Does the claim "there is no God" require evidence/reasoning to support it?

[AntiTheist]

But I do not lack a belief in Thor, I disbelieve in Thor. In fact, I would positively say that Thor doesn’t exist. My evidence and reasoning for such a positive claim may not be logically sound ™ all the way through, but they are as strong as for the positive claim that unicorns don’t exist.

If I really did lack a belief in Thor in this new sense of the word, then I would neither believe nor disbelieve, I would have no belief.

Look, there are two levels we’re dealing with here: the absolute level and the everyday level.

Can I claim that I know absolutely that there is no Thor? Of course not. There could be some alternate dimension where there is a Thor-being that exists somewhere. There’s just no reason to think that this is true, and on this level, all I can say is that I lack belief in him.

On the everyday level, though, what does it mean to say that something “exists”? In everyday, practical terms, it means “manifesting in some way that is detectable.” On this level, if there is absolutely no indication that any being called Thor manifests in any detectable way, then we can, for all intents and purposes, say that we know that Thor doesn’t exist (unless and until more evidence arises).

So when it comes to atheists and gods – all gods, not just Thor – it’s similar. Atheism, the position, arises from the observation that there is not sufficient evidence for any god-claim. Whether this translates into “I lack belief” or “There are no gods” depends on the level you’re approaching the question from and the particular temperament of the atheist.

But all of this is just distracting to the issue at hand: there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim “a god exists” – and if there is not sufficient evidence, the only rational position is not to accept the claim, which makes you an atheist.

If you happen to think that there is sufficient evidence, then go over to the “Well, why?” thread in the philosophy forums and present your evidence.

 

[R_Daneel]

“Without belief” does not mean the same thing as “does not believe.”

Well, we are immersed in semantics, up to our neck. You say that there is a difference between the two phrases. What is the difference? The strength of the conviction?

But I do not lack a belief in Thor, I disbelieve in Thor. In fact, I would positively say that Thor doesn’t exist. My evidence and reasoning for such a positive claim may not be logically sound ™ all the way through, but they are as strong as for the positive claim that unicorns don’t exist.

You are simply a “strong a-Thorist” then. Now, what would be your evidence that would make the proposition “Thor exists” an irrational one?

If I really did lack a belief in Thor in this new sense of the word, then I would neither believe nor disbelieve, I would have no belief.

To have no belief is the same as lacking a belief. There is no difference semantically.

 

[rvilbig]

Atheism, the position, arises from the observation that there is not sufficient evidence for any god-claim. Whether this translates into “I lack belief” or “There are no gods” depends on the level you’re approaching the question from and the particular temperament of the atheist.

Through sinful lives and particularly pride, atheists have closed themselves off to having a personal experience of God:

“If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (Jn 14:23)

But atheists have prepared no place in their hearts for “the LORD, the great God” (Neh 8:6) who revealed Himself to the Israelites while the other “nations raged haughtily and the peoples meditated vain things” (Acts 4:25).

So if you really think that the God of Christianity is on the level of the gods of the Vikings, then I invite you to consider the aspect of reality that you, thankfully, are still open to: the visible facts and the cultural fitness of Christianity, as the Jewish scholar Gamaliel noted:

“Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered. So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:36-39)

I invite you to prepare a place in your hearts for the God of this ancient faith, who “from age to age has gathered a people to Himself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of His name.” (cf. Eucharistic Prayer III) All are welcome in the Catholic Church.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Leela]

Hi Antitheist,

Through sinful lives and particularly pride, atheists have closed themselves off to having a personal experience of God:

It is such bigotry as espoused by rvilbig above rather than these tedious arguments about the “true meaning atheism” that ought to be of greatest concern to you.

Best,
Leela

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Correct. One either believes, or one does not. There is no “middle” ground. One cannot “suspend” belief. Theism and atheism are metaphysical propositions.

There’s a huge difference between atheists’ “disbelief” and agnostics’ “lack of certain belief.” For example, I haven’t checked the weather report for tomorrow yet. If you were asking me if I believed it was going to rain tomorrow, I’d say, “I don’t know.” That’s a far cry from me saying, “No, it’s not. It’s going to be sunny.”

To group those two responses as equally denying that it will rain is just false – the first one doesn’t deny that it’ll rain, and I might even suspect that it will (hence the 21% of “atheists” who believe in God).

But besides that, you could just as easily group it in the opposite direction. If someone had instead asked, “will it be sunny tomorrow?” I’d have responded “I don’t know.” My lack of belief is for both propositions. So agnostics, like atheists, resist affirming the proposition “there is a God” with certainty. But agnostics, like theists, resist affirming the proposition “there is no God” as well – should we group them as “weak theists”?

Finally, you’re wrong that one cannot “suspend” belief. We have exactly this form of belief for everything we’ve never heard of – we don’t deny the existence of everything we’ve never encountered, but we don’t affirm its existence, either.

The term “agnosticism” does not deal with metaphysics, it deals with epistemology. It simply should not be used, but unfortunately it gained wide acceptance, especially among those who like to muddy the waters, or those who feel uncomfortable with calling a spade a spade…

Agnosticism is an epistemological claim about metaphysics. It’s the failure or refusal to affirm either the atheist or theist camp.

And agnosticism was the term used for generations before atheists started calling them “weak atheists” (which, as I said, could just as easily be used in reverse to rename them “weak theists”). It was never used as a clever tool of any sort. There’s just an immense amount of difference between “I don’t know if God exists” and “God doesn’t exist.” The former claim has never be described as atheism, because that’s not what the word means (either in English or in the original Greek).

 

[Belloc_Fan]

All claims about the world outside of people’s minds require empirical evidence drawn from the world around them.

There it is again. Earlier, you claimed:

And all reasonable people dismiss a priori, non-empirical evidence when it comes to evaluating claims about the world outside of our heads.

This is the claim that I’m saying is obviously wrong, if you mean empirical in the sense that term is used within science. Theoretical statistics, for example, is mathematical, but doesn’t go off of empirical data alone. And outside the natural sciences, claims subject to repeatable experiments are just not standard fare – that’s not the method used by historians, philosophers, etc.

Besides that, you’re making an affirmative claim here that only empirical claims are valid forms of acquiring knowledge, and that “reasonable people” dismiss all other forms of knowledge. You’ve already contradicted yourself by showing that there are certain claims you accept a prior without empirical data, so by your own standards, you’re not reasonable. But this standard itself isn’t reasonable, in that there’s no possible way to design a falsifiable experiment to test this claim.

Obviously, claims about things like my inner state (like, “I feel happy right now”) only require the evidence of my own personal observation of my inner state.

Except that none of the examples I gave were “I feel happy” claims. They were things like, “Alexander the Great existed.” The natural sciences can’t prove that.

I’m not saying that empirical evidence is necessary to support every claim – just those claims that pertain to the world outside of my head.

Again, this is a non-empirical claim being used as a binding vise on logic.

And the claim that “a disembodied intelligence exists and created the universe and cares for everything in the universe and intervenes in nature” is a claim about the world outside of my head that needs to be justified with evidence.

Yes. We agree on this, but it’s because it’s a positive claim, not because it’s a claim about natural science. As such, the evidence isn’t going to just be regarding the natural sciences, since that’s perhaps the least related of the modes of inquiry.

My point is that we are talking about the supernatural here – something or Someone operating beyond, and in possible contravention of, the laws of nature. Now, those laws of nature themselves point to a Lawgiver, which is a proof for God. But for the major claims of Christianity, we’re pointing to the things beyond the laws of nature. Trying to use a method designed for the natural sciences to determine: (a) the nature of One who can abrogate or suspend those laws, or (b) where those laws came from, is a self-refuting proposition. It’s like trying to use a calculator to figure out whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus.

Again, “new atheists”…or any other kind of atheists…don’t demands “scientific empirical data for everything.” I don’t demand empirical scientific data to know that “I’m hungry right now” – since it’s a claim about my inner state, my observation of my inner state is sufficient for that claim.

See above.

But when the conversation is about the world outside of our heads, evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads is necessary. And when the conversation is about something within the realm of science, then scientific, empirical evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads is necessary.

Certainly, the existence of God impacts the world of science, just as it impacts the world of literature, politics, sociology, etc. But to then reduce the God-claim to a scientific question is unfounded. We’re saying that science proceeds from God. That’s a claim beyond the realm of science.

What you’re doing here is playing a disingenuous game where you observe that empirical evidence isn’t necessary for every last single claim and then you try to make believe that empirical evidence isn’t necessary for a claim about the world outside of our heads…the very place where empirical evidence is necessary!

There are forms of compelling evidence beyond empiricism. Sound Socratic logic is superior to empiricism, for example. You keep claiming that I’m using feeling examples: “I feel hungry,” etc. But that’s just dismissive of the actual argument.

Your whole argument is a bunch of hand-waving in an attempt to convince gullible people that they don’t need evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim about the world around them.

You’ve completely misunderstood the argument, and clung to an irrational dichotomy between “feelings” and “science,” which eviscerates all other forms of rational inquiry.

 

[R_Daneel]

There’s a huge difference between atheists’ “disbelief” and agnostics’ “lack of certain belief.” For example, I haven’t checked the weather report for tomorrow yet. If you were asking me if I believed it was going to rain tomorrow, I’d say, “I don’t know.” That’s a far cry from me saying, “No, it’s not. It’s going to be sunny.”

To group those two responses as equally denying that it will rain is just false – the first one doesn’t deny that it’ll rain, and I might even suspect that it will (hence the 21% of “atheists” who believe in God).

But besides that, you could just as easily group it in the opposite direction. If someone had instead asked, “will it be sunny tomorrow?” I’d have responded “I don’t know.” My lack of belief is for both propositions. So agnostics, like atheists, resist affirming the proposition “there is a God” with certainty. But agnostics, like theists, resist affirming the proposition “there is no God” as well – should we group them as “weak theists”?

Certainty has nothing to do with it. I do not know for certain that there is no “god”, where the word “god” is something outside the physical universe. No one else does. In this sense everyone is agnostic. The propositions: “there is God”, or “there is no God” are not the focus of these discussions, since the only possible answer would be “I don’t know”. The precise meaning of the word “theist” describes a person who believes in the existence of a god, or gods. The precise meaning of the word "atheist: is someone who does not have this belief. Simple and without ambiguity.

By the way the 21% you quoted only shows that a smart poll-taker can get any answer they want to by phrasing the question appropriately.

Finally, you’re wrong that one cannot “suspend” belief. We have exactly this form of belief for everything we’ve never heard of – we don’t deny the existence of everything we’ve never encountered, but we don’t affirm its existence, either.

If you have never encountered a new concept then you cannot believe it. Since atheism is simply a lack of belief, then you would be an atheist in that respect.

Agnosticism is an epistemological claim about metaphysics. It’s the failure or refusal to affirm either the atheist or theist camp.

Which is sheer nonsense or a cop-out.

And agnosticism was the term used for generations before atheists started calling them “weak atheists” (which, as I said, could just as easily be used in reverse to rename them “weak theists”). It was never used as a clever tool of any sort. There’s just an immense amount of difference between “I don’t know if God exists” and “God doesn’t exist.” The former claim has never be described as atheism, because that’s not what the word means (either in English or in the original Greek).

Again, “knowledge” has nothing to do with this - belief or lack of belief does. The word agnostic (as a proposed way to circumvent “tertium non datur”) was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860. It was a bad idea.

The basic problem is the lack of distinction between “belief” and “knowledge”. Many people use them interchangably, which is a serious lack of precision and this imprecision only serves to muddy the waters.

 

[R_Daneel]

They were things like, “Alexander the Great existed.” The natural sciences can’t prove that.

Just one quick observation. “Existed” means that he does not “exist”. The past does not exist. Claims about nonexistence cannot be “proven”. Supernatural claims do not belong to this category. They are supposed to exist here and now. As such they are subject to more stringent criteria than claims about the past - which is usually just hearsay evidence.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Certainty has nothing to do with it. I do not know for certain that there is no “god”, where the word “god” is something outside the physical universe. No one else does. In this sense everyone is agnostic. The propositions: “there is God”, or “there is no God” are not the focus of these discussions, since the only possible answer would be “I don’t know”. The precise meaning of the word “theist” describes a person who believes in the existence of a god, or gods. The precise meaning of the word "atheist: is someone who does not have this belief. Simple and without ambiguity.

That’s *not *the meaning of atheist, and giving it that meaning creates all sorts of ambiguity, since it forces all agnostics to immediately take a side. What’s the point of that?

By the way the 21% you quoted only shows that a smart poll-taker can get any answer they want to by phrasing the question appropriately.

It was Pew, not a push poll. My original inclination was the same as yours.

If you have never encountered a new concept then you cannot believe it. Since atheism is simply a lack of belief, then you would be an atheist in that respect.

That’s why this new re-definition of “atheism” is absurd. If I’ve never heard of Napoleon, by this standard, I’d be the same as someone who, after hearing of him, refused to believe he existed. But obviously, these are two very different camps. A sane person who’s never heard of Napoleon will believe in him immediately upon hearing of him. But that doesn’t mean that they went from disbelief to belief. They went from non-belief, perhaps, if by that you mean a lack of belief. But atheists *disbelieve *in God. They think Christians are wrong, quite unlike someone who’s never heard the Christian message, but would willingly believe it if it were presented, or even someone who’s heard the message but remains unsure. The important question is one of conclusions – atheism is a conclusion, while agnosticism isn’t.

Which is sheer nonsense or a cop-out.

How so?

Again, “knowledge” has nothing to do with this - belief or lack of belief does. The word agnostic (as a proposed way to circumvent “tertium non datur”) was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860. It was a bad idea.

I don’t see what’s bad about it. There are three camps, those who are confident (even if not perfectly sure) that God doesn’t exist, those who are confident He does, and those who don’t know. Those groups are pretty readily identifiable: Y/N/Maybe to the question of God. Why the obsession with trying to claim we’re all agnostics, and that agnostics are atheists? Even if you can cleverly redefine terms to make us all seem atheist, it doesn’t make the substance of your arguments any stronger.

My point is that those saying yes or no to the question of God need evidence, while a maybe doesn’t. Do you agree or disagree with this proposition?

The basic problem is the lack of distinction between “belief” and “knowledge”. Many people use them interchangably, which is a serious lack of precision and this imprecision only serves to muddy the waters.

The two are interrelated, but I take your point. How is this the “basic problem” though?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Just one quick observation. “Existed” means that he does not “exist”. The past does not exist. Claims about nonexistence cannot be “proven”. Supernatural claims do not belong to this category. They are supposed to exist here and now. As such they are subject to more stringent criteria than claims about the past - which is usually just hearsay evidence.

Your argument that claims about the past are usually based on hearsay evidence is interesting. It’s not true in the strict (legal) sense of that term, but it is true that it’s based on testimony, which is what I think you really mean. By anti-theist’s standard, this makes history illegitimate, and all historians a priori irrational for even trying to uncover the past using non-scientific methods.

But I think it also points to two different ways of examining the question of God. One way starts with questions about the nature of the universe. It’s ordered, follows certain laws, contains beauty, and above all, exists – all of which point to an immaterial Creator. These are questions of science (sort of – the laws of thermodynamics are helpful, as is an understanding of Big Bang cosmology), but more accurately, questions of philosophy. These arguments are logically sound, but not always convincing. I mean, it’s a huge leap of faith to get from acknowledging “matter requires an Immaterial Creator,” to proclaiming “My Lord, my God!” It can be done, but it’s a bit of a challenge.

The other way starts with the person of Christ, and uses the Old Testament as historical texts. Here, the question turns on the Resurrection. We have good evidence to believe that Christ existed on Earth, that He Died, and that within a few weeks of His Death, His Disciples were claiming that He had risen, and that they had seen Him. These questions turn on questions of history, and rely for evidence in large part upon testimony (and an understanding of human nature).

If the Resurrection can be shown to be a likely event, an open-minded examination of the Old Testament texts show that they had predicted (or at least prefigured) Christ and the Resurrection. It’s like watching a plot twist, and suddenly realizing all of the clues the movie had left prior to that point. So with this view, you start with the Resurrection as historical event, and build outward. Quickly, it becomes clear that despite being written by dozens of authors over the course of centuries, the Books of the Bible tell a surprisingly consistent story, and make eerily complementary predictions. Daniel 2 predicts that God will enter history during the Roman Empire’s rule over Judah, Psalm 22 prefigures the Crucifixion, even though it’s a thousand years before that form of death was invented, etc. All of these pieces come together in a brilliant way. Comparing these predictions to, say, the predictions of the LDS “prophets,” you’ll quickly see a difference.

That second way is my personal preference, because it deals with the person of Jesus Christ, not the abstract question of God. Also, it deals with history, rather than metaphysics, and I’m partial as a former history major. The evidence provided for the claim is evidence provided for any historical claim. Note also that it doesn’t start with “God exists, here and now.” Because while that’s a true conclusion, taking it as a starting point isn’t helpful.

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s *not *the meaning of atheist, and giving it that meaning creates all sorts of ambiguity, since it forces all agnostics to immediately take a side. What’s the point of that?

Shall we go into a linguistic debate? Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) A-theism is the negation of this belief. Nothing more, nothing less. The Greek “a-” prefix denotes the negation of a proposition. Now, there is still some ambiguity here, or at least there can be. A theist says: “I believe in the existence of a god or gods”. A very generic statement, on purpose. A formal negation of theis propositions would be: “It is not true that I believe in the existence of a god or gods”. This formal negation can be resolved two different ways for everyday parlance: 1) “I do not believe that there is a god or gods” or 2) “I believe that there is (or are) no god of gods”. However, the sentences are basically the same. They both describe the lack of a belief.

That’s why this new re-definition of “atheism” is absurd. If I’ve never heard of Napoleon, by this standard, I’d be the same as someone who, after hearing of him, refused to believe he existed. But obviously, these are two very different camps.

Sure, there is a difference. No one denies that. This is why there is a difference between strong and weak atheism.

I don’t see what’s bad about it. There are three camps, those who are confident (even if not perfectly sure) that God doesn’t exist, those who are confident He does, and those who don’t know. Those groups are pretty readily identifiable: Y/N/Maybe to the question of God. Why the obsession with trying to claim we’re all agnostics, and that agnostics are atheists?

I never said that all agnostics are atheists, and don’t think that anyone made that claim. It would be a very dumb claim.

The two are interrelated, but I take your point. How is this the “basic problem” though?

It is a basic problem because “belief” and “knowledge” are mutually exclusive. If you know something, it makes no sense to assert that you also believe it. If you only believe something, then you don’t know it.

 

[R_Daneel]

Your argument that claims about the past are usually based on hearsay evidence is interesting. It’s not true in the strict (legal) sense of that term, but it is true that it’s based on testimony, which is what I think you really mean. By anti-theist’s standard, this makes history illegitimate, and all historians a priori irrational for even trying to uncover the past using non-scientific methods.

I cannot speak for Anti-Theist, and don’t want to. The phrase “hearsay evidence” and “testimonial evidence” are not exactly interchangable. A testimonial evidence would come from someone who (allegedly) was present at the event. A hearsay evidence is second- or third-hand evidence where the “story” was handed down, in oral or written format.

The claims of religion are all this kind. It is notable that in legal cases hearsay evidence is usually not permitted. The reason is simple: we realize that hearsay evidence is the least reliable of all. Not that anyone should be assumed of willing distortion or lying. It is just the nature of telling and re-telling a story that it “gets” less and less reliable. See the whispering game.

But I think it also points to two different ways of examining the question of God. One way starts with questions about the nature of the universe. It’s ordered, follows certain laws, contains beauty, and above all, exists – all of which point to an immaterial Creator.

Only for those who already believe in God.

The other way starts with the person of Christ, and uses the Old Testament as historical texts. Here, the question turns on the Resurrection. We have good evidence to believe that Christ existed on Earth, that He Died, and that within a few weeks of His Death, His Disciples were claiming that He had risen, and that they had seen Him. These questions turn on questions of history, and rely for evidence in large part upon testimony (and an understanding of human nature).

If the Resurrection can be shown to be a likely event, an open-minded examination of the Old Testament texts show that they had predicted (or at least prefigured) Christ and the Resurrection. It’s like watching a plot twist, and suddenly realizing all of the clues the movie had left prior to that point. So with this view, you start with the Resurrection as historical event, and build outward. Quickly, it becomes clear that despite being written by dozens of authors over the course of centuries, the Books of the Bible tell a surprisingly consistent story, and make eerily complementary predictions. Daniel 2 predicts that God will enter history during the Roman Empire’s rule over Judah, Psalm 22 prefigures the Crucifixion, even though it’s a thousand years before that form of death was invented, etc. All of these pieces come together in a brilliant way. Comparing these predictions to, say, the predictions of the LDS “prophets,” you’ll quickly see a difference.

That second way is my personal preference, because it deals with the person of Jesus Christ, not the abstract question of God. Also, it deals with history, rather than metaphysics, and I’m partial as a former history major. The evidence provided for the claim is evidence provided for any historical claim.

Now here we could get into a discussion about the nature of historical claims, which is a very interesting topic, though I am not sure that it should be “squeezed” into this thread…

Note also that it doesn’t start with “God exists, here and now.” Because while that’s a true conclusion, taking it as a starting point isn’t helpful.

But it really should start right there. If God exists, here and now, and if God actually interferes with the universe (as it is being claimed) then all the discussions should start right there. Because it would be a claim of here and now, then no a-priori faith should be needed, the evidence should be presented as a scientific one, subject to the same criteria used for evaluating all claims of the outside universe. I do not want to sound rude or impolite, but it is my strong conviction that theists avoid this type of discussion because they know that it is a losing propostion. This is why they wish to stick to historical evidence and philosophical type of evidence.

 

[Nan_S]

There are three tiers of belief. Think about a courtroom jury evaluating evidence in a case, and the standards they need to meet when deciding guilt. These tiers are compelling proof (an affirmative statement), reasonable evidence (a negative statement), and insufficient information to decide. The atheist and the believer are normally found in the first two tiers. The true agnostic, and the shallow atheist and believer, are in the third tier.

Now let me diverge briefly. I’m not talking about the mistaken idea that a “not guilty” verdict means someone is innocent. Plenty of guilty defendants have been found “not guilty” at trial simply because the standards of proof were not met. Ok, back to the thought…

The first tier: For a defendant to be found guilty of a capital crime, the standard required is typically “clear and compelling, beyond any reasonable doubt.” OJ Simpson was declared “not guilty” in his criminal trial because the jury did not believe the evidence was compelling enough to convict him and send him to jail for the rest of his life.

This “beyond any reasonable doubt” standard is equivalent to the hard-core atheist and the hard-core believer who make an affirmative statement saying, “I have sought out and evaluated all the available evidence and have found compelling reasons for rejecting / believing in God.” Some atheists and many believers take this stance. They’ve tested the evidence until they conclude there’s only one answer. Scientific atheists are in this group; they believe they have located and tested all the evidence for God and found it lacking. The hazard with this, of course, is in presuming there is nothing greater than their own understanding or lack of it. A certain famous atheist once admitted, late in life, that he had become troubled by the thought, “But what if I’m wrong?”

The second tier: For a defendant to found guilty of a lesser criminal charge, or deemed responsible in a civil trial, the standard is lower: “by a preponderance of the evidence.” It’s a reasonable person standard; maybe we can’t find any definitive proof of the allegation, but given the weight of the evidence, what should a reasonable person conclude? OJ Simpson was found to be responsible for the murders in the civil trial, and ordered to pay massive amounts of money, because the jury ruled it was unreasonable to conclude he was not behind the murders.

The “preponderance of the evidence” standard is equivalent to the soft atheist and the soft believer who make a negative statement saying, “I don’t know of any hard proofs, but I still believe it is reasonable to conclude I should reject / believe in God.” Many atheists and many believers take this position. This group includes those who believe simply because it makes sense to do so and disbelief seems unreasonable; they see much good in applying biblical principles to their lives and they prefer the promised rewards of belief (eternal life) to the alternative.

The “preponderance of the evidence” group also includes egotistical atheists who are victims of their own spiritual sloth and self-aggrandizement. If atheists have held this position for some time they can become masters at self-justification, lobbing out spiritual grenades and demanding absolute proofs while declaring themselves to be the judge and jury over the evidence. You’ll find the young adult atheists in the group, as well as jaded older adults who say “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.” Some are just selfish; they refuse to be accountable to any authority outside of themselves, and no, they’re not interested giving any serious consideration to whatever arguments you offer. Others had youthful illusions shattered and withdrew into their own misunderstanding rather than seeking out spiritual support, or, even worse, believe they were betrayed by a minister of the Gospel and use that excuse to justify rejecting all ministers.

The third tier: If the jury in a criminal or civil trial concludes the available evidence is insufficient to come to any conclusion, secular law requires a “not guilty” verdict in favor of the defendant. The “not guilty” conclusion is the only just position in secular matters. Further, the concept of “you can’t be tried twice for the same crime” adds a layer of indifferentism once the “not guilty” verdict has been rendered. Something new and compelling may come to light at a later date, but normally the “not guilty” verdict still stands.

The agnostic holds this “insufficient evidence to decide” position. Having looked at the evidence superficially, and having identified apparent conflicts within the evidence, the agnostic takes the egotistical position that he has better things to do at the moment. The real danger comes when they make the leap to also apply the indifferentism idea to spiritual matters: “I can’t make a decision, and it doesn’t really matter anyway.” Close behind the true agnostic are the “no real reason for it” very soft believer and atheist, who believe or disbelieve simply based on what seems good at the moment and what their gut tells them, and float back and forth between belief and disbelief.

Yet if we are to give any serious consideration to the existence of God, whether we are believers or not, we quickly conclude that any god which does not care about the world is a god not worthy of worship. If God truly created the world, and cares about what happens to it, there is no place for an indifferent response by us. We are instructed that Heaven and Hell are real places, and we must choose. Limbo does not exist between them. However often Limbo appears in spiritual speculation and popular literature, however vibrant the description of Limbo we find in Dante’s Inferno, Limbo is not and has never been part of the official doctrine of the church. Limbo is merely a fabrication of human reason; it gives a name to that which we admit we are incapable of knowing.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Ahh yes, the “irrational claims” the theists make from the atheist point of view. If our arguments are so irrational, why have none of them been refuted AND unanswered? Also, why has there been no empirical evidence AGAINST the existence of God? If you want to shut down a theist proposition about His existence, I would not recommend doing it on a Catholic website. We use a priori reasoning and observations among other things. Stuff even scientists cannot understand (which is why they convert). Sure, it does not amount to proof, but there has not been ANY irrefutable arguments against divine existence. Please, enlighten us “irrationalists”. Your only argument so far is that we are irrational. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and many others only poke fun without a slightest bit of argument. Saying we are irrational without a reason is rational apparently. We have many arguments (unanswered) for. You have ZERO arguments (unanswered) against. BUT, again this amounts to no empirical proof (although even if we showed you empirical proof, you would still reject it).

Again, parallel to my last post. My answer is yes.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That’s *not *the meaning of atheist, and giving it that meaning creates all sorts of ambiguity, since it forces all agnostics to immediately take a side. What’s the point of that?

Actually, that’s precisely the meaning of atheist.

From the Greek:

a - without, theos - God.

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. All agnostics are actually atheists. You either believe in God or you don’t. You can’t sit on the fence.

To say you can’t decide whether or not there is a God means that you don’t have a belief in God. That makes you an atheist.

 

[Windfish]

I’m more confused than ever on the semantics!

 

[Windfish]

Let me try coalesce what has been said so far:

Affirmative/Positive/Strong Atheist - There is no God. Requires evidence / reasoning to support it.

Negative/Weak Atheist - I disbelieve in God. Requires evidence / reasoning to support it?

Agnostic - I don’t think it’s possible to know if there is or isn’t a God.

Theist - There is a God. Requires evidence / reasoning to support it?

Any comments? My only comment is that the first two are indistinguishable when you actually talk to them. That has to mean something.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Let me try coalesce what has been said so far:

Affirmative/Positive/Strong Atheist - There is no God. Requires evidence / reasoning to support it.

Negative/Weak Atheist - I disbelieve in God. Requires evidence / reasoning to support it?

Agnostic - I don’t think it’s possible to know if there is or isn’t a God.

Theist - There is a God. Requires evidence / reasoning to support it?

Any comments? My only comment is that the first two are indistinguishable when you actually talk to them. That has to mean something.

Why on Earth should you need evidence to disbelieve something?

If I met you on the street and told you that I was the wallet inspector and that you owed me a hundred dollars, would you believe me on the grounds that there was no quantifiable evidence that I was lying?

 

[Nan_S]

Why on Earth should you need evidence to disbelieve something?

If I met you on the street and told you that I was the wallet inspector and that you owed me a hundred dollars, would you believe me on the grounds that there was no quantifiable evidence that I was lying?

One needs evidence to refute the allegation. I would probably say I don’t believe you, because I can’t recall lending anything to you. In that case, my recollection IS the first level of evidence, but it sure wouldn’t stand up in court.

Now you still would insist that I owed you the money, so you would remind me of the circumstances (I agreed to reimburse you for those Super Bowl tickets but you say I forgot and hadn’t done it yet). Or you would produce a receipt which you say I signed. And then I would still disbelieve you and would still deny your allegation, but I would have to prove it. Maybe I already bought you NBA Playoff tickets, or maybe that’s not my signature on that paper, or maybe you’re looking for a different Mary Jones.

The point is, for my disbelief to carry any legitimate weight at all, I have to stand ready to prove why I don’t believe you. Just saying I don’t believe is never enough.

By the way, Young’s theorem has a flaw in it’s basic assumption. Just because you are able to observe a phenomenon, however easily, does not mean that it is what you think it is.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Actually, that’s precisely the meaning of atheist.

From the Greek:

a - without, theos - God.

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. All agnostics are actually atheists. You either believe in God or you don’t. You can’t sit on the fence.

To say you can’t decide whether or not there is a God means that you don’t have a belief in God. That makes you an atheist.

This remind me of an old joke. Someone defines “Congress” as the opposite of “Progress” because “con” is the opposite of “pro.”

The point is that just because you can try and break a word down into its grammatical roots doesn’t mean you have the full or accurate picture. Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the roots of the term as:

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from *athée *atheist, from Greek *atheos *godless, from a- + *theos *god

So from the beginning, it meant “Godless,” not someone who lacked an active faith. As definition, it provides:

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And in turn, “disbelief” means:

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

So it’s not simply a lack of belief, it’s a rejection, and a positive act.