While it is true that all atheists say the evidence does not point to a God not all atheists would say, "There is no God."  By saying that they do not mean 100% proof.  They mean it is as justified to believe that God is a fiction as it is that ibuprofen deals with pain.  The latter cannot be proved in the full sense either.  For example, maybe it is chalk and some demon is making you think it is real.  We ignore such possibilities.  They do not count. 

If you claim there is no God then those who hear you are entitled to know what the evidence is.  You take on the burden of showing why atheism is a justified belief.  Some avoid this by saying they are atheists as in lacking faith in God and in his existence.

This is easily mistaken for agnosticism.  They will be told, "Absence of evidence for God does not mean he is absent.  He could still exist.  So you are saying you don't know."

Yes but to lack belief in someone who is closer to you than you are to yourself is indirectly denying that he is real.  You don't directly deny God but you deny him in your silence and the silence speaks volumes. You avoid the burden of proof duty but you are genuinely an atheist.

Those who say there is no suitable evidence for a loving God overlook something. We all know that people might reason in a circle and that is good for nothing. "I took my tablets at 9.30 am and they worked so I must take them at the exact same time for they will not work."  You are assuming that the time matters and it matters just because it seemed to once.  That is not an argument but an assumption trying to look like one.  A circle is a lie both in its content and also by virtue of merely being a circle.

To say God makes all is to say that you see him in what he has made and he has made your heart that finds him and your mind that verifies him. But that is no better than a witness testifying to himself. It is not only useless but shows there is no real faith or trust. So arguments for God inherently fail. It means that those who try to argue that God bears witness to us of his love and existence are in fact confused non-believers.

This divine self-witness being no-witness is a different point from arguing that proofs for God are unconvincing. Those who have an absence of belief in God complain that the evidences for God are too bad. But isn’t it time we had belief lackers who identify a vicious circle as we have outlined? We must remember that you can lack belief in God both ways at the one time.

Can one be an agnostic atheist? Some answer, "Yes. Please understand that knowledge is not full certainty but extremely well-supported by evidence and reason. Like how we need air to breathe. By agnostic you are saying that by the highest standard of justified belief you are not sure of God's non-existence. By atheist you are saying not that you deny god but that you have no belief." I say no.  An agnostic by treating God merely as an idea and living as an atheist is an atheist in a confused indirect way.

Some call the absence of belief in theism, a theistic God, lacktheism. They deride calling this atheism. They say it is not making a truth claim that there is no God.

But we have seen that it is a minimum condition for being an atheist.


No Copyright