It’s back to Twitter to answer another common atheist response. Last time I looked at the atheist objection that Christians can’t claim to have the One, True God because there are almost 5,000 gods being worshiped. This time I want to look at the statement that atheism is simply a “lack of belief in god.” Some will claim that they don’t need to produce evidence that God doesn’t exist because they aren’t making the positive statement “God doesn’t exist.” In the past, the definition of an atheist was pretty simple. An a-theist was simply not a theist. It was someone who believed that there is no God. Now, the definition has changed to “a lack of belief in god.” I think there is a very good reason why atheists have attempted to make this change, but first, I want to look at examples from Twitter. Simply search “lack of belief in god ” on Twitter and these responses come up.
“Anti-theism is opposition to Theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). DIFFERENT.”
“Atheism = lack of belief in god/gods. That’s all. Whatever else someone can invent has nothing to do with Atheism.”
“The simple definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god and anything supernatural.”
“Atheism means lack of belief in God or gods. Period.”
“
#Theists on here attempting to redefine the word “#Atheist“. It’s really quite simple – Lack of belief in#god. Anything else is separate.”
If you are thinking that this is simply the response from Twitter atheists, then you could go to atheists.org and see this. “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as ‘a belief that there is no God.'”
Why is there a push to redefine “atheist?” I think the advantage of this new definition is that it relieves the atheist of their burden of proof. If they make a positive statement that God doesn’t exist, then they have to produce evidence to support that statement. Simply lacking a belief in God never makes a positive statement and so there is no need to produce evidence. This puts all the pressure on the theist to shoulder the burden of proof and produce evidence for God’s existence. However, don’t let them get off the hook that easily.
If atheism means “a lack of belief in god” then these two things are also true.
1. Theism and atheism can both be true at the same time.
I heard this point for the first time from Dr. Richard Howe, a philosopher from Southern Evangelical Seminary. It is logically possible for atheists to lack of belief in God and have God exist at the same time. For example, I lack a belief in the best lake for fishing in Canada. That doesn’t mean that lakes or fishing doesn’t exist, I simply have no thoughts or beliefs about them. So, if the atheist simply lacks a belief in God, then just point out that the existence of God is still possible in his viewpoint.
2. Every non-human animal and object is an atheist.
It also follows from this definition that every animal and even every object is an atheist. My books lack a belief in God so they must be atheists. Someone may respond that books don’t have beliefs and so that is just absurd. This is where Andy Bannister makes a great point on page 33 in his book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist. Bannister will respond to this by saying, “So you’re now saying that atheism is the lack of belief in God by a creature that has the ability to form beliefs?” This is now a positive claim that is only made my someone who can form beliefs. This is where it begins to self-destruct. If this definition was truly a non-belief, then you wouldn’t need to form a belief to make it.
In conclusion, I am convinced that this new definition is just a sly way of switching the burden of proof back to the theist. Don’t allow them to reverse the burden of proof back to you. Instead, mention one of these points the next time you are in a discussion with an atheist that claims they don’t need to produce evidence because they simply lack a belief in God. When it comes down to it, they do have a belief about the statement “God exists.” I have yet to meet an atheists that agrees.
think-well.org 
August 30, 2016 at 4:38 am
Well said Ryan. I too am amazed at the arguments atheists produce. As scientific and clever as they are – and I have listened to many, many debates – these arguments are on the level of a children’s fairy tale. I am not being opinionative but stand rather firm that atheism has definitely reached an all time abysmal low i.e. Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker etc. It stands in denial of the fundamental value of all life and propagates the naturalist view of, “Survival of the fittest” as if we are on the level of animals. The burden of proof lies in creation itself, (Romans 1) no matter how scientific one gets and how long the scientific words one uses to try and explain it away.
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 4:43 am
Thanks for the comment Shane! I keep thinking that these arguments will stop, but then I realize that they probably work against most people so they keep using them. In order to stop these bad arguments we need to train Christians how to respond to them. When the arguments stop working atheists might stop using them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 30, 2016 at 5:14 am
Absolutely Ryan, training is of signal importance. Much to the dismay of many atheists, God is not just real, but He certainly is not dead. Thank you for your insightful blog. Keep up the good work. People need others to stand and be a light
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 5:18 am
Thank you!
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 1:59 pm
All atheists lack a belief in gods. Some atheists assert that no gods exist. If you don’t understand the difference, and the concept of subsets, let me know, and I’ll explain it to you so you can avoid making poor arguments in the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 30, 2016 at 2:37 pm
Thanks for the comment Randy. Would atheists who don’t assert that no gods exist and only lack a belief in gods agree that God’s existence and atheism are compatible? Would they acknowledge that God could exist but that they only lack a belief in him?
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 4:01 pm
Perhaps some agnostics would. Most atheists have decided that the evidence for a god is so poor that the best position to adopt is that God doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 6:52 pm
That’s a great point! I think that if they are fine with admitting the possibility of God existing then they would be agnostic. Agnosticism and theism are compatible. Atheism and theism aren’t. Atheists have made up their mind on that issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm
If someone is unconvinced that sufficient evidence exists to accept a claim as true, that doesn’t mean the claim can’t be true.
For example, a jar of jellybean has some number of jellybeans in it. That number is either even or odd. If you tell me the number is even, I have little reason to accept that claim as true. But, that doesn’t mean you are wrong; it just means you haven’t met your burden of proof.
Likewise, either a deity does exist or a deity does not exist. If you say one exists, I have little reason to accept that claim as true. But, that doesn’t mean you are wrong; it just means you haven’t met your burden of proof.
Now, if I asked you outside of this conversation if you think leprechauns exist, you wouldn’t get into a bunch of acrobatics about how we don’t know that leprechauns definitely don’t exist, and it’s possible that they do. You wouldn’t try to say that maybe they do exist, but you’re merely not convinced. You would likely say leprechauns aren’t real. Change it to fairies, or gremlins, or gorgons, and it’s the same thing. You are functioning as though they don’t exist because there is no good evidence of their existence, and would likely never engage in any nonsense about their being possible if they’re not proven to not exist.
But, because you hold a particular magical being as special among all the others, you expect people to give your magical being special deference. Your deity is on par with gremlins and leprechauns when it comes to the burden of proof, and just like you’re not going to treat leprechauns as something other than a fictional magical creature, I’m not going to treat your fictional magical creature any differently.
On a purely philosophical level, your deity is technically possible. But, on a practical level, and based on the poor quality of justifications for god beliefs offered by people over the millennia, yours and every other proposed deity is just as rational a thing to think is true as the leprechaun or gremlin.
Technically, philosophically, most atheists are agnostic (the terms are not exclusive), but just like you behave as though leprechauns don’t exist in every other facet of your life, so do atheists behave regarding your and other deities.
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 6:15 am
Randy, thank you for your comment. I want to make sure and carefully respond since there were many statements made.
First, I agree with your first point in that just because someone can claim something, it doesn’t mean that they are right. And just because someone else rejects the claim, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong.
Second, I think your next part made my point. You are correct in that if you asked me if leprechauns exist I wouldn’t say that I’m not convinced or that I lack a belief in leprechauns. I would make a positive claim that leprechauns don’t exist. The difference though is that I don’t believe they exist not because there is no good evidence for their existence, but because there is positive evidence that they don’t exist. This is very different. That is why I would make the positive claim that they don’t exist.
Third, there is a very good reason that I treat God different from other magical beings, and a reason why you should too. Maybe you can think of one, but I can’t think of a single argument for the existence of leprechauns backed by science or philosophy. However, there are two dozen positive arguments for God’s existence. So, to try and claim that these two different beings are the same is just not being honest.
Fourth, I think we agree again. Most atheists are agnostic. If they simply lack a belief in gods then they are either nothing or agnostic. What I am saying is that most atheists, when pressed, will claim that gods do not exist, and that is a positive claim that needs to meet the burden of proof just like you claimed.
Again, thanks for the interaction. I really appreciate it when I can have an intelligent discussion with someone of a different worlveiw. It doesn’t happen very often.
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 12:21 pm
“The difference though is that I don’t believe they exist not because there is no good evidence for their existence, but because there is positive evidence that they don’t exist.”
Is there? What is the evidence they don’t exist? Be aware that I can just as easily come up with ad hoc rationalizations for anything you might offer as others have done regarding negative evidence of your deity. I can redefine leprechauns as needed to prevent them from being disproven, add details necessary to keep them in the realm of technically potentially possible, and create reasons the evidence of their non-existence isn’t evidence of anything.
And, because all of it is untestable and unfalsifiable, you would be unable to disprove any of it. Just like, “God won’t submit to being tested,” and, “if you asked God for a sign and never got one, you were either insincere or not paying attention,” or, “prayers are answered with yes, no, or wait.” If those tactics are good enough for your magical being, they’re good enough for ANY magical being.
But, if you think there is either good reason to believe your preferred deity exists than leprechauns, or good reason to believe leprechauns don’t exist, I’m open to seeing your evidence.
And, thanks for not doing the typical “hide in the shell, throw insults, then ban” move that so many do when their beliefs are challenged. It’s only from a position of weakness that one engages in such tactics.
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 12:49 pm
I agree that people who only throw insults usually are coming from a position of weakness. They don’t have reason or evidence to fall back on so they just throw insults.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me like you think Christians keep redefining God in order to keep him in existence. I don’t know what Christians have told you, but the definition of God goes back a long long time. It doesn’t change as we discover new things.
I feel bad if what you quoted about we can’t test things, signs, and prayer is all you have received from Christian. The sad truth is that many people do not think critically about these issues and don’t have good responses. If that’s all you have been told I’m sorry.
I’d like to ask you a question. If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 9:15 pm
Before we get to your question, let’s explore your idea that your deity has been understood, defined, or described consistently over the millennia.
Your deity was once thought to reside in the clouds, where Heaven was supposed by believers to exist. When we gained access to the skies, that idea had to be scrapped. No problem! Now we’ll say he’s immaterial. That way, no matter where we look, we’ll never be able to see it.
Your deity was once considered omnipotent. But, this opened the door to paradoxes, so he came to be described as maximally powerful. How fortunate that we had a fall-back definition available!
These are but two changes that have come about as we have learned more about reality. When the definition conflicts with reality, a new definition is crafted to avoid conflict or contradiction.
Now, with the understanding that your deity tends to be a reflection of the personality of the individual believer rather than an independently derived set of qualities, that means there are also billions of other differing definitions, many of which are mutually exclusive.
Now, you asked if I would be a Christian if Christianity were true. The answer is no. I would believe the stories were true (provided they could be corroborated, which they have never been), but I would not worship a supposedly inherently moral dictator who commanded wholesale slaughter of entire cities because they occupied land he wanted his favored people to have, believed differently, and/or his chosen people had a need for virgin girls.
I would not worship someone who accepts child sacrifice in exchange for favors. I would not worship someone who explicitly advocated the practice of slavery, how much you can beat slaves (is it more than NONE?), or have ways to entrap people who could be freed into perpetual servitude. I would not worship a being who has the power to create a world that allows for free will devoid of suffering yet chose against that.
I wouldn’t worship a being that considered a raging alcoholic the best example of humanity. I wouldn’t worship a being who has such extreme levels of power and, rather than being magnanimous, would prefer to demand obedience even when it means committing atrocities, and punish the disobedient eternally despite having the ability to forgive.
I would not worship a being whose moral perfection allowed him to say that rape should be punishable by a fine and marrying the victim if she was a virgin because she lost her value as a bargaining chip in a patriarchal society where females were property rather than people. I would not worship a being that would create rules of conduct that he knows his subjects will be unable to live up to, and rather than revoking or changing the rules, he devises a blood sacrifice system, culminating in a human sacrifice, because no being with such power would be powerless to avoid needing animals or people to be killed to appease his grumpypants.
If Christianity were true, Christians would be the most immoral people imaginable, because they would be worshipping an immoral dictatorial petulant bloodthirsty iconoclastic megalomaniacal incompetent blundering emotionally-stunted ham-fisted buffoon and holding him as the embodiment of perfect morality.
And, I wouldn’t want to spend eternity with this monster’s sycophants. What greater punishment could there be than being surrounded by the faithful followers of such a cruel and capricious maniac?
If you know your Bible, you should know that everything I have listed is in the Bible, and, if it were an accurate record (which, fortunately, there is no evidence of), perhaps the real question is, why would you want to be a Christian even if it were true?
And, you still provided no evidence that your deity exists or that leprechauns don’t exist. I’ll be the first to nominate you for the Nobel prize in everything if you can do either. I ask just $10,000 as a finder’s fee when you win. It’s a modest fee compared to all the money they’re going to lavish you with, and the book deals you’re going to be bedecked with. My thanks in advance!
Yes, a bit sarcastic, but you’re not foolish enough to think that you’ve got it figured out, nor that you somehow have better evidence than anybody has for any other mythical stories.
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 10:51 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way. It sounds like you have made up your mind and wouldn’t even consider anything I said. Even if I showed it was different it doesn’t seem like you are open to accepting it.
If you want to continue this discussion you can message me on the Coffeehouse Questions Facebook page. If you expect to me to be open minded and consider your points, then I would expect the same from you. Let me know what you want to do.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 1:57 am
If Christian beliefs were proven to adjust….
I would not become awaiting either.
I don’t want to do anything to support such a hypocritical, misogynistic organisation with its long history of abhorrent behaviour. There are too many disgusting stories in the bible, to many atrocities connived in the name of Christianity.
But there is, of yet, no such proof. So it doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
November 7, 2016 at 9:32 pm
If you aren’t a Christian, then what would you consider yourself?
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 12:33 pm
One other thing. A theist DOES believe at least one deity exists. Anybody who doesn’t have that belief is an atheist. Like I said, agnostic and atheist are not exclusive.
One can be a gnostic theist (believes that a god exists and claims knowledge regarding its existence), agnostic theist (believes a god exists but makes no claim of knowledge regarding its existence), agnostic atheist (does not believe a god exists and makes no claim of knowledge regarding its existence), or gnostic atheist (does not believe a god exists and claims knowledge regarding its existence).
Treating agnostic as a middle option is not correct, though common. Knowledge is a subset of belief, and the set and subset are not separate.
If I ask you if you believe in any gods, and your answer is anything other than “yes,” you’re an atheist. Wanting to avoid the label because it carries baggage that god-believers have saddled it with for millennia doesn’t change that.
LikeLike
September 1, 2016 at 6:29 pm
Randy, I am not sure I follow your argument… AFAIK about any truth claim there is only 3 options: either it is true, or it is false or it is unknown whether it is true or it is false. You can either believe that it is true (in the case of God’s existence, be a theist), believe that it is not true = believe that it is false (atheist) or believe that it is either true or false, but don’t know which. The agnostic viewpoint can be strong (I do not believe it is possible to know if God exists) or weak (I believe it is possible to know, but do not yet have enough evidence to decide). Are you saying that an atheist is simply the person saying that “I believe one of them is true, but I do not know which”? I believe NOT (x) is the logical equivalent of I believe (NOT X). I do NOT believe it is TRUE is the logical equivalent of I believe it is NOT TRUE = I believe it is FALSE. Or do you not agree that NOT(x) = (NOTx)?
If I believe ((x=true)OR(x-false)) (agnostice) AND (x=false) (atheist), that is the logical equivalent of (x=false) (atheist) Similarly if I believe x is either true or false (agnoistic) AND I believe that x is true (theism), then I simply believe that x is true (theism). Or do you mean to say that I can believe something is true while I know that it is NOT true? Or that I can simultaneously claim that something is actually true and that I don’t know if something is true? Or that something is false and that I don’t know if it is true or false simultaneously? Really?
LikeLike
September 1, 2016 at 7:00 pm
You are not accurately representing the relationship between belief and knowledge. All knowledge is a subset of belief, but not all beliefs rise to the level of knowledge. So, a person can believe X is true but not know X is true or claim to know X is true, or a person can not believe X is true but not know X is false or claim to know X is false. Those are the only possibilities.
For a truth claim, either X is true or X is not true (X being false is another claim). Whether we know which is correct or not is irrelevant when it comes to the logical absolute of identity (a = a and a != !a).
Not believing X is true is not the same as believing X is false. If I tell you the number of jellybeans in a big jar of jellybeans is even, you have no reason to accept my claim is true, but that doesn’t mean you think my claim is false, and, thus, that the number is odd.
There is more nuance than it seems you realized. I hope you understand a bit better the problem underlying your post. Thanks!
LikeLike
September 2, 2016 at 7:00 pm
The mental gymnastics religionists must go through, only to fail to make a coherent point, is laughable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm
You don’t think my point was clear enough?
LikeLike
September 21, 2016 at 6:17 am
Thank you for fully differentiating atheism and anti-theism. These are common misconceptions that makes things pesky. Also yes, if the mentioned definition is to be followed, your statements 1 and 2 are true. However, while your first statement “It is logically possible for atheists to lack of belief in God and have God exist at the same time,” is true, such a person may not exist, as he will be living the life of the worst kind of denial.
Also, any atheist that completely claims that God does NOT exist, is awfully narrow-minded and would be just as bad as the theists he so fully resents. Atheism is about not having a belief because of lack of evidence, while still being open to the idea once sufficient proof is presented.
I appreciate the fact that you did your homework, however you may have put that to waste by rejecting the definition anyway. That’s the definition of atheism, whether you believe it or not, that’s what it is. It is not a ploy to put the burden of providing proof to theists.
The burden of proof will always, always, be on those who are making the claim of the existence of something. We cannot prove that unicorns do not exist. We cannot prove that a giant spaghetti monster does not exist in space. And of course, you cannot “prove” that God does NOT exist. These statements may only be rejected by proving otherwise. Sort of like how null hypotheses can only be rejected by proving the alternative. Simple logic.
LikeLike
September 21, 2016 at 9:48 am
Notice that most people don’t feel compelled to equivocate regarding nonexistence of leprechauns despite not being able to prove it. What most people mean is that there is so little reason to believe they do exist, they are, as far as it affects their lives and decisions, as good as nonexistent and indistinguishable from the nonexistent. So it is with gods. You take Icelandic beliefs in elves (yes, really) as seriously as I take others’ beliefs in gods. Agreed, the null hypothesis makes blanket universal statements logically problematic, but in the above context, they are defensible as a common shorthand.
LikeLike
September 21, 2016 at 8:22 pm
Are you saying that the nonexistence of leprechauns is equal to the nonexistence of a supernatural being?
LikeLike
September 21, 2016 at 8:19 pm
Thanks for you comment. There were two parts that stood out to me. First, “such a person may not exist, as he will be living the life of the worst kind of denial.” I don’t see how that person couldn’t exist. There are many people who live a life either in denial or ignorance. That is completely normal!
Second, “The burden of proof will always, always, be on those who are making the claim of the existence of something.” Are you saying that I only have the burden of proof if I claim something exists? Don’t you have the burden anytime you make a claim?
LikeLike
September 22, 2016 at 6:22 pm
Referring to older dictionaries without mentioning why they probably defined atheism the way they did is a bit misleading.
After all, a society that is predominantly Christian will probably adopt prevailing Christian definitions.
This isn’t to say your wrong about the definition being problematic, but insinuation isn’t the way to show that.
LikeLike
December 19, 2016 at 7:30 am
It’s back to Twitter to answer another common atheist response. Last time I looked at the atheist objection that Christians can’t claim to have the One, True God because there are almost 5,000 gods being worshiped. This time I want to look at the statement that atheism is simply a “lack of belief in god.” Some will claim that they don’t need to produce evidence that God doesn’t exist because they aren’t making the positive statement “God doesn’t exist.”
***ME***
Heeeeere we go.
***YOU***In the past, the definition of an atheist was pretty simple.
***ME***
And “villian” originally meant Serf.
***YOU***An a-theist was simply not a theist.
***ME***
Well… yeah.
***YOU***It was someone who believed that there is no God.
***ME***
*sigh*
***YOU***Now, the definition has changed to “a lack of belief in god.” I think there is a very good reason why atheists have attempted to make this change,
***ME***
Strawmen ahoy!
***YOU***but first, I want to look at examples from Twitter. Simply search “lack of belief in god ” on Twitter and these responses come up.
“Anti-theism is opposition to Theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). DIFFERENT.”
“Atheism = lack of belief in god/gods. That’s all. Whatever else someone can invent has nothing to do with Atheism.”
“The simple definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god and anything supernatural.”
“Atheism means lack of belief in God or gods. Period.”
“#Theists on here attempting to redefine the word “#Atheist“. It’s really quite simple – Lack of belief in #god. Anything else is separate.”
***ME***
You’re gonna use “they deny it so it must be true” troll logic, aren’t you?
***YOU***
If you are thinking that this is simply the response from Twitter atheists, then you could go to atheists.org and see this. “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as ‘a belief that there is no God.’”
Why is there a push to redefine “atheist?” I think the advantage of this new definition is that it relieves the atheist of their burden of proof.
***ME***
Wrong.
***YOU***If they make a positive statement that God doesn’t exist, then they have to produce evidence to support that statement.
***ME***
No.
You know what’s really going on here? You guys think you can “prove Atheism wrong” by simply pointing out that it’s theoretically possible that maybe a god could possibly exist.
We respond with “Duh”.
Now, smart people would simply drop the argument entirely and move on, but no, that would require the ability to form new knowledge in your brain. Instead of simply dropping the “it’s theoretically possible” argument while arguing with WEAK Atheists and/or atheist agnostics, you guys instead insist on telling us what we think and try and convince us to be more closed-minded, just so that you can debunk the very closed-mindedness YOU’RE TRYING TO CONVINCE US TO ADOPT, just so that the original “maybe it’s possible” argument will actually do something.
***YOU***Simply lacking a belief in God never makes a positive statement and so there is no need to produce evidence. This puts all the pressure on the theist to shoulder the burden of proof and produce evidence for God’s existence. However, don’t let them get off the hook that easily.
***ME***
You know, you could simply mover on to Evolution or something. You know, areas of debate where either side actually has evidence one way or the other other than “you prove it” “no you prove it”.
***YOU***
If atheism means “a lack of belief in god” then these two things are also true.
1. Theism and atheism can both be true at the same time.
I heard this point for the first time from Dr. Richard Howe, a philosopher from Southern Evangelical Seminary. It is logically possible for atheists to lack of belief in God and have God exist at the same time.
***ME***
Duh.
***YOU***For example, I lack a belief in the best lake for fishing in Canada. That doesn’t mean that lakes or fishing doesn’t exist, I simply have no thoughts or beliefs about them. So, if the atheist simply lacks a belief in God, then just point out that the existence of God is still possible in his viewpoint.
***ME***
Yes, and?
***YOU***
2. Every non-human animal and object is an atheist.
***ME***
Correct.
***YOU***
It also follows from this definition that every animal and even every object is an atheist.
***ME***
Yes.
***YOU***My books lack a belief in God so they must be atheists.
***ME***
Are you seeing yet how ineffective it is to argue against a belief by re-defining it and assuming the belief proponent’s ago is attached to your definition, not the real definition?
“But if species just means 2 organisms can successfully breed, that means black people and white people are all human!”
***YOU***Someone may respond that books don’t have beliefs and so that is just absurd.
***ME***
That would be Theists like you saying that.
***YOU***This is where Andy Bannister makes a great point on page 33 in his book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist. Bannister will respond to this by saying, “So you’re now saying that atheism is the lack of belief in God by a creature that has the ability to form beliefs?”
***ME***
No.
***YOU***This is now a positive claim that is only made my someone who can form beliefs.
***ME***
What are you talking about?
***YOU***This is where it begins to self-destruct. If this definition was truly a non-belief, then you wouldn’t need to form a belief to make it.
***ME***
What?
Ok, let’s step back a bit:
We, Atheists, the people that are Atheists, define Atheism as a lack of belief in a god or gods.
You quoted some idiot who apparently wrote a book, who arbitrarily assumed out egos were somehow offended by the fact a lack of belief in a god or gods a plied to things that lack a belief in a god or gods, and one of you (i lost track of which one) arbitrarily added the rider :”also, it has to be something capable of forming beliefs”.
And now, you are nitpicking the arbitrary rider YOU added for no reason.
***YOU***
In conclusion, I am convinced that this new definition is just a sly way of switching the burden of proof back to the theist.
***ME***
No. it’s a way of including all Atheists regardless of precisely how certain they are there is no god as long as they think there’s probably no god.
***YOU***Don’t allow them to reverse the burden of proof back to you. Instead, mention one of these points the next time you are in a discussion
***ME***
Oh goody. Making debates longer and more pointless by adding semantics to them unnecessarily. Slowing down debates with straw-men and semantics is always a productive use of everyone’s life.
***YOU***with an atheist that claims they don’t need to produce evidence because they simply lack a belief in God. When it comes down to it, they do have a belief about the statement “God exists.” I have yet to meet an atheists that agrees.
***ME***
Yes you have. Right here.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 8:15 am
Wait, you are saying that stones are atheists? Really?
LikeLike
March 27, 2017 at 4:13 pm
I think I see the problem here and why this article even exists.
One of the worse arguments Theists use (and that’s saying a LOT, look at presuppositionalists) is to try to “disprove Atheism” just by saying “it is theoretically possible that some kind of god may or may not exists in another dimension or on the other side of the universe or something”
The response the Theist is HOPING FOR is “Gasp! A completely theoretical thing no one knows anything about may or may not exist in a completely unknown area of the multiverse??!!! Oh my stars! Everything is madness!!! I must run into the street naked and kill puppies! AAAAARGH!!!!!”
But the response they USUALLY GET is “uh huh, yes”
Now, an intelligent person would realise that Atheists aren’t as narrow-minded as they previously thought and move on to a completely different argument.
A creationist, on the other hand, will double down on the original flawed argument by straw-manning the Atheist to his face or insisting or even ordering the Atheist to take the Strong Atheist position just so that they can more easily straw-man them. The Theist ends up arguing for and against the same thing at the same time.
LikeLike
March 27, 2017 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for the comment. I have never used that argument so I’m not sure what you are talking about, but are you saying that I’m straw-manning the atheist in my article?
LikeLike
August 22, 2017 at 9:13 am
Well I guess the important thing is that Christians should define what atheism is for us. No point in listening to what an atheist actually says.
LikeLike