Defining Atheism Etc.
I think I may have finally stumbled over a good enough definition of god which I can actually express in real terms for people to understand, but still in enough detail without the failings of some more basic definitions. After hearing this description, I have to say it is probably the most useful one there is and really does the job.
First of all, there are two possibilities, there are 2 truths that could be only. Either, god exists or god does not exist. Then there are 2 claims that are being contested over this. Claim A states that “there is a god, this god exists.” Claim B states “there is no god, god does not exist.” These claims correlate with the 2 possible truth states that there are. But these are no the only 2 beliefs that one could take.
There is the belief of notA, where the individual doesn’t believe in the statement of “there is a god, this god doesn’t exist.” This person has no belief in the existence of a god. There is also a notB, where the individual doesn’t believe in the statement “there is no god, god does not exist.” So this person has no belief that there is no god. Since there are 2 claims at work, one is not the opposite of the other and so this gives the following combinations:
- A, notB – This is the typical theist position, not only do they believe the claim that god exists, they also don’t believe the claim that god does not exist.
- B, notA — This is the strong atheist position. Where the individual believes there is no god and also doesn’t believe that god exists.
- notB, notA — This is the more common position of atheists, it is the weak atheist position or even the agnostic theist. They not only don’t believe in the claim that there is a god, but also don’t believe in the claim that there is no god. Evidence is not strong enough to support either claim well enough to transition over to a realm of belief.
- Finally, A, B — I’m a little unsure of this, I don’t see how someone could claim to believe in the existence of god and also believe that god does not exist. However, you could have faith in one or both of these positions and so believe them without evidence.
The important thing to note here is that being an atheist simply means notA. It is irrelevant what you believe with consideration to claim B. As long as you don’t accept the claim that a god exists and instead do not believe that there is a god, that makes you an atheist. (The difference between notA, B and notA, not B comes from gnosticism and agnosticism, strong and weak types of atheism)
To use a useful analogy, imagine I flipped a coin and am now covering it with my hand and I ask you, what is showing on the coin. Now, we now for a fact, that the truth of the matter is that the coin is either heads or tails. Yet, if I ask you, “do you believe the coin is heads?” You would respond “no,” (how could you say yes, you have no evidence) and if I asked you “do you believe the coin is tails?” You would also respond “no.” Therefore, we have established that even though you have said no to the claims that the coin is heads or the coin is tails, they must be 2 separate claims. Rejecting the claim of one, does not instantly mean you believe in the claim of the other. If heads was theism, then as long as you didn’t believe the coin was heads, then you would be an “A-head-ist,” as it we’re.
So, hopefully, we’ve cleared this up a little. I personally sit in the notA, notB position. I don’t believe the claim that god exists, but I also don’t believe the seperate claim that god does not exist. There is not enough evidence to support either one and since the burden of proof always lies with the claimant, the default position is to take notA and notB. At least until evidence is presented, where your belief may shift to A, notB or B, notA.
The Most Crazy Arguments Ever Heard
So, tell me internet, what have been some of the most insane, mad, illogical, incoherent arguments you have ever heard for the existence of god? I thought it would be entertaining (and I do need a good laugh) to look at some of the most insane arguments that are still being bounced around today, despite being thoroughly debunked. Hold onto your heads, it’s going to get mental.
Most Circular Argument Ever:
“The Bible is the word of god because the Bible says so because the bible is infallible because the Bible is the word of god…“
Circular Reasoning is circular
This is terrible reasoning, circular reasoning is just insane and in this context, it is unbelievable that so many people don’t realise they are doing it. The Bible is highly unreliable, there is some historical events it got right, but others it got wrong, plus considering the number of translation errors and errors generated by the process of copying (which we know happened because of all the scraps of Bibles we can find in the world), the failed prophecies (despite how vague and general they were) and a distinct lack of other sources which correlate with what the Bible says.
Massive scientific inaccuracies (e.g. Earth being described as flat with a dome over the top), a lack of understanding of the world outside the authors own area in the middle east, inconsistencies (tons, Google for them) and contradictions between books and even in the same book (There’s a contradiction in the first few paragraphs of Genesis even).
Plus the number of alterations and edits added in at later dates (e.g. Jesus being resurrected was added in later, the writing style distinctly changes) and the fact that books were voted in and out by a show of hands means that even if the original authors were inspired by god, the Bible in it’s current form is going to be no where near what it was originally intended to be!
The Bible is not a perfect book, the Qur’an is supposedly a perfect book, yet you can apply the same reasoning and find similar failings in it too. This concept of perfection baffles me, just the process of copying alone introduced plenty of errors.
This is just one of the most common and insane arguments I’ve ever had to deal with. Screw teaching science, or the controversy. Critical Thinking is what we need, until you can learn how to argue, you can’t really do too much with what you have learned on a particular issue. I’m shocked that in this country, most schools ideas of teaching critical thinking is to wait until sixth form and then only do one small class of the brightest students teaching half an A-level on the subject. Critical thinking and understanding proper argumentative technique is what we need.
