What is atheism? Nothing more than an unjustified godless assumption.

[DialecticSkeptic]

Atheism is properly defined as an unjustified godless assumption at bottom of one's belief system, an axiomatic starting point upon which his belief system is built, from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics and so forth.

First, it is godless by virtue of the very term itself, the root of which is the Greek word atheos, which means "without God" in the same way that asymmetrical means "without symmetry."

Second, it is an assumption on account of the fact that it is not the product of reasoning but, rather, the foundation from which the atheist engages in reasoning (i.e., every corner of his reasoning is "without God").

And third, the fact that it is an axiomatic starting point is why it is unjustified; in other words, it is incapable of being justified because the very criteria by which the atheist justifies anything already has that "without God" assumption built in.

So, his view of reality, truth, reason, knowledge, morality and so forth is "without God" because he has already presupposed that God is unnecessary for any of it.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

The starting point is a presupposition or assumption that God does not exist. Of course, with such as that, the rest of their worldview being structured around it, it doesn't allow for any kind of open mind in any other area concerning the nature of reality. This means it closes them off. Only God can change that. And He has, millions of times.

I believe it was Thomas Huxley who coined the word Agnosticism. This serves as a cover for Atheism when its arguments fail.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The starting point is a presupposition or assumption that God does not exist.

I disagree. I think the axiomatic starting point is that God is unnecessary. They are atheists in the sense that they don't believe God exists, and they don't believe God exists because, as far as they know, there is nothing that requires God. That is the delusion of which they need to be disabused (and they prefer the delusion to the alternative).

(Presuppositional apologetics has entered the chat.)

I believe it was Thomas Huxley who coined the word agnosticism. This serves as a cover for atheism when its arguments fail.

Agnosticism can't serve as a cover for atheism if there is such a thing as agnostic theists—and there is (e.g., Soren Kierkegaard). Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, derived from the Greek word gnostos ("to know experientially"), whereas theism and atheism pertain to what one believes. An agnostic theist is someone who can't say for sure that God exists but goes about life as though he does. An agnostic atheist is someone who can't say for sure that God doesn't exist but goes about life as though he doesn't.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I disagree. I think the axiomatic starting point is that God is unnecessary. They are atheists in the sense that they don't believe God exists, and they don't believe God exists because, as far as they know, there is nothing that requires God. That is the delusion of which they need to be disabused (and they prefer the delusion to the alternative).

(Presuppositional apologetics has entered the chat.)




Agnosticism can't serve as a cover for atheism if there is such a thing as agnostic theists—and there is (e.g., Soren Kierkegaard). Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, derived from the Greek word gnostos ("to know experientially"), whereas theism and atheism pertain to what one believes. An agnostic theist is someone who can't say for sure that God exists but goes about life as though he does. An agnostic atheist is someone who can't say for sure that God doesn't exist but goes about life as though he doesn't.

I don't think you disagree. I think you spin it a different way. Nothing I said is disagreeable unless you add to what I said.

I've spoken to atheists on the internet for around 23 years. Every single time they ended up admitting that they were agnostic whereas previously they held to atheism alone. A few questions sorted them out proper. Distinguishing between atheism and agnosticism doesn't make much sense anyway. It is not rational to say, "I don't know if God exists but I don't believe in God" which is essentially what they attempt to claim.

 

[Yttrium]

An agnostic theist is someone who can't say for sure that God exists but goes about life as though he does. An agnostic atheist is someone who can't say for sure that God doesn't exist but goes about life as though he doesn't.

Hmm. I'm pretty much in between those two.

I don't presuppose that God is unnecessary. Presuppositions aren't my thing at all, really. If we find a natural explanation for something, it doesn't mean that God wasn't involved. If God exists, then the natural explanation is how God did it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I don't presuppose that God is unnecessary.

If I inquired about the very criteria by which you justify anything, will God be invoked at any point?

 

[Yttrium]

If I inquired about the very criteria by which you justify anything, will God be invoked at any point?

God could be invoked as a possible source of the justification. For example, I follow the Golden Rule, which I originally got from Jesus in the Bible, and that could easily have been divinely inspired.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

God could be invoked as a possible source of the justification. For example, I follow the Golden Rule, which I originally got from Jesus in the Bible, and that could easily have been divinely inspired.

Okay, it looks like I have failed to get my point across clearly, because I wasn't asking about the source of X but rather the justification for X.

Let me try again by asking you this question: "How do we know anything at all?"

 

[Yttrium]

Okay, it looks like I have failed to get my point across clearly, because I wasn't asking about the source of X but rather the justification for X.

Let me try again by asking you this question: "How do we know anything at all?"

Because of the memory implantation we received ten minutes ago.

Yes, I'm kidding, but that's meant to give you an idea of the array of possibilities I consider all the time. I usually go with what seems most likely to me based on the information I have available at the time, while taking into account that some or all of the information could be false. I have no belief system, so I make no presuppositions on how we know things.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Because of the memory implantation we received ten minutes ago.

Yes, I'm kidding, but that's meant to give you an idea of the array of possibilities I consider all the time. I usually go with what seems most likely to me based on the information I have available at the time, while taking into account that some or all of the information could be false. I have no belief system, so I make no presuppositions on how we know things.

So ... we DON'T know things?

 

[Yttrium]

So ... we DON'T know things?

I was only speaking for myself, and we don't have to be sure how we know things in order to know things.

 

[atpollard]

Second, it is an assumption on account of the fact that it is not the product of reasoning but, rather, the foundation from which the atheist engages in reasoning (i.e., every corner of his reasoning is "without God").

I was raised as an “Easter and Christmas” Christian in a liberal “social gospel” (church is social club for helping the poor and feeling good about ourself) Methodist Church. By age 10, I had embraced atheism and by age 12 I was a practicing “nihilist”. Your explanation for ”atheist presuppositions” is incorrect from my personal history. I am not qualified to speak for ALL atheists, but the core convictions for my atheism arose from “The Problem of Evil” and the definition of “god”.

GIVEN:

• God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
• God allows evil to exist (children are raped, as an example).

THEREFORE:

• Option 1: God was powerless to stop the evil (If “god” is not omnipotent, then he is not “God” … therefore, there is no god).
• Option 2: God was unaware of the evil (If “god” is not omniscient, then he is not “God” … therefore, there is no god).
• Option 3: God was busy somewhere else at the time of the evil (If “god” is not omnipresent, then he is not “God” … therefore, there is no god).
• Option 4: God could have stopped the evil, but god chose not to (By any standard of morality, that makes “God” evil).

So which is the more logical conclusion:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and evil.
2. God does not exist.

See, it was not an unfounded presupposition that “god” is unnecessary. It was a logical conclusion that the evidence of God’s inaction supports his non-existence (Just as the proof of Zeus’ not existing is his inaction - a dead statue is a dead statue.)

 

[Yttrium]

I was raised as an “Easter and Christmas” Christian in a liberal “social gospel” (church is social club for helping the poor and feeling good about ourself) Methodist Church. By age 10, I had embraced atheism and by age 12 I was a practicing “nihilist”. Your explanation for ”atheist presuppositions” is incorrect from my personal history. I am not qualified to speak for ALL atheists, but the core convictions for my atheism arose from “The Problem of Evil” and the definition of “god”.

GIVEN:

• God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
• God allows evil to exist (children are raped, as an example).

THEREFORE:

• Option 1: God was powerless to stop the evil (If “god” is not omnipotent, then he is not “God” … therefore, there is no god).
• Option 2: God was unaware of the evil (If “god” is not omniscient, then he is not “God” … therefore, there is no god).
• Option 3: God was busy somewhere else at the time of the evil (If “god” is not omnipresent, then he is not “God” … therefore, there is no god).
• Option 4: God could have stopped the evil, but god chose not to (By any standard of morality, that makes “God” evil).

In my analysis, I came up with more options. For example:

Evil is an unavoidable aspect of human free will. For God to remove evil, He would have to remove free will. Any act of evil is finite and thus insignificant compared to an eternal life. As long as God provides an eternal reward, finite evil and finite suffering are acceptable consequences of allowing free will.

 

[Eleanor]

 

[atpollard]

Evil is an unavoidable aspect of human free will. For God to remove evil, He would have to remove free will. Any act of evil is finite and thus insignificant compared to an eternal life. As long as God provides an eternal reward, finite evil and finite suffering are acceptable consequences of allowing free will.

The parents and grandparents of the murdered toddler would probably tend to disagree … they are typically shaken to the core with real doubts about the innate goodness of any ‘god’ that might exist. Clearly the supreme being that hardened the heart of Pharaoh, but allows children to be raped and murdered has a respect for free will that comes and goes.

Whose free will is served by the people that are killed by tornadoes?

 

[atpollard]

In my analysis, I came up with more options. For example:

Evil is an unavoidable aspect of human free will. For God to remove evil, He would have to remove free will. Any act of evil is finite and thus insignificant compared to an eternal life. As long as God provides an eternal reward, finite evil and finite suffering are acceptable consequences of allowing free will.

PS. That is Option 4 with the argument that God is not morally evil for having the ability to do something and choosing to do nothing. It does not question the facts, only the conclusion. (You are making excuses for God … “Yes, God did nothing, but that is not morally evil because …”)

 

[Eleanor]

In my analysis, I came up with more options. For example:

Evil is an unavoidable aspect of human free will. For God to remove evil, He would have to remove free will. Any act of evil is finite and thus insignificant compared to an eternal life. As long as God provides an eternal reward, finite evil and finite suffering are acceptable consequences of allowing free will.

What is the definition of free will?

 

[Yttrium]

The parents and grandparents of the murdered toddler would probably tend to disagree … they are typically shaken to the core with real doubts about the innate goodness of any ‘god’ that might exist. Clearly the supreme being that hardened the heart of Pharaoh, but allows children to be raped and murdered has a respect for free will that comes and goes.

Don't see the point in arguing against eternal by just ignoring the eternal.

Whose free will is served by the people that are killed by tornadoes?

That... doesn't make any sense. The free will thing applied to evil committed by people.

 

[Yttrium]

What is the definition of free will?

You have a choice between a can of Coca Cola and a can of Pepsi. Those are your only choices, and you have to choose one. But you're free to choose whichever one of the two you want. If you don't choose one within 30 seconds, you will be eaten by a grue.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I was only speaking for myself, and we don't have to be sure how we know things in order to know things.

I never said anything about being sure how we know things. Again, "How do we know anything at all?"