I do not believe that such a level of certainty is necessary for atheism. I cannot be certain that unicorns never existed, but I also see no reason to entertain the possibility. No more than I entertain the possibility of actual Hobbits, which I know to be fiction. I simply understand all of the religious texts that I have seen to be fiction as well. Is there some other god outside of what has been mentioned in extant religious texts? What would that even look like? There is nothing there to latch onto and believe in or not believe in one way or another. And the minute I begin trying to come up with an answer, I begin creating god in my image, not the other way around.
Anything is possible, but unaddressed possibilities (including possibilities that we have never even thought of) do not preclude a conclusion of “No way.”
I don’t believe that there exists a god who even cares that people believe that he does. I suppose one could be open to the question of existence, while believing that a deity who is so insecure as to care that other people consciously choose to believe in it is itself unworthy of belief. But of course I am aware that others believe the opposite, and believe that believing this is of primary import-- i just choose not to believe that, and therefore could be said not to believe in it either.
But that only works if you assume that belief in a deity is binary in nature - either you believe or you don’t. You’re ignoring that some people may not know what they believe or may neither believe nor disbelieve and are withholding a decision on the topic.
An infant is an easily understood example of this. They are neither atheists nor theists. They aren’t able to make a determination of belief either way. Your logic would say all infants are necessarily atheists, but that’s like asking which football team you support when you’ve never heard of football before.
Except what words literally mean can vary based on usage and individuals can choose to use them differently. Language is descriptive, so you’re only saying that some people have used the word that way in the past, not that everyone must always use the word that way now and forever. You might literally disagree with how a word is used and suggest a different meaning because perhaps an older definition is lacking nuance.
No, it would be like asking them if football exists. Asking them which football team they support would be like asking them which god they believe in.
The central question here is this: “Does simple lack of belief in god make one an atheist or does one have to make a judgment to the effect that there is no god to be an atheist?” This is the difference between negative atheism and positive atheism. I would argue that both negative atheism and positive atheism are different from each other, but also different from agnosticism.
(ETA) To wit: An agnostic is in the process of considering the possibility of a god or gods (and this may be an open-ended, lifelong process). A positive atheist has completed this process and come to a conclusion of “No.” A negative atheist has not really even considered the possibility of a god or gods.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a process because the agnostic might be passively waiting for a reason to either believe or disbelieve in a deity and never put effort into it. But what you describe would fit with the idea that an agnostic is neither a theist nor an atheist. They haven’t answered the question. It’s a null value rather than a 1 or 0.
I did not say “actively considering.” An agnostic has begun considering the possibility of a god or gods and has not yet reached a conclusion. Thus, “in the process of considering.” A person who has never even considered the possibility of a god would be a negative atheist by default.
Part of the problem seems to be that New Atheists are often ex-Evangelical Christians, and they only stopped believing in the Christian part of that equation.
I don’t care it the good news is that Jesus died for my sins or that there is no God to punish me, just leave me to be me in peace. (not directed at you personally)
No it’s not an idiosyncratic definition. Check out Bertrand Russell on the subject or just check out the dictionary.
American Heritage dictionary (literally the first definition I found):
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Note the use of “true atheism”.
T.H.Huxley coined the term agnostic precisely because “atheist” didn’t convey the sense of “not knowing”. It’s one of those rare words where the meaning is not debatable because we can examine what the creator of the word intended it to convey, we’re not left to delve through uncertain etymology.
I quite often find myself wishing that there was a god to punish people who profess a belief in one and then go on to do terrible things (often in the name of that god or that god’s religion). In my ideal world you’d actually get the god and the cosmology that you asked for.
If there is a ‘creator’ (aka ‘god’) then it almost certainly does not care whether people believe in it or not.
Indeed, what it was that it ‘created’ may allow for the possibility that it does not even realise we exist.
So a key reason I am an atheist in local Earth/Human terms is my view that no ‘god’ created human beings and any ‘creator’ probably does not give two hoots about us.
Human (or Earth) origin fairy tales are just that.
How did the universe come into being? Dunno. I can acknowledge agnosticism about that. But did a god (yahweh, allah, zeus, whoever is the head honcho in your local cultural fairy tale) create Earth or Humans or Life? I’m resolutely atheistic there - science, people, science.
There’s a difference between atheist (small a) and Atheist (big A), just as there is with a sceptic and a Skeptic. If one has a capital letter one has a religion, whether one chooses to admit/realise it or not.
I’ve known arch Skeptics, evangelical and charismatic Christians, and Atheists, and the emotional reaction of all of them is the same once you start challenging their belief systems.
Nope. Atheist, same word roots as asymmetric or a acyclic, the ‘a’ prefix denoting ‘without’. So a-theist = without god, a-gnoistic = without hidden knowledge. Someone who says “there is no god” has taken a leap of faith, not followed the evidence. Remember “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Blame the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell for making the distinction clear.
True, there are a lot of agnostics who incorrectly label themselves atheists, but all true atheists, those who deny the existence or possible existence of god/gods, have taken a faith based position.
It really annoys me when someone spits that soundbite out because anyone who examines it for one second can see that it’s nonsense. All any claim, however extraordinary it is, requires to prove or disprove it is quite ordinary evidence. Setting the bar for any claim that one deems extraordinary to require other than completely ordinary proof is itself proof of taking a position of orthodoxy, not simple normal scientific scepticism.
Nowadays we accept the work of Nicolaus Copernicus based on quite ordinary evidence, but I’ll bet that those labelling him heretic trotted out arguments identical to the Sagan soundbite.
I’m an Athiest. I’m without God… That doesn’t mean I’m asserting God doesn’t exist, that just means I’m unconvinced God exists and I’m reserving judgment in the same way I’m unconvinced aliens have visited Earth but I’m not stating aliens don’t exist anywhere in the universe.
What I’m saying is that I don’t feel that anyone has met the burden of proof. Meeting the burden of proof sits with the person making the assertion. God could be guilty of existing, but for the moment I’m saying “not guilty” because I haven’t seen any compelling evidence.
If someone is asserting that God doesn’t exist, then I would agree that’s potentially a faith based position, but not necessarily. They could feel that they have some evidence for which God doesn’t exist, in which case it wouldn’t be based on faith.
