Is there such a thing as a true atheist

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

When you say, "I believe there is no God," I accept you as saying "There probably is no God, and I am prepared to explain why."

Mr FTP, Mind if I poke in here and add something?

I think you're trying to explain your perception of atheism as a positive assertion. I believe I see the flow of your logic and I also believe I can see where you're coming from. There's one small problem with this and the opening post though;

Take this statement, of which we're discussing: "I'm an atheist because I've seen no support; and feel no need to believe"

• How much I defend this?
  
• Shall I prove to you that I do, in fact, have no sufficient positive justification?
  
• In the end, might you be able to convince me that the lack of support that I perceive really is a reason to believe?
  

... of course not. Once again we end up back in that place where we started; that either one has reason and support to believe there's a Teapot in Orbit, or one does not. He who hasn't any reason to believe such a thing cannot support that which he does not have; thus, if there is a burden of proof to provide (and I don't really think there is), it would necessarily have to rest with those making the "I think there is evidence for"-assertion.

We can't logically respond to a "there's not enough"-explanation with a "well show me"-response. The stance that one hasn't any support explains itself.

You're absolutely right here; and the answer for virtually anyone who doesn't believe would be: "... because I don't have a reason to". What might the response be? "Prove to me you have no reason to?".

I hope you see what I'm saying. Thanks

I originally intended to distinguish between "I believe God doesn't exist" and "I don't believe God exists" (I think you noticed that I stuck my attacks firmly to the former). The latter certainly is impervious to the OPs argument.

I am a strong agnostic, and I hold that agnosticism is of a different kind of position than theism and atheism, namely that agnosticism is an epistemological stance, where the others are theological.

There are a great many self-proclaimed atheists who say that they don't believe in God because they are not presented with any evidence to believe. This, however, is agnosticism, and I at least would prefer that it be referred to as agnosticism. There are also a lot of people who express the atheist belief "I believe that God doesn't exist", but take the agnostic justification in saying that they don't have reason to believe that God exists.

... they should say "I don't believe God exists" and refer to themselves as agnostics.

Umm, yea. Except that "evidence" may exist for both epistemological support or theological support; depending on the person. If we're talking about "what is an atheist", we need to toss out epistemological notions (lest we muddy the waters) since an atheist, by definition, makes no claim to 'knowledge' either way - only belief.

But again, since many 'beliefs' are based upon some element of 'support', we can't say that those who want for support are only seeking 'knowledge'; they may also be speaking of "why I believe", or "reasons to believe". The line between belief and knowledge is tenuous (and has no specific "break point" I think - I posted on this issue here)

This is very, very interesting.

You realize that you've come to that last statement (quoted), using very sound reasoning - with some drift in belief/knowledge differentiation - yet ended up with a fallacy?

1. "I don't believe god exists" = Speaking to belief, not knowledge, not epistemology
   
2. "... refer to themselves as agnostics" = Speaking to epistemology, not belief, not theology
   

I'm not sure I disagree with you and can't say you're wrong (unless and until I understand you more fully), but I will applaud your perspicuity. I do get the sense that you may be mixing both concepts up; or perhaps I am - maybe we both are. In any case, I think we're drawing specific lines between the two when Belief and Knowledge are actually "soft borders" that vary from person to person - and within each person, from issue to issue.

An atheist who makes any claim to "know there isn't" any god is - in my humble opinion - making an immature claim. The term; this label "Atheist" only speaks to belief, not knowledge. Any claim to know or not know in any direction does indeed beg for explanation yet is something all together different from what we're discussing here. But 'Beliefs' on any given issue aren't for those who claim knowledge. I believe I'm sitting down, yet for all intents and purposes I know I'm sitting down. Beliefs are for those things were the weight of support, that I'm in possession of, isn't sufficient for me to use the term 'know'.

This is not assigning simple-minded wishful thinking to all theists?

Lack of evidence is lack of evidence both ways. One cannot say that they believe god doesn't exist because they don't have evidence, rather they should say "I don't believe God exists" and refer to themselves as agnostics.

I cannot believe both that a sentient God created the Universe and that the Universe occurred mechanically, without divine intervention. Since I cannot rule out the latter due to lack of evidence . . .

Further, I'd reject your notion that lack of evidence goes both ways as a general principle. Absolutely zero evidence for something is in itself strong evidence to believe in its negation, since its negation is everywhere evident.

The evidence of God is experienced inside each person individually . . . it isn't externalizable.

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.
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:

It is not so much arrogant to say as it is wrong. The reason is that atheists do not claim to know there is no God. They claim they don't believe that there is a God. So showing they don't know there is a God in no way shows they are not atheists, or even "true atheists".

Then one can neither be a theist nor an atheist. I cannot believe both that a sentient God created the Universe and that the Universe occurred mechanically, without divine intervention. Since I cannot rule out the latter due to lack of evidence, I cannot say "I believe God created the Universe" since this necessarily means "I believe the Universe did not occur mechanically without divine intervention".

Further, I'd reject your notion that lack of evidence goes both ways as a general principle. Absolutely zero evidence for something is in itself strong evidence to believe in its negation, since its negation is everywhere evident. (That's the great thing about zeroes... you never run out of 'em.)

There are two types of atheism: weak (those who do not believe there is a God); and strong (those who believe there is no God). Legacy presupposes all atheists are strong just as you are presupposing they are weak. Legacy and Mr FTP are stipulating that weak atheists are simply agnostics and not "true atheists". One could, of course, invert the line of reasoning and say that agnostics are nothing more than weak atheists. We either have two different terms for the same thing, or there's a difference: it all comes down to choosing your definitions (again).

There are two types of atheism: weak (those who do not believe there is a God); and strong (those who believe there is no God). Legacy presupposes all atheists are strong just as you are presupposing they are weak. Legacy and Mr FTP are stipulating that weak atheists are simply agnostics and not "true atheists". One could, of course, invert the line of reasoning and say that agnostics are nothing more than weak atheists. We either have two different terms for the same thing, or there's a difference: it all comes down to choosing your definitions (again).

What about those who do not consider god to be an abstract concept but consider "it" to be something very real?

2) It is rarely enough for any theist I've ever met, even the nicest, to both accept God's existence and respect athiests' non-belief. If, in general, a theist will try to tell an athiest the latter is wrong, then one could say that such a theist holds the burden of proof by default. I agree this isn't general - not all theists are missionary-minded - but it's common enough that I might alter my comment in a different way: The burden of proof lies with the theists, except those who don't care what others believe.

There certainly is a mixing of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic". While often atheism is considered to be believing against the existence of some supreme being, it is often defined as lacking belief in a god or gods. In this sense, the epistemological position of agnosticism is a form of atheism, even if it precludes statements concerning the existence of any divine entity.

I'm a little lost.
No wait, I'm completely lost.
Explain.

Only when you deal with boundaries.

You are entirely correct that you can swap it up and say that agnostics are weak atheists, but that is my problem with it. I am agnostic in that I refuse to make any truth claim towards any religious proposition.

In order to have any sort of intelligent discussion with this person, we would have to establish the "God" we're referring...

There is also the evidential atheist who claims it is irrational or unreasonable to hold a belief that has insufficient evidence (nerdfiles actually touched upon this). The evidential atheist proposes that if you have insufficient evidence for your belief, you ignore your intellectual duty (unreasonable), and/or if you have insufficient evidence for your belief then you have some cognitive deficiency (irrational).

With so many variations from both sides of the "fence", I find the labels "Theist" and "Atheist" trite, pointless, not only in their delivery, but in their meaning. ...

And not to mention, guys, neither of the terms are exhaustive. Given the so many different notions (I'd argue each individual actually has their own personal understanding), what do the terms "Theist" and "Atheist" even contribute? ...Why this particular abstract notion has this mystical "We must prove!" stigma attached, I haven't a clue.

...I propose we're quite literally bickering over nothing.

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.

1. Believer: A person who believes in the existance of God.
   
2. Agnostic: A person who isn't sure whether God exists or not.
   
3. 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: