However, quite a few people especially in the New Atheist
movement or Evangelical Christian movement would like to invent some kind of characteristic
test to classify some group as atheists.
Generally the goal of this kind of endeavor is to define the group “atheists”
either as widely or as narrowly as possible.
The obvious reason for this is try to claim the group is either bigger
or smaller than it actually is as part of an appeal to popularity.
One thing common to both of these groups of people is they
have a stick up their ass about the existence or non-existence of a god. To avoid confusion, I call them the theists
and the anti-theists. The theists want
to push the idea a god exists and the anti-theists want to push the idea that
the theists are wrong.
Obviously, believing in god with no verifiable evidence would
make you not an atheist or anti-theist for that matter. But the fact the thing
you believe in is a god is simply irrelevant.
Too many times both sides want to claim the belief in a god is the
central concept. Reference that stick up
their ass. If each group would remove
the lumber they had intentionally inserted into their own recta, they would
notice there is a more subtle meaning behind the word atheist.
A fundamental concept of science is at play here. Both groups don’t seem to have a problem with
the idea that if evidence is presented and verified, any conclusions drawn from
it are more likely to be correct. Notice
I didn’t say “are more correct”. Only
that they are more likely to be correct.
In the case of the concept of a god, simply put, there is no
verifiable evidence that a god exists.
However, both sides ignore that there is no verifiable evidence that a
god doesn’t exist either. The simple
reality is that regardless of the claim of existence or non-existence the level
veracity of the claim is exactly the same.
Because of this the concept known as “hard atheism”, the belief a god
does not exist, is no more atheism than the belief a god does exist.
The idea of “hard atheism” is based on an attempt to split
New Atheists away from the typical definition of atheism used by theists. Because theists know they believe in a god
and atheists are different, they claim atheists believe a god doesn’t
exist. The so called “soft atheist”
doesn’t believe a god exists or doesn’t exist.
While this is closer to atheism than “hard atheism” it’s still not
there.
As is typical in a discussion where terms like “hard atheism”
and “soft atheism” are used, it’s not long before the terms “gnostic” and “agnostic”
are introduced. The “gnostics” know and “agnostics”
don’t know. The normal way this is introduced
is to provide a 2 dimensional graph with “hard/soft” on one axis and “gnostic/agnostic”
on the other.
The idea is to paint the New Atheist into the quadrant that
is both soft and agnostic. They don’t
know if there is a god or not and they justify that position with their lack of
knowledge. While this is all well and
good for not sounding irrational, it’s really a worthless non-position. It’s basically an attempt to claim the
theists are wrong because of a kind of “I don’t know, you don’t know” type of
argument. It’s basically an argument
from ignorance.
A group that has a non-atheistic yet coherent argument is the
“igtheists”. This group contends the
whole question of the existence of a god is meaningless. Without a good meaningful definition of what
a god is, it’s pointless to even ask the question let alone try to come up with
an answer. This group is trying to avoid
the question by claiming that it is not significant.
The interesting thing about igtheists is that they are
diametrically opposed to one aspect that is common to theists, anti-theists,
and atheists. While the igtheists don’t
think the question is significant, the other groups do. This is important if you want to think about
the value of coming up with an answer to the question.
One thing common to the group that calls themselves “agnostic
atheists” is they claim while they don’t have an answer now, they believe it is
possible to have an answer in the future.
This makes them NOT atheists.
They seem to think that if some new piece of evidence is
provided, they COULD choose one answer or another. However this is a pretty significant belief
in itself. It seems to be based on a 19th
century conception of logic that ignores the advances in mathematics made in
the 20th century. It appears
to assume all questions do have answers.
This is clearly an incorrect view based on a lack of
consideration of what it means for there to be an answer to the question. There is a big difference between some
question having an ultimate answer and being able to obtain that answer. Simply put, the ultimate answer is rather
insignificant if you cannot obtain it.
Such is the basis of atheism. Until you provide the verifiable answer to
the question, what you claim is the answer is just plain insignificant. It has no purpose. I cannot be used as the basis for any
rational decision making process. It’s
not a sound basis for the formulation of law.
It’s not a justification for doing anything at all.
So to summarize, here is a list of “so you might not be an
atheist” questions:
1. Do
you believe a god exists?
2. Do
you believe a god doesn’t exist?
3. Do
you believe the theists are right?
4. Do
you believe the theists are wrong?
5. Do
you believe the anti-theists are right?
6. Do
you believe the anti-theists are wrong?
7. Do
you believe the question of god’s existence is insignificant?
8. Do
you believe there are answers to all questions?
9. Do
you believe it’s possible for more evidence to convince you?
10. Do you believe the answer is significant?
