1712 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Just as I expected. All you Atheists hang your hat on this.

I swear I felt a dry gust of hot air just now.

[shadowhawk]

 

Just as I expected. All you Atheists hang your hat on this.

I swear I felt a dry gust of hot air just now.

 

 

Perhaps you need to lighten up on the beans. 
 

[The Brain]

Perhaps you need to prove your god

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Burden of proof.

There is a difference between “proof” and “good reasons.”  We have good reasons for belief in the biblical God, but not in mythical beings like mermaids, elves, unicorns, the tooth fairy, or flying spaghetti monsters which is typical comparisons from skeptics.

There are two types of ignorance — innocence and culpable — and the agnostic would be quite culpable of refusing to seek.

For example when a Western tourist travels to Cambodia, they might not be aware that exposing the sole of the foot or bottom of the shoe is insulting and offensive. The tourist may offend someone out of ignorance of this cultural taboo. But this ignorance is innocent.

There’s another kind of ignorance. What if you are driving down a highway and not paying attention to speed limit signs? An officer may stop you and ask why you were speeding. You cannot rightly say, “I didn’t know what the speed limit was — or even how fast I was going. So you shouldn’t give me a ticket.” Obviously, if you are driving, you are responsible for paying attention. Ignorance is no excuse. It is blameworthy rather than innocent.

Likewise, to say “I do not know if Miracles exists” may reveal a failure in my responsibility to seek God (“I do not want to know”). In this case, I would be at fault. The Christian Geneticist Francis Collins of Human Genome Project fame said he was an agnostic in college. Yet he confesses that his “I don’t know” was more an “I don’t want to know” attitude — a “willful blindness.”  This agnosticism eventually gave way to outright atheism — although Collins would later come to faith in Christ. He began reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and Collins realized his own antireligious constructs were “those of a schoolboy.”

The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance.  So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic world view. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” — the view of an “apathist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose, or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent.  I do have a burden of proof, but so do you.
 

[Duchykins]

 

Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; 
 

 

 

Said the least humble person I've ever met.

[Dakman]

So no god's have been proven so far then

 

Just people saying they exist

[sthira]

The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance. So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic world view. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” — the view of an “apathist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose, or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent. I do have a burden of proof, but so do you.

Distractions? Diversions? Guilty ignorance? What? I totally disagree with this. I'm agnostic -- and so are you and everyone else -- no one of us knows if God exists or not. How is "the burden of proof" upon us who say of God -- we don't know? If God exists then God isn't talking. The evidence, the burden of proof is upon God, not us. And to assert that "I don't know" equates to "I don't care" is extremely disrespectful to those legions of us who genuinely seek with pure hearts and open, but realistic minds for some sort of coherent indication (even a hint) of God's existence. If God exists yet God remains silent, then maybe God doesn't want us? Or maybe God just doesn't care. And maybe we should respect that abandonment and silence with some grace and humility. But whatever, it's pointless to keep yammering on and on it. Believe in God? Beautiful. Don't believe in God? Just as beautiful. Don't know about God? Most beautiful of all.

[The Brain]

God is a deadbeat dad

[shadowhawk]

 

The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance. So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic world view. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” — the view of an “apathist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose, or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent. I do have a burden of proof, but so do you.

Distractions? Diversions? Guilty ignorance? What? I totally disagree with this. I'm agnostic -- and so are you and everyone else -- no one of us knows if God exists or not. How is "the burden of proof" upon us who say of God -- we don't know? If God exists then God isn't talking. The evidence, the burden of proof is upon God, not us. And to assert that "I don't know" equates to "I don't care" is extremely disrespectful to those legions of us who genuinely seek with pure hearts and open, but realistic minds for some sort of coherent indication (even a hint) of God's existence. If God exists yet God remains silent, then maybe God doesn't want us? Or maybe God just doesn't care. And maybe we should respect that abandonment and silence with some grace and humility. But whatever, it's pointless to keep yammering on and on it. Believe in God? Beautiful. Don't believe in God? Just as beautiful. Don't know about God? Most beautiful of all.

 

I agree you are a self proclaimed agnostic and this topic is not about you.  It is about Atheism which does have a burden of proof.  That you don't want to discuss it... Fine you have no disagreement with me.

[sthira]

^^ I don't think you read what you wrote. I'll let it stand there on its own.

Also, everyone -- including you, including me -- remains agnostic until we gather more information about any existence or non-existence of God.

That is, you don't know if God exists any more than Atheists know that God does not exist. You're on the same coin.

So, one key difference between you and me (or between an agnostic and a theist/atheist) is that we've no problem admiting what we don't know. Why pretend? We don't even know how our own hearts beat. Yet you presume to know with so much certainty about the "creator of the universe." You don't know what you don't know. Others are not at peace with such behavior.

[shadowhawk]

You are taking it to far.  You are saying nobody knows anything.  The theist does not know there is a God and the Atheist does not know if there is no god.  This ends up in complete skepticism.  Let me ask you, how do you know that?

[sthira]

I'm not saying nobody knows anything. Nor am I interested in long winded, go-nowhere epistemological meanderings. I'm saying we have (in myriad cases of objects within the sensible world) some functional, yet incomplete knowledge of what things are, and how they may work. In many cases, we know enough to be useful. In many cases, we don't. It's an incomplete process, as I've heard you reiterate elsewhere.

How do I know that I don't know if God exists? I've no more to go on regarding God's existence than I do on the existence of bXhzQlhq.

That is, I don't know, and I'm aware that I don't know. That's an important distinction which requires humility.

[shadowhawk]

Ok I accept that you don't know.  The Atheist does know and that is the difference between you and the Atheist.  He knows there is no God and you as an agnostic don't know.  I am using "know" here in the sense of faith or belief.  This brings up another question.  Do you believe or know that you can't know?

[sthira]

You accept that I don't know, yet don't accept your own agnosticism. You think you know what you don't. You then substitute "belief" or "faith" in God for knowledge. You have a belief, a faith, but these are wiggle-words to help get you out of trouble. In reality, you've no idea if God exists or not beyond the indirect stories we've been told and you've accepted as truth.

I've no idea if we "can't" know God or not.

[Duchykins]

Ok I accept that you don't know.  The Atheist does know and that is the difference between you and the Atheist.  He knows there is no God and you as an agnostic don't know.  I am using "know" here in the sense of faith or belief.  This brings up another question.  Do you believe or know that you can't know?

 

 

Nobody really says we have faith that we exist.  Faith is an upper-echelon word for "pretending to know something you don't know."

 

Our experiences indicate we exist in some way.  Those experiences don't include magical skydaddies.  

 

Two different kinds of "faith."

[shadowhawk]

You accept that I don't know, yet don't accept your own agnosticism. You think you know what you don't. You then substitute "belief" or "faith" in God for knowledge. You have a belief, a faith, but these are wiggle-words to help get you out of trouble. In reality, you've no idea if God exists or not beyond the indirect stories we've been told and you've accepted as truth.

I've no idea if we "can't" know God or not.

I didn't say there was no Agnosticism in Christianity.  It is often expressed by the phrase, "Oh Great Mystery."  I wrote about it in "Evidence for Christianity" under Kataphotic and Apophatic theology.  Belief or faith is never exhaustive knowledge of anything.  There is no such thing concerning anything.  So there is a Christian agnosticism which is often referred to as "Divine  Darkness."  Faith is not blind in any sense but it does not see much of reality .  These are not wiggle words but a very long and rich tradition in Christianity.  However, here the subject is Atheism and we are off topic.

 

[sthira]

^^ you mean you are off topic. My assertion is as plain as day, and entirely on topic. You just don't seem to follow, and you'd like to divert attention.

Again: you think you know what you don't know (you think that God exists) and you're unaware that you don't know (whether God exists or not). You're an agnostic like the rest of humanity, you've simply limited your awareness of your own ignorance. For reasons of your own, you've decided to prop into the empty slot of ignorance some bit of information that you've decided is true. That is, you've decided to believe in stories which you've been told (stories which may be true or stories which may not be true). These stories -- you don't know their veracity, which is fine, except that you think you know what you don't know. You think you know the truth of these stories (stories that claim God exists) but you don't know any more than the rest of us who also struggle with these big ole God questions.

Face your own ignorance. Do it boldly and with grace -- like the rest of us who also remain in this state of suspension. We don't know if God exists or not. This is the topic here.

[shadowhawk]

We are not on topic which is "evidence for Atheism."  Read it.  How do you know by the way you are using agnosticism, what I know?  And you are so snarky about it!  On top of that, not one word about what I said about Christian agnosticism.    Again I don't think you related at all to what I said.  Here let me try again.

 

 

 

 

 

[sthira]

Thanks, I've read the topic here entirely -- God help me -- from page one. Many, many others have refuted your attempts at whatever it is you're seeking from many different angles, and more eloquently than I've done.

Meanwhile, your youtube preacher doesn't know if God exists or not, either. He's as agnostic as everyone else, and just thinks he knows what he doesn't know. Just like you and me and everyone else. We don't know if God exists or not. Including this person. Is that snarky?

But to answer his points, first, I don't accept his division of agnostics into two or three types. He's inventing stuff to add confusion to what is simple ignorance regarding God. We don't know if God exists, and neither does he. He'd like to divide a simple idea into parts. He calls one part "ornery agnosticism" which is a fallacy called polluting the stream. It's ad hominem. He wants to say we're ornery; but if you define God as unknowable, then you can't by definition know God. But he doesn't know anything about God and has no idea if God is unknowable or not. He has no idea if we can or cannot know God. He's just talking out of his hat.

He's also incorrect to jump to so many conclusions about both agnostics and atheists. For example, he's wrong to conclude agnostics are committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God. I'm feeling no pressure to believe or disbelieve either way. Why should I? We don't know if God exists or not. And my God "egg" is resting upon no rooftop and destined to fall into no one single fighting camp -- atheism -- or the other -- theism. I suspect few other agnostics feel pressure to know if God exists or not. Of course we'd all like to know. That'd be great! If God decided to make an appearance? Awesome! Bring on the Glory of God! But no human will convince us of God's existence. That's the Almighty's work -- and according to you we must wait until we die to know anything about God's existence. But you've no evidence for that. You don't know anything about what happens to anyone after they die -- except that human bodies rot, and eventually turn to bones, and bones degrade further.

I could be wrong, but I don't expect any new information added to our knowledge of God's existence or non-existence anytime soon. More and more arguments from Christian, et al, preachers will only lead to more and more ignorant words from Christian, et al, preachers who are simply agnostics in denial. I don't think there's anything any person will ever tell us to make us suddenly become believers. Maybe our computers will solve the God mystery? Until then, religions will continue to attempt to brainwash little children who still have undeveloped brains. Which is probably what happened to you.

To convince us God exists? That's God's job. Show up, God, or we'll all just continue with our agnosticism. We don't know. Theists are agnostic, atheists are agnostic. Yall just don't know what to do about it. So you keep talking. Ad nauseam.

[shadowhawk]

Well some things can be known in a probabilistic way but sense you know nothing "Evidence for Atheism." may not be for you.  Your view that everyone must be agnostic is put to the stake by your insistence on knowing something. You aren't an Agnostic.

[sthira]

No, you're wrong. My view that everyone is agnostic is not put to the stake by my insistence upon knowing something. I know what I don't know. And you don't know what you don't know. We are obviously capable of knowing some things. But we don't know if God exists or not. Including you, including your preacher. We do know that preachers who tell us God exist do themselves exist. At least on YouTube, they exist, and presumably in the natty world, too. But we don't know many things, and one of those things we don't know is if God exists or not. Your preacher, whom we see exists, doesn't know about God. You who are now reading these dumb words also exist. We know that, too. And I who write these ridiculous words and sentences, we know I exist, too. Our ignorance regarding God does not mean we are ignorant of everything.

[sthira]

Evidence for atheism:

1. We don't see God;
2. We don't hear God;
3. We don't touch God;
4. We don't smell God;
5. We don't taste God;
6. We don't mathematically find evidence for God;
7. Science, our best tool, doesn't find God;
8. Our prayers don't work;
9. Our religious leaders don't bring in God;
10. Meditation doesn't work to move God;
11. Words, numbers, symbols don't work to bring in God;
12. Other animals don't tell us about God;
13. Fungi, plants, life's kingdoms don't tell us anything about God;
14. The moon, sun, other planets, the stars, the solar system, billions of galaxies, all that empty black space, none of it tells us anything about God;
15. Subatomic particles tell us nothing about God

...
And so forth.

But hey, we're still available for God, and we're waiting just like our ancestors before us waited. And waited. And prayed. And pined. Whar ya'll at, God? Cmon down and say hi.

[shadowhawk]

No, you're wrong. My view that everyone is agnostic is not put to the stake by my insistence upon knowing something. I know what I don't know. And you don't know what you don't know. We are obviously capable of knowing some things. But we don't know if God exists or not. Including you, including your preacher. We do know that preachers who tell us God exist do themselves exist. At least on YouTube, they exist, and presumably in the natty world, too. But we don't know many things, and one of those things we don't know is if God exists or not. Your preacher, whom we see exists, doesn't know about God. You who are now reading these dumb words also exist. We know that, too. And I who write these ridiculous words and sentences, we know I exist, too. Our ignorance regarding God does not mean we are ignorant of everything.

 

Then you are ignorant and don't have a clue.  We are in agreement.  This however is off subject which is about Atheism.  apparently you want to derail the topic.  Why don't you start another thread, "Is there evidence for Agnosticism?" 
William Lane Craig is not a preacher but a leading philosopher today.  The clip I provided was from a debate with an agnostic.  I notice you in your ignorance attack the person and not what he said.

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 July 2015 - 07:45 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Here is evidence for atheism put forth by someone who claims they don't have a clue.

1. We don't see God; There are lots of real things we can’t see.
2. We don't hear God; There are lots of real things and sounds we cannot hear.
3. We don't touch God; That is what thomas thought.  God is not material.
4. We don't smell God; What would He smell like?
5. We don't taste God; Wow what evidence from an agnostic.
6. We don't mathematically find evidence for God; How tall is he?  What would he weigh?
7. Science, our best tool, doesn't find God; Science didn’t find itself.  Science is a tool for material things/
8. Our prayers don't work; Mine do and you would find lots of dispute in this.
9. Our religious leaders don't bring in God; What ever this means.  Are they supposed to?
10. Meditation doesn't work to move God; How does an agnostic know?  What do you mean, “move God??
11. Words, numbers, symbols don't work to bring in God; Numbers, math, etc are abstract non material objects.  They are foundational to existence.
12. Other animals don't tell us about God; When was the last time you talked to your donkey?
13. Fungi, plants, life's kingdoms don't tell us anything about God; Did you ask them?
14. The moon, sun, other planets, the stars, the solar system, billions of galaxies, all that empty black space, none of it tells us anything about God; It tells us it couldn’t have come into existece by itself.  It was caused.
15. Subatomic particles tell us nothing about God.  Did you ask them?

No wonder you don’t have a clue.  
 

[Dakman]

Why doesn't your god want us to know him, know of him

 

Why should it be so hard for us to trust in him

 

He left such vague evidence of himself in the hands of men

 

Men we should trust why?

[sthira]

Ok, well, I recognize there's no room here for nuanced thought, but I didn't say I had no clue if God exists or not. I've clues aplenty. I just don't know if God exists or not. Neither do you, neither does the celebrated YouTube philosopher I apparently maligned by referring to him as a preacher. I didn't know the word preacher is an ad hominem attack.

I think there are reasons to believe God may exist, too, which is why I'm an agnostic. I don't know. Neither do you. Meanwhile:

Evidence for God's existence:

1. The great unsolved mysteries: life on Earth, the cosmos, all of it -- how did it all come to be? We don't know yet. The door is still open for God to slip on in and claim dominion.

2. All of the great religions of the world -- maybe they were onto something? Each religion has its own beauty, and I give everyone props for searching, making up stories, wondering, deciding, making colorful decisions about just how the universe happened.

3. Sometimes when I'm really high, or tripping balls -- I've absolutely NO DOUBT that God Exists! It seems so plain and obvious! Duh. I feel God, I see God, I hear stuff, I taste, touch and smell God -- it's all so present. Psychedelics and God go hand in hand. Everyone knows that.

4. Many, many great spiritual minds -- far better than mine, obviously -- who've contemplated God and all the surrounding doubts about God have concluded: God exists. Maybe they're right? Appeal to Authority!

5. Why is it that humans alone of all the animals are capable of cooperating flexibly in large numbers? Because we have imaginations. We can cooperate with numerous strangers because we can invent stories, spread them around, and convince strangers to believe in them. As long as everybody believes in the same stories, we're cool. We all obey the same God laws, and we thereby cooperate effectively. Animals can't do that. Even chimps! God is one of those stories. So maybe God exists.

6. There's probably a God spot in our brains that was evolutionarily handed down from one generation to the next. Those who believed in God outbred and out-survived more often than those that didn't? God was naturally selected? In our brains!

7. We have all these books and great stories, really deep chants and rituals, clothes and haircuts, tattoos and body mutilations all in God's name. Maybe God exists?

8. We have the Internet, where maybe someday God will show up and divinely post some stuff. Then we'll finally solve this riddle. And while we wait, we have fine, friendly and kind ambassadors like Shadowhawk here to represent the Almighty's absence. What's not to love?!

Go God!

[timbur]

I expect this has been stated already, but I choose not to wade through the thread.

 

An atheist just believes in one less god than a theist does.  A theist already is 99% an atheist, since he does not believe in all the other gods that are said to exist by others.  I just don't believe in your god as well, making me 100%.

 

Pascal's Wager was a much easier bet to take on the theism side, when you consider only 1 religion's god like Pascal did.  But this becomes 1/N instead of 1/2, when:

• You consider all the different religions, then N becomes a high value.
• Different religions have different rules that allow or prevent you from going to their afterlife place.
• Most have rules about not allowing you to believe in other religions.

Do I know that no god exists?  No.

Can I reasonably conclude that particular gods do not exist?  Yes.

Is it possible that someone might present a god that I might agree does exist?  Yes, but most likely it would be vague enough that there is no reason for me to worship it.

There is very little agreement among atheists except on this one defining point: Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods.  The reasons you have for believing are not ones that are convincing to an atheist.  You can ask for someone to disprove your religious beliefs, but invariably that gets into faith arguments, which go nowhere since an atheist usually will not accept faith arguments, or factual statements from mythic books.  There is no good reason to ask whether there is evidence for being an atheist.

 

You might want to call into the Atheist Experience livestream show on Sundays.  (Link is on the left menu, under uStream): http://www.atheist-experience.com/

 

[shadowhawk]

Because there are various schools of thought in every field of science, that does not mean they are all wrong.

[shadowhawk]

Lets cut through some of this fog.  Here is a little test.

 

You:

1. Believe there is no God and that God does not exist.

2. Believe there is a God.

3. Don't have a clue.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

First, let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Excerpt:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know what they are each claiming.

Philosopher William Lane Craig has some thoughts on atheism, atheists and lacking belief in God in this reply to a questioner.

Question:

In my discussions with atheists, they  are using the term that they “lack belief in God”. They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I’m not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God.
What would be a good response to this?
Thank you for your time,

Steven

And here is Dr. Craig’s full response:

Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God.  Compare my saying, “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.”   If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars.  There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).”   Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There’s a history behind this.  Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.  Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken.  For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.”  Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does.  It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence.  He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist.”  So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).  As Antony Flew confesses,

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way.  Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford:  Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view.  It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all.  On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists!  In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position?  Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists.  If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.  But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof.  So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions.  They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous.  So take my little quiz and we will find out where you are.

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 July 2015 - 11:09 PM.