When atheists say that theists are all atheists about one god or another...?

Question

Isn't that the same as saying we are all Protestants because we all protest certain things?
Why do atheists, notably Dan Barker-- I've heard it in every debate he has engaged in-- and some more famous atheists, make this odd point as if it means anything?
It's to similar to Kurk Cameron's claims that atheists are really agnostic.

eh- I think it's a silly claim.
It's like a person who doesn't believe in evolution, pointing out that the evolutionists themselves don't believe in all the other forms of evolution, just as some theists don't. If you make the above argument, you are begging the question in your favor-- and claiming that religious belief is arbitrary... listen to Barker. He makes this debate in his opening almost every time, before the debate has even begun!

But I don't reject the gods in the same way an atheist does.
I believe there are truths about God-- but I do not believe that God belief which is different from mine is "wrong" in the same sense that an atheist typically does.
There are only a few conceptions of God that an atheist and myself would likely see eye to eye on.

swbarnes2:
It is an abuse of semantics to prove what amounts to a meaningless point.
Do you reject some aspects of Newtonian physics? Do you reject Lemarkian evolution? I assume that you do. Does that make you an "aphysist"? Or a person who doesn't believe in evolution? Would you not find it strange if someone tried to apply this label to you?
Why then, do so many atheists carry on making this point? The issue at hand is what a theist believes, not what he doesn't.
the point these atheists make may be accurate nonetheless, but is trivial-- and yet, this is a major argument put forth in debates about God by many atheists.

Wundt:
I'm telling you that it would be foolish of me to attack evolution based on what an evolutionist DOESN'T believe- so I'm glad you agree with me on this point.
You don't like science as an example-- fine.
Love, instead. Did you catch the sight of your loved one at the right time, in the right place, such that she returned the favor? A love which, in another time and place, you might have given to another? Would you deny that it has a meaning, because at least at the start, it was arbitrary? If I said to you, "How can you romantically love only some people, when you deny love for all these others? " To ask such a question is absurd. Yet this is the very question you pose to theists in the above example.

Personally, I think you should just attack the things theists do believe in- what good does it do to ask a Christian why he is not a Hindu? There are various reasons which may come down to arbitrary choice-- or happenstance. but so what? It has no bearing on the truth value of whatever evidence they can present.
A theist may have just fallen luckily into the truth, however unlikely that possiblity is.

Answer 1

no thats not really the same thing at all

the point is made in response to christians who say something like "how can you not believe in jesus, its so obvious, so many people know him"

well a lot of people know buddah, allah, and vishnu, yet christians have no problem dismissing their gods.

you are in fact an atheist to every other god that has ever been thought to exist

atheists go one step further and also deem the christian god to be unlikely

thats it

Answer 2

Because it makes the point that MOST people on this planet are not Christian, and believe in other gods or versions of (the capital G) God. Our disbelief in YOUR god or version of god is no different than your disbelief in the Hindi gods, the Islamic interpretation of God, etc.

In other words, Christians are to Hindus as Atheists are to Christians. To condemn us for our non-belief is to condem your own non-belief in the Hindu pantheon. Their belief in their gods is every bit as strong as yours in your God.

As to the statement from Kurk Cameron... Who really cares what he thinks? The guy thinks bananas are proof of God's existance. However, sure, if it makes you feel better I will admit that there are some Atheists who might be better called Agnostic, but there are others are quite certain in their disbelief (no doubt at all). Either way, the result is the same. Atheists see no evidence of god/God and so don't believe.

Edit - Your point about evolution is foolish. Evolution is based on scientific observation. The reason someone does not believe in 'other forms of evolution' is because the evidence for one is better than the other. Whereas, the arguements for religion are based on faith and opinion.

Answer 3

Well do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe in Anubis?

The point here is that the evidence is exactly the same for them and the reasons that theists don't believe in them is the exact same reason that I reject the Christian God. I wouldn't be any more surprised if evidence of Odin were to surface than I would be for God.

And Kirk says a lot weirder stuff than that. After the banana argument and the crockoduck, I wouldn't use that as an example of old Kirk being gone.

Answer 4

Multiple universes are possible with certain physics theories. Fail to see how this says anything about god. We'd just be pulling stuff out of our butts, there's certainty nothing about it in the Bible. Oh wait -- the Mormons think this! They think there are families of gods and each one makes a universe. That our universe is made by one God but there are others.

Answer 5

All the original statement means is that theists reject all gods except for their one chosen god. You believe in Jesus (e.g.), but you disbelieve in Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Huitzilopochtli, Dionysus and the rest. Your selection is purely arbitrary, based (usually) on your childhood programming.

As for Kirk Cameron, I really can't make heads or tails of his claim that "atheists don't exist." I assume the reasoning is something along the lines of "They're rejecting God because they don't want to live by His law," or whatever. Of course, against this I'd simply revert to the above argument, and ask Kirk why he rejects the law of Allah, or Krishna, or Ahura Mazda, or Huitzilopochtli, or Dionysus...

BTW - I forget who it was that phrased it this way, but I think it's the best wording: "I simply believe in one god *less* than the typical theist."

Answer 6

The fact is no theist can prove beyond reasonable doubt that any deity exists, let alone their deity in particular. But it's a perfectly valid statement, in that by believing in your deity, you generally also deny the existence of anyone else's deity, which would seem to be a logical fallacy, as you can't prove or disprove the existence of any deity. Therefore, it does have a point, that theism based solely on one religion is essentially illogical.

Answer 7

Don't you deny the very existence of Allah? Muslims would say you are an atheist, because you don't believe in the one true god. You don't think the Hindu people believe in the on true god, do you? So they are atheists. Atheists don't believe in god. A Buddhist must, by your point of view, be an atheist.

Answer 8

Perhaps the point you are talking about is that in all religions people who are said to be "believers" only believe in their idea of god, for example in christianity it's 'Jesus' while all the other gods - Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, etc are not believed in by the "believers", therefore they are in reality, non-believers in all other gods. So they are all atheists, its just that Atheists go one god further.

Answer 9

The point is this: all those other religions had their own devout believers who experienced their gods firsthand, and signs and miracles done in their gods' names, and their prophecies that came to pass; and yet you can easily recognize that those "proofs" don't amount to a hill of beans.

Why should your god or your religion be any different?

Answer 10

Because there are currently 4,900 gods identified in human history. You only believe in one of them, which means you are an atheist to the other 4,899 of them.