Chinese citizen, then I could truthfully say that there is gold in China even if that amount of Gold was very small.
To conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.
To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as yourself. However, If you had absolute knowledge then yes God would exist, because you would be God. On the other hand, to say that there is a God only requires personal experience or an understanding that the design in creation warrants a designer. But ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Those who have seen first hand or can see evidence that gold exists in China and those who believe that gold doesn't exist in China, but can never really be sure that this is so:detective:

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,466 • Replies: 38

No top replies

@Legacy phil,

I'm an agnostic myself, but let me take a devil's advocate position.
The agnostics sit on the sidelines either caring whether or not there is a God but unable or unwilling to make an assertion either way, or just not concerned with it at all. So the question is between the believer and the atheist.
For the atheist, they would say: the burden of proof is on the theist's side. God doesn't exist, unless proven otherwise. The question is not, prove there isn't a God, it's prove there is. Instead of gold, let's say the religion in question believes in a hovering linguini entity. The question is not, prove there isn't a hovering linguini entity in the universe, the question is prove there is a hovering linguini entity in the universe.

In a court of law, the accuser is making an assertion; the accused is guilty. The accuser has the burden of proof to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Likewise the theists is making an assertion; God exists. The theists has the burden of proof to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.

1 Reply

@Legacy phil,

Sure, technically everyone who isn't an agnostic is a zealot.

So in order to distinguish themselves from the agnostic masses people who agree with a particular position, but fall short of zealousness, still tend to call themselves 'Muslim' or 'Zoroastrian' or 'atheist'.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

I regard myself as atheist, in that see no reasons to believe in/evidence for a "god", but I come to to the conclusion that "God probably doesn't exist", which makes me more of a probable-atheist (a term used by Albert Ellis). Having said that, I have less of a problem with other people believing in a god than I do with those who blindly follow organised religion.

0 Replies

@Legacy phil,

Legacy wrote:

It is obvious that even the smartest person who has ever lived couldn't possess even 1% of all the knowledge in existance. But lets imagine that there existed an Atheist who possessed 1% of all the knowledge in existance. This is of course a huge exaggeration, but for the sake of this argument lets say that someone did possess this amount of knowledge. If this person was honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves God's existance.

The same could be said of any theist, lets assume that you have 1% of all knowledge who is too say that the remaining 99% of possible knowledge might contain coclusive proof that God doesnt exist.

And also your using a largely false dichotomy, as a large proportion of Atheists would classify themselves as weak Atheist's who maintain a certain amount of agnosticism. Even Richard Dawkin's doesnt say that he is a strong atheist, but in his book places in himself in the closest caterogry towards Strong Atheism.

1 Reply

@RDanneskjld,

If an atheist is defined as someone who does not believe in the existence of god, whether or not god exists or not is meaningless, because it is what the atheist believes, and belief does not have to be true in order for it to be belief in itself.

I believe there is no god, I'm an atheist. It's really that simple. If you were to define an atheist as someone who knows there is no god, then your reasoning might hold.

1 Reply

@Legacy phil,

I would say that if you entertain a capacity for doubt then you fall within an agnostic ambit. However, because this group is so vast, and logically contains Muslims and Hindus who entertain the capacity for doubt, there doesn't seem much of a use for it.

'Sceptic' might be a better term for most 'atheists' to use than 'atheist' - because it doesn't plant a flag in the tricky territory of belief. Rather it treats all belief with a degree of suspicion.

But if it's fair for a Christian who entertains doubts to still call himself a Christian then i think it's reasonable for an atheist who entertains doubts to call himself an atheist.

0 Replies

@Legacy phil,

Parapraxis wrote:

I believe there is no god, I'm an atheist. It's really that simple. If you were to define an atheist as someone who knows there is no god, then your reasoning might hold.

Parapraxis nailed it here.

Yea, we go through this every once in a while. I continue to be fascinated by the number of people who can't grasp the differentiation between "I don't believe" and "there isn't" - it makes all the difference in the world when describing the atheist mindset.

Sure, there are atheists who say there "can't be"; but that's not - by definition - atheism.

Legacy wrote:

... Well I am going to prove to you that you are not an Atheist in its true sense... You may think that this is a rather arrogant thing to say, but if you bear with me you will see that the logic in this statement is irrefutable.

The logic might be, if you understood the definition of "Atheist". As has already been shown, atheism is someone who doesn't believe - not someone who says "there can't be".

Thanks

0 Replies

@Legacy phil,

Legacy wrote:

Are you an Atheist? Well I am going to prove to you that you are not an Atheist in its true sense.
You may think that this is a rather arrogant thing to say, but if you bear with me you will see that the logic in this statement is irrefutable. First of all I want to define 3 different stances that people have about the existance of God.

Believer: A person who believes in the existance of God.

Agnostic: A person who isn't sure whether God exists or not.

Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in the existance of God.

If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search every square inch of that country in order to confidently say there was no gold. I would also have to search every person to make sure that there were no gold fillings and search every aeroplane in Chinese airspace. Such a mammoth task would be near impossible but would be necessary in order to prove my statement.
Now lets look at the amount knowledge that a human being can possess. It is obvious that even the smartest person who has ever lived couldn't possess even 1% of all the knowledge in existance. But lets imagine that there existed an Atheist who possessed 1% of all the knowledge in existance. This is of course a huge exaggeration, but for the sake of this argument lets say that someone did possess this amount of knowledge. If this person was honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves God's existance. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. Now back to the example. If I found gold in the tooth of one Chinese citizen, then I could truthfully say that there is gold in China even if that amount of Gold was very small.
To conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.
To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as yourself. However, If you had absolute knowledge then yes God would exist, because you would be God. On the other hand, to say that there is a God only requires personal experience or an understanding that the design in creation warrants a designer. But ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Those who have seen first hand or can see evidence that gold exists in China and those who believe that gold doesn't exist in China, but can never really be sure that this is so:detective:

Would you provide a definition for "god"?

0 Replies

@Legacy phil,

No one can know if God exists or not. We can only believe whether he exists or not.
If you believe you're a theist; if you don't, you're atheist.

0 Replies

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

In a court of law, the accuser is making an assertion; the accused is guilty. The accuser has the burden of proof to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Likewise the theists is making an assertion; God exists. The theists has the burden of proof to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.

Dear Victor Eremita,
I don't know how much law you know but do you know to have God appear in court you have to serve Him papers. Explain how this is done.

God is perfectly good, being perfectly good He is not guilty. So Theist don't waste there time making false accusations against God of guilt, and they have no reason to drag God in court, therefore there is no trial - without a trial Theist do not need the burden of proof.

0 Replies

@Legacy phil,

Quote:

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge.

Not quite. Removing extremely remote possibilities is not a necessary condition for a knowledge claim. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to make any knowledge claim whatsoever. For an example, there may an invisible ninja with a cloaking device standing beside you at this very moment. You have no way of proving that he isn't there, but you can still reasonably claim that there is no ninja. And not just believe it either, you could reasonably claim to know that there is no ninja. So in order for an agnosticism to be required of an atheist, there must be relevant evidence to suggest that there actually may be a God, just as evidence would be required to suggest that there may be an invisible ninja.

0 Replies

@Legacy phil,

Abstract notions and Propositions

Generally if we refer to propositions, we are speaking of a statement that can potentially hold a "truth" value. If I state the proposition, "Gold is in China", this can demonstrably be proven "True" or "False"; the predicate can be affirmed or denied. However, "God is in China", to some philosophers, would not be considered a proposition as the subject does not allow the predicate to affirm or deny. Why does the subject not allow the predicate to be affirmed or denied? Because the subject, "God", is an abstract notion. Abstract notions do not exist in any defined time or space, they are only ideas, abstractions. "Justice", "Country", "Government" are all examples of abstract notions.It's very important we note this if we are to attempt to make truth-statements containing "God" -- we'll be on a slippery slope fast if we don't watch ourselves.

Belief and Knowledge

One has the capacity to believe without knowledge. In terms of your gold analogy, I could believe there is gold in China, without any empirical knowledge. I can just as easily believe my friend is in the kitchen, even though he may have just entered his bedroom. The term "Belief" is very varied in it's usage, and there is a range of intensity with which it can be spoken. Two sentences such as, "I believe it's snowing outside", and "I believe 2+2=4", can carry different ranges of intensity and meaning. That is, you might "Not be so sure" it's snowing outside, but "You're really, really sure" 2+2=4. Some may use "I believe" interchangeably with "I think", and some may use "I believe" interchangeably with "I know", indicating a 'stronger' belief.

Semantic variance

"Gold" is a term we've dubbed to classify a certain type of metal, a metal we have categorized in our periodic table of elements. There is an intersubjective (for all practical argument, it's universal) understanding of not only the usage of the word, but its meaning. Some abstract notions, however, such as "God", vary immensely in their usage and meaning. To even begin a philosophical debate concerning this word, we would have to agree upon conditions with which the word applies, in addition to clarifying (the best we can) the meaning and usage we're referring. Otherwise, language will not bring clarity to the discussion, and no intelligent debate can be had. It would be like arguing viciously what flavor of ice cream is the best.

God as experience

Many spiritualists note "God" is to be experienced, not studied. Any use of language in attempting to describe this word evokes the ancient Buddhist saying, "Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon". An important note to those that seek "Proof": You will only find "Proof" within your own experience - don't look for it elsewhere.

Summation

With the understanding "God" is an abstract notion and has the potential to be believed:

I'm not a theist because I know humans have the capacity to believe there is no God; I know the notion can sometimes not exist. I'm not an atheist because I know humans have the capacity to believe there is a God; I know the notion can sometimes exist. I'm not an agnostic in regards to theism because I know both of these classifications can exist and the abstract notion believed depending on the consciousness rationalizing.

Remember, folks, this doesn't mean I'm not spiritual: "God" only means what I dictate it to mean. One can experience spirituality without succumbing to linguistic confusion. It's utterly pointless to argue about "God", just as it's silly to argue about "Redness". Remember to ask yourself: Am I clarifying or muddying the subject with which I'm speaking? Language can sure turn into a bloody mess if we aren't careful.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Without dragging god into court, which personally I would love to see as I have a few qualms with him, theists do have a burden of proof.

However some theists reject two things:
i) The need to provide reasons or rationale for deism, because a belief in god is based on "faith", and for a theist a belief based on "faith" is just not a problem.
ii) The need to convince anybody else of this belief in god, because to him/her the relationship is entirely personal and so long as he/she believes in god it does not matter.

Most atheists use a completely different "mode of thinking" to try and disprove god than theists do to try and prove god, and if I'm being cynical (and bluntly honest), once people accept the belief in the kind of Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic god, or any deism based on organised religion, they already ignore the critical faculties that allows for any stimulating or engaged debate.

2 Replies

@Parapraxis,

Wouldn't it be helpful to define what you mean by "God"?

For instance, if you were to say that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being that created everything that exists, then we could move forward with an argument as to whether or not this god exists and maybe find out if an atheist is justified in his or her non-belief..

0 Replies

@Legacy phil,

It doesn't matter what definition of God we use. The proposition is that X exists even though no-one has any evidence for X. The burden of proof is then on the person making that proposition. The logical positions are that either X doesn't exist (by, in the general case, recourse to probabilistic considerations: since X may take any value, the probability of a particular X being true is negligible, or in the special cases to reasonable ones where proposition X contradicts bette understood truths) or that its existence/non-existence are irrelevant until proven one way or another (since X cannot be shown to be true or false). The faith-based position is that X is true because the individual prefers to live in a world with X rather than a world without for whatever reason.

X can be anything: Allah, Buddha, Jehova, the floating linguine entity, the Higgs boson, ghosts, intergalactic spiders, or, for someone who has never seen evidence for rabbits, a rabbit.

1 Reply

@Legacy phil,

Parapraxis and Bones-O,

Why do theists hold a burden of proof? As noted in my above post, many spiritualists acknowledge: Spirituality is an experiential understanding. The spiritualist may argue that no evidence presented in language will suffice for proving anything; it is something each person must experience. If I say I'm in love, do I hold the burden of proof to present evidence for why I'm in love? Of course not; to demand evidence for every belief is absolutely absurd and is just not practical.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Parapraxis and Bones-O,

Why do theists hold a burden of proof? As noted in my above post, many spiritualists acknowledge: Spirituality is an experiential understanding. The spiritualist may argue that no evidence presented in language will suffice for proving anything; it is something each person must experience. If I say I'm in love, do I hold the burden of proof to present evidence for why I'm in love? Of course not; to demand evidence for every belief is absolutely absurd and is just not practical.

I would agree with this to a certain extent, I did not actually make myself clear and apologise. I have less of a problem with people believing in a sort of "power" than I do with people adhering (strictly) to a specific religious doctrine. If one experiences a form of divinity, then a skeptic can remain skeptic without demanding proof; however if one wishes to suggest there is some all-powerful god who is creator of everything and watcher over all people (or whatever), then I would say there is a burden of proof because they (i.e. he or she) is not describing an experience, but trying to postulate a fact.

1 Reply

@Parapraxis,

Parapraxis wrote:

I would agree with this to a certain extent, I did not actually make myself clear and apologise. I have less of a problem with people believing in a sort of "power" than I do with people adhering (strictly) to a specific religious doctrine. If one experiences a form of divinity, then a skeptic can remain skeptic without demanding proof; however if one wishes to suggest there is some all-powerful god who is creator of everything and watcher over all people (or whatever), then I would say there is a burden of proof because they (i.e. he or she) is not describing an experience, but trying to postulate a fact.

I'd like to refer you to my first post, post #13:

If we are to accept "God" as an abstract notion, we are to accept it does not exist in any defined time or space. "Justice", for example, exists notionally, and can only be experienced or rationalized. To attempt a proposition with "Justice" would be silly (in my opinion), as there are no truth-statements (without clarification) with which to support the proposition; we wouldn't be able to affirm or deny any predicate in the proposition, "Justice is in China". But it could be done. Justice could be clarified and an intersubjective definition defined in order to allow us truth value. In other words, we could make it an analyzable proposition if we provide potential truth value. So, we could say for instance, "Justice" is defined as, "At least one man is put in jail for committing second degree murder". We would then be able to analyze the proposition, seeing whether it's 'true' or 'false'.

Similarly, we could do the same thing for "God" (or any abstract notion, really -- a transference into the physical realm). The problem is, not many would agree with the conditions set forth. And even more do not agree that it should even be done ("Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon"). But the take home point here is that: if someone attempted to make a truth-proposition involving an abstract notion, without clarifying the "game" with which the proposition will be displayed, the individual, in all practicality, would not be making an analyzable proposition at all. It's not that they should be given the burden of proof -- they don't even have a proposition that elicits a truth value!! They're just playing with cards, creating confusion. Do you see? Clarification on the conditions for the word must be set forth to even begin any worthwhile intellectual discussion.

Once again, language cannot help us unless we all decide to play the same "game". If we deviate from the "game", language will not bring us clarity.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

It doesn't matter what definition of God we use. The proposition is that X exists even though no-one has any evidence for X. The burden of proof is then on the person making that proposition. ... The faith-based position is that X is true because the individual prefers to live in a world with X rather than a world without for whatever reason.

Bones, I didn't quote your entire post, but please don't think I didn't read it. Can you put your argument in a less technical fashion?

I agree with ihavenoidea. I think it makes all the difference in the world how you define "god." I'm confident that I would deny the same god or gods that you deny. That's very different from saying " 'God,' no matter how the term is understood, does not exist" isn't it? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say, "I have not encountered a concept for 'God' that seems plausible to me"?

Also, though I heartily concur with atheists who object to arguments by theists against atheism (I haven't seen a convincing one), I think the assumption that theism is always based on simple-minded wishful thinking is simply presumptuous. If you have carefully studied theology and can demonstrate your assertion, then I will reconsider my position.

0 Replies

Is there such a thing as a true atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know