amianderson
New Member
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Question to Atheists
- Thread starter amianderson
- Start date
I don't see what the one thing has to do with the other.
You do realize that atheism doesn't mean that a person can't hold other positions, right?
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
The definition you have given might be appropriate for weak atheism or perhaps atheistic agnosticism / non theism, however strong atheism would not be covered by such a description.
Moreover, simply because I (or someone else) holds one belief, that does not in and of itself mean that those who hold some other position are incorrect.
For my own sake as someone who uses the Ignostic approach to weakly atheistic strong agnosticism; I personally think that if you believe that a god exists that is up to you - I do not believe it is rational, however I do not believe faith of itself is irrational. There is no argument (I am aware of) that you could possibly make that would lead me to believe that any theistic position is rational, however at the same time I do not believe that it is possible to falsify most theistic positions for this reason I hold them to be intriguing but otherwise intellectually unsatisfactory, even if I am willing to concede that for some people they may provide emotional support (and even intellectual sedation) - for such individuals I just wish them luck with their beliefs (provided that they do not attempt to force them on society) without any issue.
Moreover, simply because I (or someone else) holds one belief, that does not in and of itself mean that those who hold some other position are incorrect.
For my own sake as someone who uses the Ignostic approach to weakly atheistic strong agnosticism; I personally think that if you believe that a god exists that is up to you - I do not believe it is rational, however I do not believe faith of itself is irrational. There is no argument (I am aware of) that you could possibly make that would lead me to believe that any theistic position is rational, however at the same time I do not believe that it is possible to falsify most theistic positions for this reason I hold them to be intriguing but otherwise intellectually unsatisfactory, even if I am willing to concede that for some people they may provide emotional support (and even intellectual sedation) - for such individuals I just wish them luck with their beliefs (provided that they do not attempt to force them on society) without any issue.
waitasec
Veteran Member
If I understand your question, then I would probably wonder how you knew god exists.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I don't know, but I think your conclusion is certainly based on insufficient reasoning.
Fraleyight
Member
Do you lack belief in Bigfoot? Unicorns? leprechauns? If I tell you any of these things exist am I wrong? The simple answer to your question is idk if you are right or wrong but you saying you are right certainly does not make you right.
Yes, I think that is a reasonable definition of Atheism. And when you tell me that "God" exist I respectfully believe you are wrong about that.
Vultar
Active Member
From my viewpoint, yes you would be wrong, from your viewpoint, you wouldn't be wrong. It all depends on what you believe and the experiences you have had.
one party believes, one party doesnt, there is no proof so untill there is, no one is right or wrong.
Fraleyight
Member
I disagree one side is right and one side is wrong.
Not as long as when I tell you that Unicorns exist you believe it.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
There's no "merely" about it. It simply is the definition of the word atheism. Theism means a belief in a god or gods and the prefix a- mean without.
Nobody knows. It think it's wrong to state that you definitively know God exists but then I think it's wrong to state that you definitively know he doesn't.
I agree with other posters that your two statements aren't inter-dependent. The correct definition of atheism has no impact on whether saying God exists is incorrect.
she may be wrong for telling you your wrong i agree.
Fraleyight
Member
That isn't what i meant. If we assume are talking about god as in the creator of life. Either he does or doesn't exist. One side is correct and one side isn't.
Just to come back to this...
- we have access to different evidence. You really are privy to some piece of evidence that I am not privy to... or, if we're dealing with a question of "balance of probabilities", then perhaps I have access to confounding or refuting evidence that you do not. For instance, if your claim was "computers run on pixie magic", if I've opened up a computer to see that it runs on electricity but you haven't, it's probably unreasonable for me to accept the claim even if I have all of the evidence that makes you consider it compelling.
- one of us (or both of us) has made an error in logic. Either you've made bad inferences from the evidence at hand or I've failed to recognize that the truth of your claim is implied by that evidence.
So... if all I've done is merely not accept claims of gods (not that an atheist can't go beyond this, but it's just the bare minimum qualification for atheism), then assuming I'm also relatively well-informed, then I suppose that this does imply that either you're wrong or I'm mistaken.
In general, if you accept a claim and I do not, then we can say one of two things (or both of them!) has happened:
- we have access to different evidence. You really are privy to some piece of evidence that I am not privy to... or, if we're dealing with a question of "balance of probabilities", then perhaps I have access to confounding or refuting evidence that you do not. For instance, if your claim was "computers run on pixie magic", if I've opened up a computer to see that it runs on electricity but you haven't, it's probably unreasonable for me to accept the claim even if I have all of the evidence that makes you consider it compelling.
- one of us (or both of us) has made an error in logic. Either you've made bad inferences from the evidence at hand or I've failed to recognize that the truth of your claim is implied by that evidence.
So... if all I've done is merely not accept claims of gods (not that an atheist can't go beyond this, but it's just the bare minimum qualification for atheism), then assuming I'm also relatively well-informed, then I suppose that this does imply that either you're wrong or I'm mistaken.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
You're only wrong if you make the claim but can't produce any evidence.
That is more of what atheism is all about, the rejection of claims by theists, whether their claims are about gods, demons, angels or any other supernatural entity they've grown up indoctrinated to believe.
For example, if you were a Christian and a Muslim told you Allah existed and you rejected their claim because they couldn't produce any evidence, you too would be an atheist. However, if you rejected their claim based simply on the fact you were a Christian who ONLY accepted Jesus as your Savior and Lord, you'd be another indoctrinated believer just like the Muslim.
easy question to answer. I don't know if you're wrong but I believe you are wrong.
Pragmatist
Member
It all depends on your definition of "existence." If you mean that God exists as a construct in the psyche, as a symbol that believers draw comfort from, as an imaginary entity that motivates human activity, then we have no argument.
If on, the other hand, you mean that God exists independently of the people who believe in them, completely separate from the thoughts and emotions through which He is conceived, then yes, I will say you are wrong.
There is no invisible man in the sky. But some people believe in an invisible man, and this belief is real. So in a sense, God does exist. He only exists as a delusion in the human psyche, but he does exist in that sense, at least. The problem is, the fanatics are never willing to stop with "at least." They always want something more, something "real." This is when they go too far.