Hello,
My name is Evan Wilson. I am teacher at a Classical Christian school, where I teach Humanities as well as Apologetics for the Christian faith. I believe it is important for our students to be exposed to different ideas, especially ones like atheism. So, one of my projects for my students is to have them interview an atheist through an online forum for discussion.
Disclaimer: If you see this as an opportunity to convince a Christian to become an Atheist I warn you of our resolve. We mean no antagonism to anyone on this forum, and wish for calm and peaceable deliberation of differing points of view. I (and my students) have questions for the average atheist, which will be our opportunity to learn.
Hopefully, at least one full atheist will step forward and offer their answers to some interview questions.
We ask that you be polite and kind, and refrain from profanity and coarse speech.
As the teacher, I would also enjoy speaking with an atheist about their views so feel free to offer your answers to me.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
A follower of Jesus Christ, Evan Gunn Wilson
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
We get this kind of request a lot, typically never hearing back from them. But I'm sure some people will respond to your request.
------------------------------------------------------------
By the way: what is the difference between a full atheist and just an atheist?
We will have differences of opinion about how these things are defined, but I acknowledge the proclaiming agnostic who is a functional/practical atheist as a "half atheist".
The difference rests in their willingness to oppose the counter-position. A full atheist is more forthcoming about their beliefs, to put it simply.
"We will have differences of opinion about how these things are defined, but I acknowledge the proclaiming agnostic who is a functional/practical atheist as a "half atheist"."
Strike one, atheism is the absence or lack of belief in a deity or deities, agnosticism is the idea that nothing is knows or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity. Which of course can be inferred for any claim that is unfalsifiable, as such claims as their definition suggest, can't be falsified even if they are in fact false. We can learn or know nothing from unfalsifiable claims, and they're easy to create. Atheism and agnosticism are not therefore mutually exclusive positions. I consider myself an atheist as I don't believe any deities are real, I am an agnostic as far as all unfalsifiable claims are concerned, for example the lame apologetic claim that "no one can prove a deity doesn't exist".
One last thing, not believing the claim that deities or a deity is real, is not the same as claiming no deities are real. The first is a statement about lack of belief, and the second a claim about knowledge. In my experience theists struggle to grasp this, and religious apologists in particular seem unable to grasp it.
Agnosticism is not a statement of belief - like I'm a half-atheist. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, atheism about belief. I am an agnostic atheist - I can't disprove the existence of a deity, but I choose to not believe.
I meant "functional atheist" not meaning that they are still proclaiming that God exists, but rather they live as though god did not. I understand that it is a statement about knowledge, but I would like to encounter someone who affirms as well as lives the belief.
"someone who affirms as well as lives the belief."
Firstly atheism is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of a single belief. Secondly I live as if no deity exists, I am an atheist, I do not and am not claiming no deity exists as I am aware that this is an unfalsifiable claim, and it is as irrational to believe it as it is to make a contrary claim.
@Sheldon "Firstly atheism is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of a single belief."
As an atheist, I've struggled to understand this distinction and am trying to wrap my head around it. Can you help me out with whether I'm grasping it?
Lack of belief in god would be like not believing that unicorns exist? But saying "No gods exist" would be like claiming that absolutely no unicorns exist (which I couldn't be certain of)?
"I am aware that this is an unfalsifiable claim, and it is as irrational to believe it as it is to make a contrary claim."
Are you saying that it is just as irrational to say "No unicorns exist" as it is to say "Unicorns exist"?
Lack of belief in god would be like not believing that unicorns exist? But saying "No gods exist" would be like claiming that absolutely no unicorns exist (which I couldn't be certain of)?
---------------------------------
That's correct, as the claim no mermaids exist is an absolute claim as well, so not in any parallel universe for example, or if they were defined in such a way as to make the claim more obviously unfalsifiable without even resorting to absolute statement.
"I am aware that this is an unfalsifiable claim, and it is as irrational to believe it as it is to make a contrary claim."
Are you saying that it is just as irrational to say "No unicorns exist" as it is to say "Unicorns exist"?
Not quite, if a claim is unfalisifiable then it means as the name suggests that it can't be falsified, but this is also true even if the claim is false, so we can't ever know whether such a claim is false, in science it is referred to as not even wrong, it can teach us nothing.
It is therefore irrational to believe a claim is somehow validated by being unfalsifiable, however it is also irrational to make contrary claim as neither can be evidenced. You'll often here theists and apologists make statements like "well you can't prove there is no god" as this is a rational argument for belief. Now if you make a contrary claim in an absolute sense then this also can't evidenced, but as we have seen here it is irrelevant as even if the claim were false you could not falsify it.
This is of course not say that all deities are defined in an unfalsifiable way, and certainly not all claims about deities and these can and often have been evidenced as untrue. Humans were not created in their current form for instance, this creationist claim is demonstrably untrue, as the we have enough evidence to state beyond any reasonable doubt that all life evolved slowly over time. .
Thanks for clarifying. That's really helpful.
I'm curious: is there a term or way to refer to someone who claims that gods do not exist?
Probably as a result of my own intellectual/verbal laziness, I'll say something like, "Well, since gods don't exist..." or "unicorns don't exist" though if pressed, I would admit that there's actually no way to know that for certain.
Edited for spelling.
“is there a term or way to refer to someone who claims that gods do not exist?”
The term ‘gnostic atheist’ is sometimes used for that.
I'm not aware of a separate definition to be honest. Atheism is a starting point if you like. Atheists are individuals who can believe or claim anythingvthry want to really, except the a deity exists obviously.
Thanks, CyberLN.
Still mulling over all of this. Would you all say that there is a significant difference between these statements in terms of atheism?:
1. I do not believe that gods exist.
2. I believe that gods do not exist.
Is the latter the same as saying "Gods do not exist"?
Isn't not believing something still believing in something? You have used word play to say I "live" as if no deity exists instead of saying I believe nothing therefore I live a certain way. However, isn't the way you live, or your actions, derived from a belief you hold? Additionally, the definition of atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" not the lack or absence of a single belief. According to this definition atheism is a belief system.
Wow, didn't realize how late to the game I was on this thread... That's embarrassing.
"the definition of atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" not the lack or absence of a single belief."
That is the absence of a single belief, theism is a single belief atheism is the lack or absence of it.
"According to this definition atheism is a belief system."
No it isn't. Theism is a belief, atheism is the absence or lack of it. This argument is one of the most absurd distortions that apologists try.
I don't believe any deities exist, that means I am by definition an atheist, that's not a belief and it;s not a world view. Those are things my atheism can feed into, but atheism is just the lack or absence of the belief in a deity or deities.
I really enjoy the depth of philosophy you employ through your posts and thought process, however, I can't grasp how you don't think not believing in God or gods doesn't shape your world view. But that might be a philosophical argument we don't agree on so we can move past it.
You are recognizing Theism and its explicit antithesis; Atheism, but how do reconcile non-theism which is neither Theism nor Atheism? Or any other beliefs that don't believe in deities such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and (possibly) Scientology. Maybe I'm mistaken, but simply not believing in any deities doesn't automatically make you an atheist. Maybe I am miss reading when you say singular. Are you meaning atheism is the absence of a single belief meaning one single belief, or meaning any belief at all?
You are mistaken; but it is a common misconception, you were probably taught this by someone.
Ok. So, encompassing all other beliefs/religions that also don't believe in deities such as: Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and (possibly) Scientology, how does not believing in a deity or deities make you an atheist and not something else listed?
Yes Zach, there are Buddhist atheists. There are atheist Scientologists. Believe it or not: there are atheist Christians; Christians who don't think Jesus was a deity (nb4notruescotsman).
These examples might seem weird, and perhaps not mainstream; but they are out there.
Zach Malech " I can't grasp how you don't think not believing in God or gods doesn't shape your world view."
Tue, 05/15/2018 - 12:16
Sheldon "that's not a belief and it's not a world view. *****Those are things my atheism can feed into,"
Ahem.
------------------------------
"how do reconcile non-theism which is neither Theism nor Atheism?"
Never heard of it, and it makes no sense to me, you either believe something or you don't, they are mutually exclusive, and also logical negations of each other. You simply can't both not believe and not not believe, that's impossible. Belief is not a knowledge claim.
"Or any other beliefs that don't believe in deities such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and (possibly) Scientology."
Reconcile in what sense, a religious belief doesn't make someone a theist, so a person can be an atheist and still be religious. Atheism is the lack or absence of one single belief, nothing more, atheists can believe anything else they want.
------------------------------------
"simply not believing in any deities doesn't automatically make you an atheist. "
That is precisely what it does, the one thing an atheist can't believe is that any deity or deities exist.
--------------------------------------
" Maybe I am miss reading when you say singular. Are you meaning atheism is the absence of a single belief meaning one single belief, or meaning any belief at all?"
The belief that a deity or deity exists is a single belief, and atheism is the absence or lack of it. Hence atheism is the absence or lack of just one single belief, it does not mean atheists lack even a single belief. We learnb everything about the world we live in by forming beliefs.
"not meaning that they are still proclaiming that God exists, but rather they live as though god did not"
- It sounds like you just mean a non-practicing believer.
"not meaning that they are still proclaiming that God exists, but rather they live as though god did not"
- It sounds like you just mean a non-practicing believer.
This is not actually a statement about knowledge, it is a statement of belief. Most atheists won't exclaim that god/gods doesn't/don't exist. They merely conclude that the evidence in favour of them is insufficient and decide to not believe. That is also why, to answer another question in this thread, atheism is not a belief. As some pithy person said somewhere else, atheism is a belief in the same way the off button is a television channel.
I would be willing to help. I was raised christian and have gone to religious elementary and high schools. I am an atheist and have thought very deeply about a wide range of ideas surrounding this issue. if you would like to engage in a back and forth let me know. If email would be easier you can message me and I will send you my email.
Thanks! I'll direct a student to you if they need it.
Full atheist? Like, after dinner?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that the deity you believe in is any more real than any of the others?
1. What reason do you have for affirming evidentialism? One cannot merely claim the "evidence" is evidently true. What reason do you have for believing the evidence?
2. You have presumed that I disbelieve in other gods. I don't.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that the deity you believe in is any more real than any of the others?
----------------------------------
"One cannot merely claim the "evidence" is evidently true."
I never claimed you could, hence the word objective in my question which I have repeated above.
"What reason do you have for believing the evidence?"
You'll have to demonstrate some first before I can assess it's validity, but if it is objective evidence that would be a good reason to believe it.
"You have presumed that I disbelieve in other gods. I don't."
Actually I presumed nothing of the sort, as you can see from my question I merely made a comparison based on my own position as an atheist. However you claimed to be a monotheist, so this is an obvious contradiction, but feel free to demonstrate objective evidence for Zeus, Thor, Apollo et al as well.
What does a demonstration entail? What happens in a demonstration that makes anything more believable? We all know that "seeing is NOT believing". So the question lies, why would I believe any evidence that is brought to the table? Evidentialism, as a method of obtaining truth is faulty because it is circular reasoning. Example - Something is only true if there is sufficient evidence for the claim. This is evidence is truth bearing, because evidentialism is true. Evidentialism is true because the evidence has shown that it is. So I ask with more specificity: What makes what you call "good/well-demonstrated" evidence true?
The argument eats itself and you are no better off.
There is more evidence for Yahweh's existence than any other God I know of. But if you want evidence for other gods, I would point to the massive religious tradition built around them as well as the corroboration of Christians scriptures about them (Acts 16). I certainly do not affirm that everything that occurs in Greek myth is true since there are too many contradictions and even failures of understanding amongst the Greeks. Still, Psalm 82 says, "God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment." So, I would like to draw the distinction between as I did in another comment the difference between Monotheism and Monolatry. Nothing in the bible requires that I disbelieve in the other gods, but simply that I not worship them. 2 Peter 2, "Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones" (glorious ones = gods) and Jude 1:8, which imitates the Peter passage.
Finally, Exodus 22:28, "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." Scripture clearly allows the existence of other gods. It even has a law that we should not speak against them!
If you deny the validity of objective evidence then I don't see what we can use to validate your claim a deity or deities exist.
The tradition of religions is not evidence their claims are true, that's axiomatic.
Demonstrate.
verb
1.clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
I'm not sure why that needs explaining.
If you can't demonstrate objective evidence for your deity why is the claim any more valid than any other unevidenced claim?
I presume you accept it's useful to have an effective method for examining the validity of claims, so what is it you think gives better results than a demonstration of objective evidence?
Of course I already accept this is our best method, so why wouldn't I keep an open mind and apply the same unbiased standard to all claims?
Pages