Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Exactly.
Just because one does not accept the existence of something, that does not mean they are taking the opposing position. For exactly the same reason I do not believe in Sasquatch. It may exist, it may not. But there is no evidence, just folklore.
Oten,
"Not believing in any god doesn't mean that I believe no god exists. It just means that I simply don't know and I am willing to accept its existence as soon as good and sound evidence is presented."
What evidence would convince you that a god exists and how would that evidence prove that a certain deity out of the thousands that people have worshiped is the one that you want to exist?
Suppose you had proof that one of these gods existed. Would you worship it?
https://www.realmofhistory.com/2018/08/01/12-major-aztec-gods-goddesses-...
https://www.pinterest.com.mx/sweetcherienc/african-gods-goddesses/?lp=true
https://www.realmofhistory.com/2018/01/16/15-ancient-egyptian-gods-godde...
@Oten original post
It is hard to add to the already excellent replies here. So I will go the more simple broad route.
First you already mostly answered your own question with a great response.
Does this old testament scholar presuppose as existent fairies, unicorns, OTHER versions of GOD(S), etc. Yes or no?
Any rational or sane person already operates with just about everything else in their life, that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. I don't believe in a god(s) is not a claim, however: "there is a god, it is my god" is a claim, an enormous one at that.
Any rational human MUST operate in a way where the claim must be evidenced and not the other way around.
My favorite example of why this is so important: (regulars can skip this part!)
-----------------------------------------------
You owe me 1 million dollars.
Prove to me you do not.
.
.
.
You can't? Why not? The claim I made is ludicrous, but you can't disprove it!
So do you pay me a million dollars? Of course not!
The "duh" part here of course is: I need to prove the claim that you owe me 1 million dollars, not you, you need to prove nothing in MY claim that you owe me 1 million dollars.
The exact same scenario applies for a theist claiming their gods existence. It is not an atheists job to disprove god, it is the theist claiming their god exist that must prove their god. 3000+ years and countless billions have tried and failed to prove their god so far. And it has only gotten worse as humanity learns and critical thinking skills and reading and writing skills continue to make gains in overall shared knowledge.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Hi OtenL In response the the OP, I would say ?YES. Atheists who presuppose the non-existence of god accept a few different problems. 1. Which God, 2, They have a burden of proof regarding that specific god. There are thousands of versions of Christian gods. Many can be proved to be wrong for obvious reasons while others are completely non-falsifiable and when you run into one of these the ole Christian ploy "Well you can't prove my god does not exist so we are just asserting opinions," works. In this case the Christian is correct. Both the Christian and the Atheist ave adopted non-falsifiable positions.
Atheists who do this are generally referred to as anti-theists or possibly "Hard Atheists," They are a subcategory of atheism and sometimes they sound just as stupid as the Christians.
What is more common is to fluctuate between "Hard Atheism" and "Atheism" depending on the god being discussed. If you assert the God of the Bible is real, well that is so easily shown to be false as to be a worthless position. That is why the great Apologists like William Lane Craig, Dinesh D’Souza, Lee Strobel and the rest, NEVER DEFEND THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. Listen to them and their god is some sort of being that exists beyond time and space, it is a god of absolute morality, it is some form of necessary being, or it takes on some other form of logical discourse that is not contained within the pages of the Big Ignorant Book Lying Evangelism.
So... In the end.... The requirement for being an atheist is to not believe in god. That is it. Nothing more. Some people do take the position that there is no god. It's fine to do that but it is a bit like opening the door to a dark room and then stepping inside. The atheist is at a distinct disadvantage until the theist explains his version of God. A theist who begins citing all the reasons he does not believe in a god is at an equal disadvantage and the theist will simply assert, "That's not my god. You are talking about another Christian faith. Hell is not real. Jesus was just a man. etc...." There are over 30,000 Christian sects and all sorts of god beliefs and all sorts of slimy dishonest apologists profiting off the ignorance of masses by using broken down apologetics that have been debunked for hundreds of years but which sound perfectly logical to the non-skeptical mind.
When your professor asserts "Atheists presuppose the non-existence of God." he is attempting to "SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF."
He wants the atheist to claim that there is no god. As I explained above, this is a non-falsifiable position. How do you prove something that does not exist, does not exist? Your professor is avoiding his own burden of proof. The person making the claim carries the burden of proof.
There are two prongs to the God debate. God exists or god does not exist. We must address the prongs one at a time. So, God Exists. The person making the claim must prove it. Lacing evidence and proof there is no reason to believe this claim. That does not mean "No God Exists." It means there is no reason to believe your claim.
Look at it this way: You professor has looked at the stars in the sky and he has asserted, the number of stars in the sky are even. (God Exists.) Now it is true that the number of stars is either odd or even but we do not really know which. (No one has any idea if a god exists or not.) We have not counted all the stars and don't even know where they all are or where they end, if they end at all. It is ignorant to assert the number is "EVEN" (God exists). We have no evidence of this at all. All the Theists give us are make believe stories and make believe Gods and we have tens of thousands of these. So, the logical thing to do is to tell the professor, "I don't believe you." There is no possible way the professor can know any more than I can know. "Well I feel it in my bones. I was moved by a magical holy ghost, bla bla bla...." He can not know. So.... I don't believe him. (I do not believe that your god exists.) The professor has the burden of proof.
Now I want you to pay attention here. This is the point where many theists trap atheists and shift the burden of proof. I did not say that the number of stars are ODD. (God does not exist.) I made no such assertion. I only said that I did not believe the number is even. (I do not believe your assertion that God is real.)
The Theists love to shift the burden at this point and assert "So you believe God does not exist." (The number of stars is odd.) No! I did not say that. Do you see that calling the number of stars "ODD" carries with it the same burden of proof as calling them even.
The number of stars are odd, "Is an ignorant Strong Atheist or Anti-theist position. It has no teeth. Just like the Theists, we are confronted with the problem that the stars have never been counted and we have no idea at all how many there are.
Finally: With that said, the anti-theists are on stronger ground than the theists. "Absence of evidence "is' evidence of absence." This is another long discussion and this comment is long enough. I hope you found it helpful. Your professor is "Shifting the burden of proof" when he asserts that the Atheist position is "God does not exist." That's the bottom line.
@cog
Although I agree with what you are saying 100%, I can't help myself but point out an issue here. Your point is (as repeated by many time and time again) that being atheist does not mean, necessarily, that you don't believe in God, and therefore don't have the burden of proof. I must say though, I could go through these threads and find examples of just about all of the main writers on this site making statements that suggest, in fact, 'they DO NOT BELIEVE God exists'. Point is, It is easy to say you just don't have an opinion, but it is abundantly clear that fundamentally you are making this claim. So as I see it, either we need to be more careful with our language, or we need to read between the lines and know what the other means. Know what I mean?
@ HumbleThinker
And I could cut, copy, paste from all of your posts showing you are a complete idiot. What does "I could go through these threads and find examples of just about all of the main writers on this site making statements that suggest, in fact, 'they DO NOT BELIEVE God exists'." have to do with the price of tea in China?
rmfr
@ HumbleThinker
And to add. To be wholly honest, I could also go through all MY posts, cut, copy, and paste, and make myself look like an idiot.
Again, what does "I could go through these threads and find examples of just about all of the main writers on this site making statements that suggest, in fact, 'they DO NOT BELIEVE God exists'." have to do with the price of tea in China?
rmfr
@HumbleThinker
There is a vast difference between "I do not believe a god exists", and "I believe that there is no god".
And that is my personal position, I do not believe a god exists. Neither do I believe that Sasquatch exists. If I receive valid empirical evidence on the existence of either of those two entities, then I will change my position. Until then, I do not believe in fictional creations.
David Killens,
"There is a vast difference between "I do not believe a god exists", and "I believe that there is no god"."
"Gods" do exist but not celestial or spiritual gods. Those are imaginary.
The biblical God was simply the series of Emperors and high priests who ruled the dominant Middle Eastern empires in ancient times. They were just men, many of whom were insane. Our modern day gods are the same, they are the men and women who are our national leaders. They have the power of life and death over us and can end our lives in the blink of an eye. Trump is our current American god. He is as nutty as any of the biblical god versions.
When JFK said go to the moon his pronouncement was equal to anything the imaginary God could have said in the Bible or in the Koran.
People worshiped deities who could cure their ailments. Their success rate was very low. But today we have doctors who can cure or alleviate countless disorders. Their human power and skill is far greater than any ancient medical deity. Our military leaders can unleash far more destructive power than any ancient war god could ever do. And so on in every area of life.
We are just humans but have more power than any ancient deity so we are all "gods". Could any ancient god do what we are doing right now? I doubt it. So why do people continue to believe in ancient fairy tales about Gods when we have more power and knowledge than they ever had? The biblical God couldn't defeat iron chariots but we can.
edit spelling
All good points Diotrephes. We just need to refine the definition of "god".
@Dio Re: "We are just humans but have more power than any ancient deity so we are all "gods"."
Nice! I really like that statement!... *beaming smile*.... Hope you don't mind if I steal it and use it from time-to-time.
"Your point is (as repeated by many time and time again) that being atheist does not mean, necessarily, that you don't believe in God, and therefore don't have the burden of proof."
I think you're confused, all atheists, by definition, do not believe any deity exists, and not believing something does not carry a burden of proof, that is axiomatic. Nor does disbelieving a claim necessarily involve a contradictory claim.
Humble Thinker:
And when they do that, you would be justified in asking them "Which god are you talking about and how do you know that?" When they do that they are accepting a burden of proof.
I don't recall the name of the poster as he is no longer here. There was some idiot that logged in one time and started saying Gods are not real and Religion is bullshit. I did see some atheists jumping on board but I for one held him to task and called him on his bullshit. I know Tin man followed up attempting to explain to the guy what I was talking about. Old Man may have jumped in as well. The Atheist ended up getting pissed and leaving the site. "Sorry about that." However, I firmly believe that ignorant atheists are a poor reflection on us all just as ignorant Christians are a poor reflection on Christianity.
I agree that many atheists need to be more clear with their language. I am not making the claim that God or gods do not exist. I would agree with the Christians that most gods throughout history were made up stories; however, I have nothing more to base this on than the silliness of the gods and "Argumentum As Populum." I have never met nor discussed Thor with a true believer. My rejection of Thor is based on the same lack of evidence that I reject the Christian God. I have heard no evidence and no convincing facts for these gods nor any other.
I agree with your insights. Atheists should be more clear. If I say a god, any version of god, does not exist, I should be clear what I am talking about. With that said, I have never heard an argument or seen evidence for any god that swayed me to belief. It is completely fair for me not to believe until such time as that evidence is produced.
Oten: "Do atheists presuppose the non-existence of God?"
Don't know about others. I do not. However, until someone shows me OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that any deity exists, I shall never believe any of the preposterous claims, presupposed assumptive assertions, logical fallacies, and fact checking failures for any deity. And remember this. I shall forever apply...
The Eleven Razors:
to any and every preposterous claims, presupposed assumptive assertions, logical fallacies, and fact checking failures for any deity. I shall also apply another statement I gave on these forums: “Even if your deity exists outside this universe, time, and/or space, yet effected this universe, it would leave evidence. Where is that evidence?”
Despite all this, my mind is still open for proof of any deity. But here is another kicker. Even if you were to prove beyond any conceivable shadow of doubt for a deity, that DOES NOT mean I would worship that deity. And if that deity was the God of the Bible or Allah of the Qu'ran, I would bitch-slap the sorry piece of filth and say, "How dare your sorry ass be so god damned heinous, abhorrent, horrifying, repugnant, murderous, homicidal, infanticidal monster to ever exist." Then I would spit in its face and walk away. If I needed to do so, I would also piss and shit on its feet.
Answer your question?
rmfr
I don't think anyone will ever be able to convince you. Your 'understanding' of God is not any God that I am trying to prove. It is like me trying to prove to you an apple is actually an apple when you think I am describing an orange. Not worth any effort.
@ HumbleThinker
Then I guess that make-believe fignation of imagiment of yours does not exist. Otherwise, prove it, or shut up.
rmfr
Then please submit a precise definition of your god.
That way misunderstandings can be avoided and we can have a healthy and productive discussion.
Then it is your duty, First Peter 3:15 - To explain your god clearly so we can believe. Stop playing all the dodgy bullshit games and get down to it. No one can talk about your idiotic god until you get down to it and define it.
"5 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."
You are obligated by the very book you profess belief in. I will even go and start the thread for you.
That is just hand waving and obfuscation, you have come here to an atheist forum to preach your beliefs, so it is for you to accurately define them and properly evidence them. It's no use sulking when people who have studied religious apologetic from many different sources and found them risible, find your spiel equally fatuous.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Yeah I agree Oten:
Since there are thousands of gods with most (if not all) having been made up by people, who's back stories tend to contradict each other; we kind of forced to start off not believing in them. Since we can't believe in all of them, and picking one/some at random would just be special pleading. Then we just wait for one to rise above the others. Yeah, I'm still waiting.
@ Nyarlathotep
And I certainly hope you ain't holding your breath while waiting...
rmfr
"Then we just wait for one to rise above the others. Yeah, I'm still waiting."
As am I, and I can't help noticing that the adherents of all religions make the same claims, and use the same fallacious arguments, and offer up unevidenced anecdotal claims for their deity as if those unevidenced claims are as compelling as anyone could wish for.
Where is the "real" deity in all of this, that not only doesn't care to expose the conmen who are lying, but is allegedly prepared for me to suffer an eternity of torture for nothing more than it's own decision to remain hidden behind vapid archaic superstitions, whose claims become risible with each incremental advance of human knowledge through scientific endeavour.
To me belief without sufficient objective evidence is absurd, though not as absurd as denying scientific facts evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, and making claims that outrage reason, deny natural laws, and contain ubiquitous logical fallacies.
I'l also never tire of using this quote from the late author and polemicist Christopher Hitchens.
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
Guys, thanks a lot.
I've read every single answer. As always, you helped me out of this semantics confusion that apologetics cause.
Now it's clear to me that someone saying "atheists presupposes the non-existence of god(s)" is SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. It's almost as this person telling you "you say that no god(s) exists. Now prove it!". Man... these assertions that religious people make about atheists are so subtle that if you are not careful (or trained) you easily fall in their traps.
Also, I agree with the idea that even if someone proves that some god exists, it doesn't follow that we have to worship him and follow everything he commands. That reminds me of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek. During QA session, Turek was saying that if the "historical evidence" proves that Jesus did miracles and was ressurected, THEREFORE we must believe everything he said. Excuse me? No. We f*ing don't! Even if Jesus ressurected, we would have to understand "how" he did so, and even more, he would have to support every claim he made. There's a kingdom of heaven? Prove it! There are demons causing illness? Prove it!
To answer the question in the original post:
Atheists, it must be said, do not presuppose the non-existence of God; rather they infer God's absence, much like theists infer God's presence. A theist with aptitude for critical thinking would agree. However, staunch theists would say that they do much more than just infer; they'd claim that they know for sure. It all depends on the epistemic stance behind a statement.
Indeed, one of the questions that immediately arises, the moment we have actual evidence for a god-type entity, is "do any of the mythological assertions about this entity actually apply thereto?"
What if that entity, upon being found, is also found to be completely indifferent to us? The whole concept of worshipping this entity becomes manifestly absurd in such a scenario. As does the idea that this entity is purportedly sending us a "message", or "commands" of any sort.
Oh dear. Frank Turek. The mere fact that he dismisses evolution on its own, renders him not worthy of a point of view as far as I'm concerned.
Then of course, there's his manifestly duplicitous brand of presuppositionalist apologetics, which actually constitute some sort of perverse achievement, by being even more mendacious than the output of the usual suspects in this field, such as the insufferably pestilential irritant known as Sye Ten Bruggengate.
Oh, rampant abuse of logical conditionals is practically standard operating procedure for pedlars of apologetics. None of whom understand how these constructs actually work. William Lane Craig is an abuser thereof on a galactic scale.
If Turek genuinely asserts this, then he is, not to put too fine a point on it, palsied to the point of being non-functional as a normal adult. Only someone possessing a truly florid brand of derangement could possibly subscribe to this mediaeval piece of flocculent drivel. There are single celled organisms who would point and laugh at this brand of absurdity, including quite a few of the pathogens that are actually responsible for diseases such as cholera and tuberculosis. Plus, this venomous piece of nonsense, is responsible for a good few deaths among children raised in the more gangrenous and pustular fundamentalist households. If Turek pushes this bilge, in my view he's guilty of incitement to endanger the lives of innocents, and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Do monotheists presuppose the non-existence of each individual deity they don't believe in? Have they studied all religions at least as thoroughly as their own? The inherrent bias here is manifest in the beliefs of theists, not so for atheists who set the same standard for evidence for all deities.
Atheism is neither a claim nor a belief, though of course an individual atheists may and sometimes do make the claim no deity exists, but this requires a burden of proof. Since it is easy to define anything in such a way as to make its existence unfalsifiable, then the assertion it doesn't exist is epistemilogically and rationally unsound, the assertion I don't believe it exists however is both logically and epistemologically consistent.
The short answer is no.
The slightly less short answer is that atheism is nothing more than:
Theist: I claim that one or more gods exist.
Atheist: Until you prove your claim, I don't believe it.
Anything beyond that is outside the realm of atheism and based on the individual.
@ Skeptical Kevin
First, let me finally welcome you to our little corner of the WWW hell. Come right on in. The temperature is comfortable 15,002°C. Just ask any theist.
Forewarning: You shall find yourself repeating that atheism "is a lack of belief or disbelief in any claims that any deity exists" many times here. Just thought you'd like to know before you facepalm yourself to death.
By the way, there are two commandments you shall need to follow here:
rmfr
@Arakish
Thank you for the kind welcome! I watch a good bit of the Atheist Experience and they repeat that to callers on their show constantly. It's a shame so many people try to add on to what atheism actually is.
Pages