Isn't this the ultimate honesty test for atheists?

Question

If atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then atheism does not address the actual existence of God...meaning atheism allows for the possibility of God's existence.

If you really are an atheist (one who merely lacks belief in God) then you should be able to admit to the possibility of a God.

Otherwise, you are not an atheist; you are an anti-theist.

So how many of you self-identified atheists will make this honest confession?: "According to atheism it is possible for a God to exist."

Anyone?

Yes, I know atheism also allows for the possibility of blue fairies, et all. Nonetheless atheism allows for the possibility of a supernatural God. So an objective, honest atheist should have no problem admitting it.

Isn't this the ultimate honesty test for atheists?

Because in my experience, most atheists are actually anti-theists, who hide behind a feint of make-believe non-belief, and who base their entire belief system of the impossibility of God's existence.

Answer 1

You're trying to debunk atheism by using a flawed definition of what atheism is. In reality, you're confusing atheists with agnostics (those who don't know whether there's a god) and non-theists (those to whom it's irrelevant).

Answer 2

Atheism is the view that either affirms the non-existence of gods or rejects theism.

Anti-theism is a step further, a view that religion is destructive.

Agnosticism DOUBTS belief in a god according to any organized religions, but does not reject the existence of god. A belief that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of god or gods.

Your perception of atheists is incorrect. It is not a belief system based on the impossibility of god. Atheists HAVE NO belief system. It is the absense or rejection of a belief system. There is no Atheist congregation where we all re-affirm our non-beliefs.

It is not an honesty test. If someone doesn't believe, then they just don't believe. Period. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. What does it matter what they choose to call themselves? It doesn't mean they are hiding behind anything. Atheists don't have to prove anything.

So to answer your question, I am an atheist. I don't believe in god. The possibility of any deity is too far-fetched for me. If that makes me an anti-theist, fine. So be it. I can do both.

Answer 3

This is an excellent example of making a logic stand on it's own head.If you derive some satisfaction from the idea that Atheists are actually anti-theists,so be it.Even admissibility to the possibility of a God is granted.But,nothing changes on the ground.Putting it other way around,let it be known that if by any chance and at any point of time, existence or presence of a God is proved beyond all doubts,then Atheists have no choice but to accept it,otherwise it would be against their rationality to do so.The basic premise of Atheism is not non belief in God just for nothing but because it is considered by them to be irrational first then non belief ,a consequence.Please think again.(Thanks for a thought provoking poser)

Answer 4

The great thing about atheism is..... It allows for the existence of whatever so long as the evidence supports it. If there is no evidence to prove a hypothesis/theory there is no reason to believe in that hypothesis/theory. Thus there is no reason to interject some invisible sky daddy to fill in the blanks. If a theory works it works.... if it doesn't, the theory was wrong and needs to be re-examined. Atheists want facts, details & evidence before we make a decision. That is completely logical.....unlike the brain-dead, brainwashed theists who have the final idea already, and they try to find facts, details & evidence to support the idea.

For example: an atheist would take the story of noah and not believe in it until there was indisputable proof that it really happened. Whereas the theist would accept the story as truth because it is in their bible, and they would create "facts" to support their "truth."

If infallable evidence is brought up in support of there being a creator or "god" then most logical atheists will look at that evidence and accept whatever "truths" may come of it.

All the atheist's i've ever known have been completely open-minded. The ones who need a test for honesty are the theists... they are the ones who are claiming THEIR god(s) exists and all other religion's deities are false and they have NO evidence whatsoever to support their false claims.

I love how you put blue fairies and a god in the same category. The bottom line is that allowing for a possibility doesn't make something true. You can allow for the possibility of ANYTHING if you're open minded enough, but just because you allow for a possibility that doesn't mean the possibility exists. I could allow for the possibility of blue fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, or santa claus.... but just because there is a possibility for those things to exist that does not immediately mean that they do exist or that the possibility is a strong one.

Logic would dictate that you have no reason to believe in something until you have proof of it's existance. I know elephants exist because i've seen them, pet them, smelled them. I know my mother exists because I've seen her, felt her hug me, heard her speaking, smelled her perfume, tasted her cooking. These are all facts that support the original hypothesis. It's silly to occupy yourself with things that have a "possibility" to exist, but have no evidence... Especially when there is so much in this world that DOES exist that we still know so little about.

In a logical mind there is no room for fantastic possibilities like sky daddies, pixies, fairies or anything of the like.


"Because in my experience, most atheists are actually anti-theists, who hide behind a feint of make-believe non-belief, and who base their entire belief system of the impossibility of God's existence. "

I hate to burst your bubble, but your experience is hardly enough proof that all atheists are as closed-minded as you are attempting to portray them. Especially if your "experience" is merely related to the R&S Section here on Yahoo! Answers.

Answer 5

It's best not to let experiential data guide your generalizations.

I don't see why saying that I agree with you would would be "honest", and the tone is that atheists are lying when they say that they think there is no god.

I can admit that there is there is a possibility that Zeus, Thor, the Green Man, God, Kali, insert any or all deities here, exist. However given the amount of evidence for all of them combined is the same as the evidence for unicorns, I say that none, including the unicorns, exist.

I think you should reexamine your analysis of atheists, and try it again from an objective viewpoint as opposed to the assumption that everything is about your religion and its god.

Answer 6

Well I personally admit the possibility but I put the odds the same as the tooth faerie being real. They have exactly the same evidence and are really too low to even consider.

And the odds of it being the Christian God and the Bible being correct are absolutely zero. There is no chance at all that the flood happened, or that the story in Genesis is true.

Does that work for you?

Answer 7

Yep.

Technically I'm an agnostic and an athiest. I lack belief in gods, and I think it's impossible to KNOW whether they exist or not. So making assumptions about the existence and attributes is just silly.

But really, given the gods people talk about, I would say the possibility of their existence is next to nil. Too self-contradictory and interestingly human. I see way too much transference in religion...

Answer 8

I take an pastime in faith and the presence of it in society. i became under the impact that I didnt must be non secular to be in RS. if it incredibly is so, then why are people interior the Cats section? Or non-politicians interior the Politics section? etc. In RS, I do come throughout the time of issues I didnt recognize approximately diverse religions and that i do ask questions besides. customarily when I ask questions that's to get people's comments on an argument. this manner of solutions and backgrounds and reasonings is thrilling. and of direction...RS is incredibly exciting.

Answer 9

The ULTIMATE test of their honesty is whether they acknowledge that not everything that exists can be put under a microscope. Of course, because atheists are generally NOT honest in that area most don't.

I also have noticed that most "atheists" are really anti-theists who are thoroughly convinced that truth and human logic are one and the same and that, if something can't be proven to be absolutely true by human logic, it's not. So much the worse for them though, because they have doomed themselves to meaningless, joyless, self-centered lives.

Answer 10

Funny that you bring this up.
It's true. I used to hang out on a Objectivist board. They were all, of course, self-proclaimed atheists.
They were ALL, however, open to the possibility of God, but their point was that whether or not God exists does not effect their life or morals. Objective reality is still the same.
Most of the atheists I see on Yahoo answers are, as you said, anti-theists.

Answer 11

Atheists have assessed the possibility of the existence of god and dismissed it as entirely unlikely and impossible. They have therefore admitted to the possibility of god in order to assess its likelihood. Having considered such a possibility to be unlikely they have moved to not believing in god. It's called using your brain.

In order to consider the existence of anything, however improbable or unlikely, one must first imagine such a thing, name it, imagine its nature and form and so forth. Without such a process it is impossible accurately to assess the possibility of its existence. This does not make the existence of such a thing any more likely, nor does it make a person any more likely to believe in such an existence; it is merely the process by which a thinking person reaches a considered conclusion.