The Truth or Falsity of Atheism

[theleftone]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

[bernee51]

If you know for sure there is an absence then you are an atheist. If you do not know if you belief is true or false, then would you not be agnostic?

Not necessarily. All that is required to be an atheist is a non-belief in god(s). A statement of knowledge or otherwise is not required.

[McCulloch]

As the thread on What is God has shown, we cannot agree on a definition of the word god. How can anyone say with any sincerity and conviction that god exists or does not exist without any clue what they are talking about?

For most orthodox definitions of god, I am a strong atheist, I believe that God does not exist. For many other definitions of god, particularly deist, pantheist, panetheist, ineffable and the like, I must remain skeptically agnostic. The point is, that one's position as theist or atheist must be made in a definitional context for it to have any meaning.

[slowlearner]

If you know for sure there is an absence then you are an atheist. If you do not know if you belief is true or false, then would you not be agnostic?

Not necessarily. All that is required to be an atheist is a non-belief in god(s). A statement of knowledge or otherwise is not required.

True: I should have said 'believe' instead of 'know'. A misrepresentation on what I was trying to convey.

As for varying beliefs and the definition of god: Can you not remove 'god' from the atheist definition and simply state they believe in an absence of a divinity? (A)theist, as in (A)typical. Thus, confusion over whether that absence can be factual or not would lead to a lack of knowing or believing. I see that as Agnostic.

Anyway, off topic, so I digress!

[bernee51]

If you know for sure there is an absence then you are an atheist. If you do not know if you belief is true or false, then would you not be agnostic?

Not necessarily. All that is required to be an atheist is a non-belief in god(s). A statement of knowledge or otherwise is not required.

True: I should have said 'believe' instead of 'know'. A misrepresentation on what I was trying to convey.

As for varying beliefs and the definition of god: Can you not remove 'god' from the atheist definition and simply state they believe in an absence of a divinity?

I don't see the difference. Can you remove god from the definition of 'theism'?

Also atheism is not a 'belief in the absence' of anything. It is an absence of belief.

(A)theist, as in (A)typical. Thus, confusion over whether that absence can be factual or not would lead to a lack of knowing or believing. I see that as Agnostic.

Do you 'know' god exists? Do you 'believe' god exists? Or both?

[Pista Gyerek]

Also atheism is not a 'belief in the absence' of anything. It is an absence of belief.

Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I can say I don't believe in God, and I can also say I believe there is no God. Either is a valid statement of atheism.

[bernee51]

Also atheism is not a 'belief in the absence' of anything. It is an absence of belief.

Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I can say I don't believe in God, and I can also say I believe there is no God. Either is a valid statement of atheism.

I agree. The former is passive, the latter is active. The former is a minimum requirement to meet the definition of atheism.

[ShadowRishi]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

I am personally epistemologically agnostic, meaning that I do not believe that atheism nor theism can ever be proven. God is, inherently, an axiom. Axioms have special logical rules attached to them, and I happen to find it an unsatisfactory one.

However, can I ever disprove every god ever? Nope.
But, can I ever prove one single or set of god(s)? Nope.


There is no physical evidence of god; there is no physical evidence against god. Unless, of course, you subscribe to gods of doctrines, and then those doctrines can be proven wrong.

[Pista Gyerek]

However, can I ever disprove every god ever? Nope.
But, can I ever prove one single or set of god(s)? Nope.

And why is evidence of God by definition impossible? I agree that proving the non-existence of God is an exercise in futility, but why is there no possibility of presenting evidence that supports His existence? Have we merely defined God as a being whose existence can neither be proven nor disproven?

There is no physical evidence of god; there is no physical evidence against god.

This sounds to me like the absence of evidence for God's existence can't be considered evidence against His existence.

The same way that the absence of evidence of a shovel in the shed doesn't mean there's no shovel in the shed?

[ShadowRishi]

And why is evidence of God by definition impossible? I agree that proving the non-existence of God is an exercise in futility, but why is there no possibility of presenting evidence that supports His existence? Have we merely defined God as a being whose existence can neither be proven nor disproven?

By definition? Can you make a test for God? Can you do experiments on him to prove his existence? Can you make a logical test for his existence that is superior to other ones?

Evidence feelings make not. I felt that a chick liked me one time; I was severally wrong in that analysis. Feelings are things that are on the inside, not on the outside.

This sounds to me like the absence of evidence for God's existence can't be considered evidence against His existence.

The same way that the absence of evidence of a shovel in the shed doesn't mean there's no shovel in the shed?

Perhaps, but if there's a shed in front of you, do you just assume that there's a mutant raccoon with superhuman powers inside?

I certainly do not. Not until I've seen the superhuman mutant raccoon in action; otherwise, even though the claim is neutral (it's unknown), I pragmatically assume the negative (it's false).

[Pista Gyerek]

By definition? Can you make a test for God? Can you do experiments on him to prove his existence? Can you make a logical test for his existence that is superior to other ones?

That's what I'm asking. If a being can be said to exist, why is it that people greet any attempt to establish this being's existence empirically with ridicule? You yourself said you could never prove a single god or set of gods. And why is that? Because the meme has developed a type of protective philosophical armor that allows it to be whatever believers say it is, as well as to avoid being whatever believers say it's not. That's why it's such a futile shell game.

Perhaps, but if there's a shed in front of you, do you just assume that there's a mutant raccoon with superhuman powers inside?

I certainly do not. Not until I've seen the superhuman mutant raccoon in action; otherwise, even though the claim is neutral (it's unknown), I pragmatically assume the negative (it's false).

Um, right. But you at least admit that there's the possibility you could be shown the mutant raccoon in action, upon which you'd accept its existence. That's not what you're saying about God: you claim there's no way you could be demonstrated that such a thing exists. And unless we're just defining God as something you can never prove exists, I don't see why we couldn't establish what it is we're looking for and how we'd know if we found it.