No. (Should I go on? Okay.) Atheism doesn’t say you have any kind of knowledge, it says you lack one belief.
Actually it doesn’t. All that is required to be an atheist is to assert that no such thing that has been defined as God exists. How do you define God? My atheism is merely a response of ‘nuh uh’ to any particular assertion of God.
Where do the militant atheists fit in? That is some pretty hard-core crusading for people that simply lack a belief.
The difference is literally infinitesimal. There is no reason to prefer any one god from the infinite number of possible gods, nor is there reason to prefer a divine explanation for the unknown over an infinity of other possibilities.
But because it requires faith to prove he does exists you can’t state empirically that there is no God either. At least, you can’t without some form of belief.
So if I define God simply as the creating force of the universe, you will say no such thing exists? That isn’t a strawman, that is the way my beliefs are trending and it isn’t all that different from what some existing religions believe.
You misunderstand the tenet. Agnosticism only holds that there is no evidence so far that god exists or not. NOT that such is logically impossible. In particular, a god could reveal himself and perform miracles that defy any explanation. Many cultures have just seen god(s) a really, really powerful beings. Think ancient Greece.
In my experience, most of us are angry over the behavior of believers, not God as such. We don’t believe in him, so we don’t care about him. We do care about the relentless violence, malice and stupidity we see from the religious. I don’t want to die from some disease that could have been cured - except for religion. I don’t want to die in a nuclear fireball because someone wants to kick off the rapture. I don’t want to be beaten to death because someone decides my atheism makes me too evil to live.
Not according to the strict and traditional definition of atheism, which is the belief that no god exists. (Cites: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
In recent years, it has become fashionable to assert that atheism is simply non-belief in God. There is already a prefectly good term for that, though: non-theism. There is simply no need to co-opt the term “atheism” for that purpose.
Yes, I realize that language tends to evolve. However, in this case, there is simply no need to define atheism in such a loose manner, since a perfectly good (and far less deceptive) term already exists to describe a lack of theism.
That would indeed be more consistent with the traditional definitions (setting aside the question of whether agnosticism is truly the “default mode”).
What’s a militant atheist, and what do they believe?
Saying “I do not believe in a creating force” is not a belief. The difference here is between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ atheism. Since nobody’s making this distinction, we’re getting confusion here.
I thought “non-theism” was the lack of an opinion here, and I don’t see anywhere where your cite says this is traditional. The author just begins by saying “Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” That’s news to me. While I hesitate to cite Wikipedia on something serious, their explanation of the Greek absolutely contradicts your statement and cite.
But yes, language evolves. Insisting people use terms that are not in common use is confusing.
Ah, I see. You’re saying “traditional,” not original (so the “strict” part might be wrong). But I’ll stick with the term I like, which just happens to be the original meaning of the word and apparently its correct formation.
But because it requires faith to prove he does exists you can’t state empirically that there is no Santa Clause either. At least, you can’t without some form of belief.
I know Santa does not exist. No belief required!
I know god does not exist. No belief required!
I am truly baffled by the hoops some people need to go through to understand people who don’t believe in god. To me, an “atheist” is someone who doesn’t accept the default position that god exists.
I imagine that some of you theists and agnostics do not believe that Santa Claus is real or that UFOs are sending aliens to probe our innards. I just feel the same way about god. The term atheist is silly; there is no corresponding word for people who don’t believe in Santa Claus, why do we need one for people who don’t believe in god?
anticlausian ?
Not any more than the same absence of knowledge precludes one from not believing in any other arbitrary concept you could make up on the spot. I believe there’s no god for the same reason I believe there’s no army of zombies waiting right behind my door.
I don’t know the origin of the universe (and even don’t know whether it’s possible for humans to ever know it) but I’ve zero reason to assume it has been created, let alone by something sentient, let alone by something sentient that would still exist, let alone by something sentient that would still exist and would have any interest in its creation, let alone…etc…
Lacking knowledge, I’ve zero reason to believe in a completely arbitrary explanation. The origin of the universe is as likely to be a 7th order glumphit. I’ve no clue what a 7th order glumphit could be, but it’s nevertheless as likely as a creation by a sentient being for all I know.
A creater god might seem more intuitive because we’re accustomed to this concept and accustomed to create clay pots and computers, but it’s equally intuitive to assume that the earth must rest on something (for instance on the back of a swimming turtle) but actually it doesn’t rest on anything. Making up a creator god out of thin air to explain something we’ve no clue about is as reasonnable as making up the swimming turtle explanation.
And of course, as often mentionned, it still explains nothing, since the next question then becomes : what’s the origin of this god? So, we’re exactly left at the same point : we can’t explain the origin. Exaclty like the swimming turtle : on what rests the water it’s swimming in?
Hence, a creator god not only is a completely arbitrary concept, but it’s a completely arbitrary concept that doesn’t even provide an answer to the question we’re wondering about.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
What’s a militant atheist, and what do they believe?
Saying “I do not believe in a creating force” is not a belief. The difference here is between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ atheism. Since nobody’s making this distinction, we’re getting confusion here.
[QUOTE]
You know better than that. Militant atheists actively fight to remove as much religion as possible from the public. They also actively work to remove religion from individuals they have influence over. It is a social movement that you wouldn’t expect from people that simply have a passive disbelief.
I think of all atheism as “weak” so I can’t use that terminology in good conscience.
I think the OP is getting his answer the more this goes on. No, some agnostics aren’t atheists that refuse to admit it. I see myself coming from a completely different angle as atheists and would never want to be aligned with them.
Your definition of God isn’t as broad as mine. I leave open the possibilty that the universe itself is God. The universe may be both infinite and eternal which leaves open all kinds of possibilities. I really have no idea. I just follow physics theories and discoveries and see that there is more there than meets the eye. Our brains probably aren’t capable of understanding it anyway. We are glorified apes that have done well, but we are still glorified apes. Just as I don’t expect a chimpanze to understand calculus, I don’t expect us to understand things that are up the ladder of understanding. I think it is way to cocky to declare something like that doesn’t exist if you leave the door open for all kinds of possibilities. It doesn’t have to be a bibilcal God.
I have no idea what you would expect, but it doesn’t seem grounded in a firm understanding of atheism or atheists. Your interpretation of why I disapprove of state-sponsored religion is incorrect. It’s not because I’m “militant;” I’m well aware of the fact that I can’t prove my opinions about religion. I’m not interested in trying. I want to be left alone by the government and not have my tax dollars support certain things. The comment after it is even further off base. You’re dealing in broad stereotypes and misunderstandings here.
The only weak thing I see here is your understanding of atheism. And it’s been explained well, so at this point, I think you’re just refusing to listen.
Then, what level of faith does it require to state that there isn’t an invisible and silent dragon right behind you? I expect you to tell me that you’re “agnostic” too about this issue, since you can’t prove the dragon isn’t there…
And of course similarily agnostic about any absurd claim that anybody could made up? About any mythic or legendary being, creature or story anybody ever believed in? You’re agnostic about trolls living in Sweden, about faked moon landings, about the Kalevala, about big rocks being inhabited by spirits, about Eldorado, about the Flying Dutchman roaming on the seas, and so on?
But of course, you aren’t. There are plenty of thing that you believe don’t exist without being actually able to prove it with certainty. But for some reason, you’re setting apart the “god” hypothesis, and state that it requires “faith” not to believe in this other unproven hypothesis.
I say : no…it doesn’t require “faith” anymore than it requires faith not to believe in equally undisprovable pixies or invisible dragons.