Greta wrote:uwot wrote:It has been pointed out to you by several atheists that all that atheism entails is a lack of belief in any god. The Atheism you describe is different, in that you define it as a positive belief that god does not exist. The atheists on this forum have agreed that any such belief should be supported by evidence, and if any Atheist can provide that evidence, then we atheists would be as eager to see it as you. We have also pointed out that atheists would just as quickly debunk such a ridiculous claim as you. In that regard, Mr Can, you and atheists agree.
Nice summary of the situation.
I agree. It's quite right.
But something has been missed here. It's that if what is said above is true, then what you mean by "atheism" is
entirely trivial.
Why?
Because it amounts to no more than this: the statement, "
I lack belief in God."
Now, that may be very interesting for the person who utters it, but what is supposed to be the import for the person hearing? Are the recipients of that information supposed to say, "Yes, I believe you when you say you know nothing about God: poor you. We do." Or do you mean that the recipients should understand the atheist (small "a" here) to be saying, "I lack belief in God, and
so should all of you."
If it's that latter, then the recipients should immediately ask, "Why?" And when they do, then all the need for evidence that you claim the atheist does not have comes right back into relevance.
Absent any evidence, then, the claim "I lack belief in God" is merely personal and private, and has absolutely no implications for anyone but the speaker himself. And if that's the case, then Atheism
is not a belief that can be recommended to anyone. It's just a confession of personal failure to know on the part of the speaker, and nothing more ambitious than that. It surely cannot extend to anyone else, because it's non-evidentiary: and how can we tell another person what he or she can or
cannot know, unless we have evidence to show that the thing in which he or she is believing is impossible?
Non-evidentiary Atheism (or private "atheism") is the ultimate toothless tiger. You're right: it's not an ideology. All one can regard it as is a personal confession of failure to know God. As regrettable as that may be for the private individual, it's irrelevant to others.
But here's the point: uwot may be that kind of small-a "atheist," but
Dawkins is not. He's a
proselytizing Atheist -- an ideologue who writes books and holds lectures to tell people that not only is God a "delusion," but that no rational person ought to believe otherwise. He's on his own holy mission to free the world from the knowledge of God (or to sell as many polemical books as he can, one or the other), and is in no way content to leave the question where uwot thinks most "atheists" would.
As for "apatheists," they don't write blog posts about God, if they're telling the truth about what they are: they're too apathetic. So we have no reason to expect to see any of them here.
In truth, both atheism and theism have numerous members who do not lead examined lives - via dogma or apathy, respectively.
Agreed. But we are not they, I may hope.
