If 'god' is a legitimate concept, then a "theist" is someone who possesses a belief in the existence of some 'god(s)'. An atheist (a-theist) would be someone who is not a theist. That's it in a nutshell minus all the sophestry and hoopla. "Theism" is a word about belief, not a word about some 'god(s)'. An atheist is merely someone who does not possess *ANY* belief in the existence of some 'god(s)'. Nothing more or less is required to belong to the group known as atheists.
[[ If 'god' is not a ligitimate concept, then in the context where "false" means anything not true, (even absurd illogical and/or contradictory nonsense), then I'm still an atheist and theists would be guilty of "believing" (or thinking they believe) in gibberish and it would be true that I didn't fancy that I "believed" this absurd, often contradictory nonesense.]]
However, many critics of this opinion (undoubtedly theists) tend to get it all wrong when they tell others what atheists REALLY think, feel, & "believe". For instance, one popular contention is that everyone is compelled to form opinions and beliefs regarding EVERYTHING, regardless of fact that we sometimes lack sufficient data to form a legitimate opinion. They continue to press on, "But what do you REALLY believe?" Everyone of this mindset that I've ever met has been a theist, and I've never met an atheist who held this viewpoint. Understand this in the context where I have been an outspoken and even contentius atheist for many years and seek out debate about the subject. I met and know hundreds of atheists and ten times as many theists, mostly Christians, and I've never met a single atheist that insists that people must be compelled to form beliefs whether they are warrented and justifiable or not.
Perhaps this is coincidence, as I've never seen a study on it at all. Perhaps this is the source of the idea that everyone either believes that there is some 'god(s)', or believes that there are no 'gods', either way, one must "believe something" one or the other. And that someone like myself who asserts nothing about open sets and where there is no data should be called an agnostic. Theists I've talked to, typically Christians, seem to love this idea as they build up elaborate counter-arguments against what is legitimately known as "Hard Atheism", but all apologies to the enthusiastic theists, its a false notion. Atheists are not only hard atheists, people who don't possess theistic beliefs don't define agnosticism and not everyone is compelled to form unwarranted beliefs. Gnosis/agnosticism is about knowing or lack of knowing, Theism/atheism is about possessing or not possessing a certain type of belief, and hard atheists are atheists for the same reason all atheists are atheists, which is, that they are not theists, i.e. they do not possess any theistic beliefs. In fact, "hard atheists" are a sub-set of the universal group 'Atheists'.
"What about Charles Bradlaugh, Ayn Rand, Madalyn Murray O'Hair? They insisted that there is no 'god'."
Whatever. First, this is most likely misconstruing their positions, and secondly, considering "the history of atheism" as an argument that the only atheism is hard atheism is a poor argument. The best one can do under such circumstances is to suggest that they should have picked a better name for their assertions than "a-" anything. An a-theist is a non-theist by 'a priori' definition, regardless of whether this historic example or that historic example chose to be hard atheists.
Sadly, many people don't have enough sense to be able to read and understand the typical dictionary. Its true that a "soft atheist" is an atheist, and a "hard atheist" is an atheist, but its false to say that "Atheist" is "definition number two, a person who actively believes that there are no gods". That's as idiotic as saying that a "Christian" is "definition number six, a person who believes in purgatory". A person who believes in purgatory would no doubt be a Christian, but to define a Christian as someone who believes in purgatory would be daft and ignorant.
Some examples of misconstrued information:
(Regarding the orgin of life in the universe or the origin of the universe itself) "Atheists think that something came from nothing".
On the contrary, as noted above, I've discussed theology and atheism with hundreds of people and I've never met a single atheist that asserted that "something came from nothing". In fact, such an idea is popular among the Christians, called in Latin creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing".
Another favorite among Christian creationists is the "First Cause" argument. "Every effect has a cause" they insist, "So what caused the universe?"
What these creationists can't seem to grasp is that what they are touting as some fundamental axiom is in fact an aspect of physics/physical laws, which makes no sense to invoke when the subject is the origin *OF* the universe which contains all physical things known and theoretical.
Consider:
A. How can there be causation before physics/physical laws?
B. How can there be physical laws before their are objectively existing physical things in a space-time "fabric"?
C. For that matter, how can there be causation before time, which is hypothesised in the standard Big Bang Theory to not pre-exist the universe itself?
Traditional ideas of causation break down in regards to the origin of the universe, so such arguments are ineffectual.
In fact, the only people I know that presume to understand the origin of the universe are people who are ignorant of the views of modern cosmology and/or religionists. In fact, I have found that its quite common to come across theists who are so arrogant as to presume to usurp modern biology by claiming to understand biology better than biologists, usurp modern cosmology by understanding cosmology better than cosmologists and ditto regarding astrophysics and astrophysicists. What's even more astounding is that they presume to know "more" when they tout latter second Iron Age views regarding "the firmament in the heavens" etc. The arrogance of the ignorant is astounding to behold sometimes.
Another favorite axiom of Christian Creationists is that "all life comes from life" (the idea seems to be that 'god' is alive), where in fact some life has to have came from the non-living, even if we allow for "magic 'gods'". Link
Another favorite claim of many theists seems to be that if Bob is wrong about 'x', then 'y' must necessarily be true, even in an open set. In other words, if Bob is wrong about evolution theory, then this is a "win" for Steve, who is touting the notion of some creator 'god' as an alternative to evolution. Of course, this is quite illogocal. One cannot apply deductive logic to open sets. One cannot deduct Bob's understanding of things and arrive at something that will make Steve's 'god' come true.
So, what *IS* my position?
1. I think that it's a good axiom that any alleged 'god' that cannot prove its existence to me beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind, isn't a 'god'. It would be something pathetic, but not a 'god' per se.
2. My position is completely logical and reasonable. I make no assertions at all regarding the alleged existence (or nonexistence) of any supposed 'god'-beings, and I don't wish ANYONE to be convinced that there are no 'gods'.
Why?
Because "conviction" isn't the point. The fact is, the notion that there *ARE* any 'god(s)' seems to be totally unfounded and unjustifiable. I've never seen a *single* argument advocating the existence of some 'god(s)' that wasn't completely illogical in its nature. There is simply no NEED to try to convince myself or others about no existing 'god(s)'. To be quite frank, no one is behoved to produce a counter-assertion to counter completely unjustified and meritless assertions. Simply noting that the pro-existent 'god' assertions seem to be totally unjustified and unwarranted is good enough.
3. The idea that "'god' is a *better* idea" is unfounded. I have yet to meet a single theist that can show me that any allegedly existing 'god' *CAN* even *POSSIBLY* exist. That being the case. The "'god' hypothesis" cannot be "better" than ANY other idea. One cannot legitimately suggest that "'god' did it" is a "more likely" solution to 'x' if they can't even show that said 'god' can even possibly exist.
4. It is imperative that we hone the ability to discern real legitimate answers from mock pseudo-answers. I suggest that an "answer" must be a cogent, coherent and understandable explanatory response to a comprehensible question. "'god' spoke light into existence" is not an "answer" of any sort. It is in fact a vacuous platitude masquerading as an answer to something comprehensible. And as it is only a false "answer", any "satisfaction", "purpose", or "meaning" that is gleaned from such an answer is false as well, or ill-founded at best. "'god did it" is logically equivalent to "Leprechauns did it". The fact that the propounder of such an "answer" might be personally convinced that 'god(s)' and/or Leprechauns actually exist does not change the nature of the claim.
Consider how many people balk at the notion of an acausal universe. Now, consider how many of these "balkers" do not balk at the notion of a "creator being" creating this universe and yet is itself acausal. This is absurd. To reject theory A because of idea 'x' and yet to accept B as a "better answer", yet which contains an even more egregious version of idea 'x' is quite absurd, even hypocritical when theory B hinges on pseudo-answers that answer nothing as noted above.
In our quest for legitimate answers, accepting the "'god' hypothesis" actually has us losing ground. All it offers is illogical "reason", false pseudo-"answers" that explain nothing, and we are left with exactly the same questions to answer *PLUS* now we are left to explain this alleged universe-creating super being as well. In our quest for legitimate answers, accepting the "god hypothesis" is a huge leap backwards into the Iron Age.
5. Isaac Asimov wrote in his "The Reagan Doctrine" that Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan stated that he couldn't trust communists because they didn't believe in 'god' and what is to keep them from bald-face lying to him? I also make note that since the writing of The Reagan Doctrine, President George Bush Sr & President George ("W") Bush Jr have repeated this sentiment. Such comments leave me wondering about those that tout that they "do the right thing" *BECAUSE* of their "fear of 'god'". We probably have a natural inclination to suggest that they do what they instinctively think is right regardless of religious doctrine, and later fit their beliefs to their instincts, but who are we to really insist that they DON'T do what they say they do?
For instance, I take it as a general rule of thumb that if a man would not trust me with his wife or girlfriend, thinking that I'm going to try to get in her pants behind his back, then I'm not going to leave him with *my* wife or girlfriend because he's probably projecting his wishes and druthers onto me. In other words, he expects from me just what he would do in my position. Ditto for the Christian who insists that atheists cannot be trusted because they don't have any fear of 'god'. We must presume in that situation that *THEY* do "the right thing" NOT because its decent, honest, just, etc, but because they *DO* fear 'god'.
I don't care for this dynamic, but I didn't create it either, and I truly have to wonder about such a mindset.
What about the idea that communist regimes are atheistic and isn't this a moratorium on atheism?
This is illogical as well. Totalitarian regimes are in competition with religion for "men's souls". Removing religious freedoms has nothing inherently to do with atheism. It has to do with tyranny. North Korea's Kim Joon IL is prime example. He has declared himself a 'god' and the son of 'god' and thus made any (other) form of religious practise illegal. Such a conflict is a battle between religious beliefs, not atheism. Atheism proper has nothing to do with removing or denying freedoms.
More later
The Dhampire Logos