Weak atheists asking to prove God's existence: What's the catch?
Why do positive, active, strong militant atheists or weak atheists/agnostics promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending?
Those that make the rounds to trumpet into all corners about their lack of belief: Does your life have so little substance that you can identify yourself only by telling others what you lack?
Claim: Atheism is not a religion or philosophy. It is simply lack of faith or belief in God(s).
Answer: lack of belief is the same as being unconcerned, which is an oxymoron since that is precisely what active atheists are not. The accurate descriptor of what atheism is always ending up being is "the belief that there is no deity".
The position of weak atheists is nothing more than a complaint about what others people believe in, referencing God. I don't believe in UFOS, but I do not go around wearing a label pin or flag to identify as one who does not believe in UFOS. So there is a problem in the logic of this issue. If you do not believe in God, big deal, but what is it that you proactively believe in, what is your positive worldview that influences your moral values, your daily behavior, your motivations, your family life, your vote, in short: that regulates or laws your own personal life? A person ought to be identified by what they believe in , not by what they do not believe in. So this is a shell game, a parlor trick. ...
It is often not clear if an unbeliever is a defender of weak atheism, agnosticism, or a strong atheist which argues that most probably there is no God.. They adopt various strategies to defend the argument that it is honest to reject theistic beliefs, and when it is convenient to hide that naturalism is nonsensical, then the "I don't know" card is played, or: "Science is working on it", or: "we hold a neutral position". Precisely when they claim that this is an honest position, they hide precisely the opposite. It's a dishonest tactic to cover the fact that an unbeliever is not holding that view based on reason, but bad will, suppressing the truth because he does not want God in his life. It is not a mere lack of belief. It is a positive choice not to believe. Will is at play. Atheists don't see any evidence of God because no matter what evidence is shown, it's not their motivation to acknowledge its rational soundness but to deny it. Atheists willingly choose not to believe, no matter how sound, obvious and logical the inference of creation and intelligent design is. Not because of an imagined absence of evidence. The evidence is all around us - creation, but they do not want to see it. So the claim that there is no evidence, is just a lame excuse and dishonesty, to themselves in the first place.
When an atheist makes the claim that there is no proof of Gods existence, he immediately and implicitly admits there is no proof that the natural world is all there is, either. Nonetheless, he chooses that option based on no reason at all. So here they admit believing there is no God by faith!! Amazing.
The claim of not knowing is an attempt to avoid the burden of proof, and pushing it back to the believer, which is - according to them - the only one making a positive claim. A positive choice not to believe in God is NOT a mere – as though passive – lack or absence of belief. It is indeed a choice to refuse to accept whatever evidence for the existence of a supreme being is presented and in most cases – at least 99% of the cases – to accept that there even is any such evidence! Pretty amazing when you then hear these same people claiming they are “open-minded”, “logical”, “reasonable” etc.! When an atheist claims he is being rational in claiming there is no God, or doesn’t believe in any god, he is following a self-imposed willful blindness to rationality itself, rather than the openness he claims.
A common tactic is as well to throw and say: “You don’t know what atheism is all about”, or: “You don’t understand how evolution works”. Seriously, besides hot air, what else is this? Both, the concept and meaning of atheism, and the concept of Darwin's theory of evolution is by no means difficult to understand. So this kind of answer is pure empty rhetoric.
The atheist Francois Tremblay wrote in his essay Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose:
If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.
Truth said this is a deceptive game played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. To actually believe something, would require the pursuit of intellectual labor with which they can support that belief. Intellectual laziness is the mark of most atheists.
Is Atheism Mere Lack of Belief?
Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:25 am; edited 3 times in total