I’ve had dialogue with many
atheists over the years and most of them label their disbelief in God as a stance rather than a belief. Surprisingly, this same stance is taken by prominent
atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Michael Shermer, and Christopher
Hitchens. They claim that their atheistic stance carries no faith along with
it.I’ve even been told that atheism
isn’t a worldview.Many atheists simply
chalk up their non-belief in God as a certainty not up for debate.This certainty is because they believe that all
the scientific evidence is in their favor while also believing that theists
have nothing but blind faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary.However, are they justified in thinking that
atheism isn’t a belief system? Below, I’ve listed three different
definitions from respected sources: Oxford Dictionary: Atheism: Disbelief or lack of
belief in the existence of God or gods1 Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy: Atheism: The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of
God2 Encyclopedia Britannica: Atheism: The critique and denial of metaphysicalbeliefs
in God or spiritual beings3 Given the three definitions I’ve listed, it
is accurate to say that an atheist denies the existence of God.However, to deny God’s existence would
logically follow that an atheist believes
there is no God.In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig
and Christopher Hitchens discuss the topic of atheism vs. agnosticism vs.
verificationism.Hitchens makes the
statement, “there is no claim that I know how to make that says, “atheism is
true” because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition isn’t true”
but then Hitchens states a couple seconds later that atheism “is not in itself
a belief or a system”.The late
Hitchens, one of the four horsemen of the new atheism movement, states that
atheism isn’t a belief system however he cannot provide substantive evidence to
support his atheistic claim during his exchange with Dr. Craig. Atheism is a belief system despite what the
atheists might believe.Hitchens makes an
extremely valid and revealing point, if he cannot justify the claim that “atheism
is true”, wouldn’t that infer that there must be faith involved in being an
atheist?Maybe this confidence in the
claim that there is no God is being propagated by the atheistic worldview.That’s to say, interpreting all knowledge and
data that is personally gathered through an atheist filter so that all
considerations that include God sound completely absurd.The atheist finds the universe to be a closed
system that is void of a transcendent Creator while the theist values the
Genesis 1:1 account and appreciates the universe through the paradigm of God while
observing Him in His creation4.Both worldviews generally result in an interpretation of science
that reflects their worldview, however both cannot be true. In conclusion, we find that the facts more plausibly
reinforce the theists’ worldview.We
find atheistic scientists jumping through hoops in an attempt to justify how
our universe came into being ex nihilo
by saying that the universe came from nothing, the universe created itself, the
multiverse theory, and many others.In
addition, people have gone great lengths to disprove the historicity of Jesus
by coming up with absurd conspiracy theories that don’t have enough plausibility,
explanatory power, or explanatory scope to outweigh the resurrection hypothesis.The fact is, it is perfectly reasonable to
place your faith and trust in God given the evidence at hand.That is what makes atheism a faith rather than a fact. Notes 1 Definition of Atheism (Oxford
Dictionaries). http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism 2 Atheism and agnosticism
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1 3 Atheism (Encyclopedia
Britannica). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism 4 John Lennox, God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God?
(Oxford, England: Lion Hudson plc) Chapter 1
Why would you choose to go to the dictionary, which reflects common usage and is updated as usage changes, instead of the self-descriptions of actual atheists?
It's not a difficult concept; atheism is the privative category, the "none of the above" answer to "what is your religion?" or "what god or gods do you believe in?".
There are many negatively-defined categories, and an examination of some of them might open your eyes. Non-christians (the proper term once was "heathens"), for instance, could be atheists, or muslims, or jews, or buddhists, or hindus, or Greek or Norse polytheists, or anything at all but christians. What do non-christians have in common? Only what they are not. Non-muslims (Kafir, or infidels) may be christian, jewish, atheist, polytheist... you get the picture. What do non-muslims have in common? Continuing, what do non-jews have in common, or non-Greek-polytheists? When you define a group by what it is not, there need be no commonalities among that negatively-defined group.
Atheists are defined by what they are not; they are not religious believers. Do they believe in nothing? Not so--they just hold no systematic beliefs that positively define them. Some are humanists, but not all. Some are rationalists, but not all. Some actively deny the existence of one or more gods; I doubt that many, if any, could even name all the gods that some other people believe in, or have believed in over the centuries.
If "not believing in a god" is a religion, then Christians must practice several religions--they do believe in Yahweh, but they also do not believe in Zeus, or Aphrodite, or Ra, or Thor, or a thousand others. Clearly this makes no sense; one must treat negative categories differently from positive categories. Christians need not actively reject all other gods; they don't even have to think about them. They are defined by their own belief. Non-christians (or non-muslims, non-jews, or any other negative category, including atheists) cannot be defined that way, as shown above.
By the way, the privative definition I have described is also completely consistent with your chosen dictionary definitions; the parts of the definitions which you ignore are completely descriptive of this usage.
You criticize Hitchens for being unable to substantiate an atheist claim; your criticism is, of course, absurd. With no positive claim being made, there is nothing to defend; the burden of proof is always on the positive claim. There is no need to prove the absence of a god (any more than we need to prove the absence of fairies, gnomes, unicorns, dragons, or Australians); the burden of proof is on those who claim these things exist. One of them has plenty of evidence that any observer can agree on (hint: it's Australians, not gods).
It makes perfect sense when you use and understand the proper definitions. It is when you try to treat atheism as a belief that you get in definitional trouble.
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post so thoroughly. I’m going to do my best to reply to your remarks in the order in which you made them.
I choose respected and reliable dictionaries to provide a definition of an atheist because I wanted to illustrate what an atheist generally believes. I simply don’t have the time or resources to identify how each and every atheist describes their own atheism. However, based upon my research, these definitions for atheism are satisfactory in illustrating what an atheist generally believes.
Next, you label “atheism” as a privative category defined by what it doesn’t believe rather than what it does belief. You make examples illustrating your point that people are identified by commonalities associated with what they believe (for theists) or don’t believe (for atheists). For example, Christians aren’t identified for the lack of belief in every other religion outside of Christianity. I hope you noticed that I worded the title of the blog post, “Is Atheism a Faith?”. I didn’t associate atheism with being a religion or a believer of any systematic doctrine. Faith is associated with placing your trust in someone or something. Therefore, I find that atheism is a faith because an atheist places his or her trust and confidence in the fact that there is no God or gods.
Now, regarding Hitchens. I think you may have misunderstood the context of the video. The video was of a cross-examination being performed by Dr. Craig to Hitchens. Hitchens is asked why he believes that atheism is true after being asked to label whether he was an atheist, agnostic, or a verificationist. Under this setting of cross-examination, Hitchens would have the duty to justify his stance for believing in atheism versus believing in agnosticism or verificationism. At this level of debate and academic scholarship, there should be substantial reasoning for a firm stance in whatever he believed. I found that Hitchens failed to justify his stance adequately. However, the affirmative does typically have the burden of proof during a debate but during a cross-examination you are able to place the other in the hot seat and have him or her defend their views. Given the context of the debate, I feel that my critique of Hitchens is still valid as Hitchens was unable to firmly establish a case against theism nor build a case for atheism.
Lastly, people are identified by their commonalities as you say. However, this isn’t a post regarding how people are labeled. It was a post about people who sincerely have faith that there isn’t a God. I would think that an atheist should warmly welcome this claim as he or she affirms it when he or she says, “there is no God”. When they make a claim like this, they do so confidently and with the faith that it is true.
I hope you understand that I’m not attempting to say that atheism is a religion. That isn’t my goal. However, my goal is to communicate that I personally believe that in holding to the atheistic worldview, you do so in faith. I believe in Jesus Christ because I feel that it is the most rational decision to make based upon the evidence. However, it is clear that not everybody is going to agree with my stance. That is ok. We are all different. However, there are no absolutes in life from an evidential standpoint. Therefore, we all take the stance that we do because we have faith that it is true.
Somehow, I think we may end up agreeing to disagree. I am fine with that. However, I hope that I have given you a clarifying note on what I my intention was for this post.
Wait... you say "For example, Christians aren’t identified for the lack of belief in every other religion outside of Christianity"... you are really stretching here. Christians are, I hope you realize, positively defined. In truth, hundreds of Christian sects are positively defined. Christians are not defined by not being non-christians, but by a particular set (several, actually) of beliefs. Various Catholic sects, Orthodox sects, Protestant sects, all are Christian (yes, I know some will claim that others are not) because of particular characteristics that define them as Christian. No christians are defined as christians "because they are not non-christians".
This misunderstanding is carried through in your misunderstanding of Hitchens' statement. Your assertion, that atheism is a faith, is plainly untrue; Hitchens understands this and speaks accordingly. Your failure to understand is not Hitchens' problem.
You say that this was a post about "people who sincerely have faith that there isn’t a God." No, it was not; it was, according to the title and according to the content, a post about atheists. Your improper definition (I do not blame you for this; these are not your people) led you to a misunderstanding. You are defined by your belief; it is perfectly understandable that you would think that other people are defined by theirs. Many are, of course. The privative category is an exception, and an important one, but you continue to miss the distinction.
You are making a positive claim when you say you personally believe, and say that you believe because of specific evidence. I've seen that evidence, and do not share your belief, but that is a separate point. An atheist need not affirm "there is no God"; you, of course, need not affirm "there is no Zeus", or "there is no Thor" or "there is no Ra". There are thousands of claimed gods; have you specifically denied each of them? Atheists, by definition, make no positive claim. (Some atheists do, but it is not at all a prerequisite for atheism, and it is not what makes them atheists.) If you are addressing your post only to the few who make a positive claim, then your argument does not address the vast majority of atheists (including those whom you mention in your post).
I do not care whether you say atheism is a religion or not. I agree, that is a separate question (much easier to answer--it is not). Your claim was that atheism is a faith-based position, and your claim is clearly wrong.
I had hoped that your post was a sincere attempt at understanding. I still have some hope that this is the case, though I have been in similar situations before and have been disappointed.
It takes no faith whatsoever to say "I do not believe in X", when one has no evidence for X. I do agree that if you do have evidence for X, it would take faith to say "X does not exist". Do you have such evidence, that has no other explanation? After many years of this sort of thing... I doubt it, very much.
Once again, I appreciate your input. As I concluded with my last response, I thought we’d likely end up agreeing to disagree. However, I’d be happy to expound my position a little further.
I’m not going to partake in the trivialities of semantics concerning the word “faith”, which is what I think it largely is at this point. By saying that your privative category of atheism is exempt to the rule of faith, you are mistaken because you still believe there isn’t God. To stake the claim, “atheist”, in order to attain a privative stance simply because it releases you from the burden of faith is simply incoherent.
This was a post about atheists, I agree. It was even titled, “Is Atheism a Faith?”. I haven’t led to you believe otherwise. Even from the quote you included from my response, “people who sincerely have faith that there isn’t a God", is an indirect reference to atheists. While atheists don’t need to affirm a God just as I don’t need to affirm the existence of Thor or other mythological creatures, I can affirm the faith I have in their non-existence exist based upon evidence that they are not real.
As I said, this dialogue is now revolving around semantics. Whether claims are made positively or negatively, both still require faith in their beliefs otherwise they wouldn’t have believed in them to begin with.
I hope we can respect the stances we both hold and hope we can gather insight from the opposition.
My mistake--I read "aren't" as "are" in my first paragraph. It does not change my stance at all, but does change what I thought *you* were saying. Perhaps you are more in agreement with me than I thought.
" While atheists don’t need to affirm a God just as I don’t need to affirm the existence of Thor or other mythological creatures, I can affirm the faith I have in their non-existence exist based upon evidence that they are not real. " Could you please point me to this evidence? I know I said you have no obligation to have this evidence, but you do claim to have it, so I ask you for it.
Do you also have evidence that the thousand other gods I have not named are not real? How many gods have you examined? Have you put your own god to the same test as all these others? I must say, that is quite a burden you have put for yourself; I am glad I don't have to disprove anything in order to believe as I believe.
The vast majority of believers I have spoken with have not examined the smallest fraction of competing gods; I am so glad to have met someone who has. I look forward to your evidence. I will probably have to reconsider everything I think about my definitions, if what you claim is true.
Ok, in truth (I respect you enough not to lie to you) I suspect that you do not have any evidence that is sufficient to both A) prove other gods wrong, and B) by the same standard, prove your god right. This is not at all a matter of semantics; this is a matter of evidence. I invite you to prove me wrong; I invite you to, god by god, disprove the other gods, with evidence that does not disprove your own. For your ease, I'd suggest starting with wikipedia's "list of deities". In fact, I'll make your task easier and be perfectly content with that list alone (with links, of course).
Please know, I have no expectation at all that you will be able to do this. No one should have to. Belief does not work that way. You believe for the positively-defined reasons that you believe, not because you have actively rejected every other god, of the thousands of other gods that people believe in. I just want to open your eyes to the notion of positive and negative definitions.
You claim to be open to examination; you clearly do not (thus far) understand or accept my definition of atheism. I want you to know... your definition of atheism is wrong. It is unfair. It leads to misunderstandings.
I would not ask you to defend your belief against every possible belief. That is not how you came to your belief (no matter what you claim). Please, do not ask atheists to disprove every other possible god--not even yours. It's silly. It's unnecessary. It's not our job. The burden of proof is yours.
Hey, the good news is, you don't have to disprove Zeus, or Thor, or Odin, or Ra. It is their believers' burden of proof to demonstrate to you that they exist. If they can't convince you, that's their problem, not yours.
Once again, I appreciate your feedback. Obviously, as you deliberately intended, these requests you are making are unreasonable. Please visit some of the other posts on this site for some stances that I find compelling for the existence of God based upon evidence.
I don’t have to investigate every god anyone has ever worshipped in order to know mine is the God I find evidentially compelling enough to place my faith in. Just as you find it to be compelling to be an atheist without viewing the evidence for every single god that has ever been worshiped, I find that the Christian God to be the most compelling based upon the evidence.
I’ll remind you that we’re not discussing issues related to the evidence provided by the other arguments. These red herrings you’re placing up to distract from the matter that faith is required in being an atheist isn’t accomplishing much. However, you’re right; I don’t agree with your stance on atheism. As you said, that’s my stance and it isn’t your problem.
As I’ve said in the previous two posts, I hope we can agree to disagree.
Why would you choose to go to the dictionary, which reflects common usage and is updated as usage changes, instead of the self-descriptions of actual atheists?
ReplyDeleteIt's not a difficult concept; atheism is the privative category, the "none of the above" answer to "what is your religion?" or "what god or gods do you believe in?".
There are many negatively-defined categories, and an examination of some of them might open your eyes. Non-christians (the proper term once was "heathens"), for instance, could be atheists, or muslims, or jews, or buddhists, or hindus, or Greek or Norse polytheists, or anything at all but christians. What do non-christians have in common? Only what they are not. Non-muslims (Kafir, or infidels) may be christian, jewish, atheist, polytheist... you get the picture. What do non-muslims have in common? Continuing, what do non-jews have in common, or non-Greek-polytheists? When you define a group by what it is not, there need be no commonalities among that negatively-defined group.
Atheists are defined by what they are not; they are not religious believers. Do they believe in nothing? Not so--they just hold no systematic beliefs that positively define them. Some are humanists, but not all. Some are rationalists, but not all. Some actively deny the existence of one or more gods; I doubt that many, if any, could even name all the gods that some other people believe in, or have believed in over the centuries.
If "not believing in a god" is a religion, then Christians must practice several religions--they do believe in Yahweh, but they also do not believe in Zeus, or Aphrodite, or Ra, or Thor, or a thousand others. Clearly this makes no sense; one must treat negative categories differently from positive categories. Christians need not actively reject all other gods; they don't even have to think about them. They are defined by their own belief. Non-christians (or non-muslims, non-jews, or any other negative category, including atheists) cannot be defined that way, as shown above.
By the way, the privative definition I have described is also completely consistent with your chosen dictionary definitions; the parts of the definitions which you ignore are completely descriptive of this usage.
You criticize Hitchens for being unable to substantiate an atheist claim; your criticism is, of course, absurd. With no positive claim being made, there is nothing to defend; the burden of proof is always on the positive claim. There is no need to prove the absence of a god (any more than we need to prove the absence of fairies, gnomes, unicorns, dragons, or Australians); the burden of proof is on those who claim these things exist. One of them has plenty of evidence that any observer can agree on (hint: it's Australians, not gods).
It makes perfect sense when you use and understand the proper definitions. It is when you try to treat atheism as a belief that you get in definitional trouble.
Hope this helps!
Cuttlefish,
DeleteI sincerely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post so thoroughly. I’m going to do my best to reply to your remarks in the order in which you made them.
I choose respected and reliable dictionaries to provide a definition of an atheist because I wanted to illustrate what an atheist generally believes. I simply don’t have the time or resources to identify how each and every atheist describes their own atheism. However, based upon my research, these definitions for atheism are satisfactory in illustrating what an atheist generally believes.
Next, you label “atheism” as a privative category defined by what it doesn’t believe rather than what it does belief. You make examples illustrating your point that people are identified by commonalities associated with what they believe (for theists) or don’t believe (for atheists). For example, Christians aren’t identified for the lack of belief in every other religion outside of Christianity. I hope you noticed that I worded the title of the blog post, “Is Atheism a Faith?”. I didn’t associate atheism with being a religion or a believer of any systematic doctrine. Faith is associated with placing your trust in someone or something. Therefore, I find that atheism is a faith because an atheist places his or her trust and confidence in the fact that there is no God or gods.
Now, regarding Hitchens. I think you may have misunderstood the context of the video. The video was of a cross-examination being performed by Dr. Craig to Hitchens. Hitchens is asked why he believes that atheism is true after being asked to label whether he was an atheist, agnostic, or a verificationist. Under this setting of cross-examination, Hitchens would have the duty to justify his stance for believing in atheism versus believing in agnosticism or verificationism. At this level of debate and academic scholarship, there should be substantial reasoning for a firm stance in whatever he believed. I found that Hitchens failed to justify his stance adequately. However, the affirmative does typically have the burden of proof during a debate but during a cross-examination you are able to place the other in the hot seat and have him or her defend their views. Given the context of the debate, I feel that my critique of Hitchens is still valid as Hitchens was unable to firmly establish a case against theism nor build a case for atheism.
Lastly, people are identified by their commonalities as you say. However, this isn’t a post regarding how people are labeled. It was a post about people who sincerely have faith that there isn’t a God. I would think that an atheist should warmly welcome this claim as he or she affirms it when he or she says, “there is no God”. When they make a claim like this, they do so confidently and with the faith that it is true.
I hope you understand that I’m not attempting to say that atheism is a religion. That isn’t my goal. However, my goal is to communicate that I personally believe that in holding to the atheistic worldview, you do so in faith. I believe in Jesus Christ because I feel that it is the most rational decision to make based upon the evidence. However, it is clear that not everybody is going to agree with my stance. That is ok. We are all different. However, there are no absolutes in life from an evidential standpoint. Therefore, we all take the stance that we do because we have faith that it is true.
Somehow, I think we may end up agreeing to disagree. I am fine with that. However, I hope that I have given you a clarifying note on what I my intention was for this post.
God Bless,
Alan Anderson
Wait... you say "For example, Christians aren’t identified for the lack of belief in every other religion outside of Christianity"... you are really stretching here. Christians are, I hope you realize, positively defined. In truth, hundreds of Christian sects are positively defined. Christians are not defined by not being non-christians, but by a particular set (several, actually) of beliefs. Various Catholic sects, Orthodox sects, Protestant sects, all are Christian (yes, I know some will claim that others are not) because of particular characteristics that define them as Christian. No christians are defined as christians "because they are not non-christians".
ReplyDeleteThis misunderstanding is carried through in your misunderstanding of Hitchens' statement. Your assertion, that atheism is a faith, is plainly untrue; Hitchens understands this and speaks accordingly. Your failure to understand is not Hitchens' problem.
You say that this was a post about "people who sincerely have faith that there isn’t a God." No, it was not; it was, according to the title and according to the content, a post about atheists. Your improper definition (I do not blame you for this; these are not your people) led you to a misunderstanding. You are defined by your belief; it is perfectly understandable that you would think that other people are defined by theirs. Many are, of course. The privative category is an exception, and an important one, but you continue to miss the distinction.
You are making a positive claim when you say you personally believe, and say that you believe because of specific evidence. I've seen that evidence, and do not share your belief, but that is a separate point. An atheist need not affirm "there is no God"; you, of course, need not affirm "there is no Zeus", or "there is no Thor" or "there is no Ra". There are thousands of claimed gods; have you specifically denied each of them? Atheists, by definition, make no positive claim. (Some atheists do, but it is not at all a prerequisite for atheism, and it is not what makes them atheists.) If you are addressing your post only to the few who make a positive claim, then your argument does not address the vast majority of atheists (including those whom you mention in your post).
I do not care whether you say atheism is a religion or not. I agree, that is a separate question (much easier to answer--it is not). Your claim was that atheism is a faith-based position, and your claim is clearly wrong.
I had hoped that your post was a sincere attempt at understanding. I still have some hope that this is the case, though I have been in similar situations before and have been disappointed.
It takes no faith whatsoever to say "I do not believe in X", when one has no evidence for X. I do agree that if you do have evidence for X, it would take faith to say "X does not exist". Do you have such evidence, that has no other explanation? After many years of this sort of thing... I doubt it, very much.
Cuttlefish,
DeleteOnce again, I appreciate your input. As I concluded with my last response, I thought we’d likely end up agreeing to disagree. However, I’d be happy to expound my position a little further.
I’m not going to partake in the trivialities of semantics concerning the word “faith”, which is what I think it largely is at this point. By saying that your privative category of atheism is exempt to the rule of faith, you are mistaken because you still believe there isn’t God. To stake the claim, “atheist”, in order to attain a privative stance simply because it releases you from the burden of faith is simply incoherent.
This was a post about atheists, I agree. It was even titled, “Is Atheism a Faith?”. I haven’t led to you believe otherwise. Even from the quote you included from my response, “people who sincerely have faith that there isn’t a God", is an indirect reference to atheists. While atheists don’t need to affirm a God just as I don’t need to affirm the existence of Thor or other mythological creatures, I can affirm the faith I have in their non-existence exist based upon evidence that they are not real.
As I said, this dialogue is now revolving around semantics. Whether claims are made positively or negatively, both still require faith in their beliefs otherwise they wouldn’t have believed in them to begin with.
I hope we can respect the stances we both hold and hope we can gather insight from the opposition.
God Bless,
Alan Anderson
My mistake--I read "aren't" as "are" in my first paragraph. It does not change my stance at all, but does change what I thought *you* were saying. Perhaps you are more in agreement with me than I thought.
ReplyDelete" While atheists don’t need to affirm a God just as I don’t need to affirm the existence of Thor or other mythological creatures, I can affirm the faith I have in their non-existence exist based upon evidence that they are not real. " Could you please point me to this evidence? I know I said you have no obligation to have this evidence, but you do claim to have it, so I ask you for it.
ReplyDeleteDo you also have evidence that the thousand other gods I have not named are not real? How many gods have you examined? Have you put your own god to the same test as all these others? I must say, that is quite a burden you have put for yourself; I am glad I don't have to disprove anything in order to believe as I believe.
The vast majority of believers I have spoken with have not examined the smallest fraction of competing gods; I am so glad to have met someone who has. I look forward to your evidence. I will probably have to reconsider everything I think about my definitions, if what you claim is true.
Ok, in truth (I respect you enough not to lie to you) I suspect that you do not have any evidence that is sufficient to both A) prove other gods wrong, and B) by the same standard, prove your god right. This is not at all a matter of semantics; this is a matter of evidence. I invite you to prove me wrong; I invite you to, god by god, disprove the other gods, with evidence that does not disprove your own. For your ease, I'd suggest starting with wikipedia's "list of deities". In fact, I'll make your task easier and be perfectly content with that list alone (with links, of course).
Please know, I have no expectation at all that you will be able to do this. No one should have to. Belief does not work that way. You believe for the positively-defined reasons that you believe, not because you have actively rejected every other god, of the thousands of other gods that people believe in. I just want to open your eyes to the notion of positive and negative definitions.
You claim to be open to examination; you clearly do not (thus far) understand or accept my definition of atheism. I want you to know... your definition of atheism is wrong. It is unfair. It leads to misunderstandings.
I would not ask you to defend your belief against every possible belief. That is not how you came to your belief (no matter what you claim). Please, do not ask atheists to disprove every other possible god--not even yours. It's silly. It's unnecessary. It's not our job. The burden of proof is yours.
Hey, the good news is, you don't have to disprove Zeus, or Thor, or Odin, or Ra. It is their believers' burden of proof to demonstrate to you that they exist. If they can't convince you, that's their problem, not yours.
If you can't convince me...
Yup--your problem, not mine.
Cuttlefish,
DeleteOnce again, I appreciate your feedback. Obviously, as you deliberately intended, these requests you are making are unreasonable. Please visit some of the other posts on this site for some stances that I find compelling for the existence of God based upon evidence.
I don’t have to investigate every god anyone has ever worshipped in order to know mine is the God I find evidentially compelling enough to place my faith in. Just as you find it to be compelling to be an atheist without viewing the evidence for every single god that has ever been worshiped, I find that the Christian God to be the most compelling based upon the evidence.
I’ll remind you that we’re not discussing issues related to the evidence provided by the other arguments. These red herrings you’re placing up to distract from the matter that faith is required in being an atheist isn’t accomplishing much. However, you’re right; I don’t agree with your stance on atheism. As you said, that’s my stance and it isn’t your problem.
As I’ve said in the previous two posts, I hope we can agree to disagree.
God Bless,
Alan Anerson