Why Atheism is Wrong
HYPOTHESIS: Atheism is wrong
ASSUMPTIONS
(1) Atheism comes in 2 distinct forms which must be treated separately and
(2) “Wrong” is in the eye of the beholder.
Credit: jurvetson
ATHEISM DEFINED
There are two forms of atheism, broad and explicit. Broad atheism is the most common form. It is defined as the absence of belief in any god or gods. The explicit form of atheism, on the other hand, explicitly denies the possibility of the existence of any gods.
As you can see, the broad definition does not deny the existence of a god or gods, it is a statement of non-belief without any assertion that what others believe is actually wrong. The explicit form on the other hand, asserts that a god or gods do not exist, period. This may seem like a small difference, but it’s actually huge.
BROAD ATHEISM
Broad atheism is self-supporting and consistent, because it applies only as a belief system of the individual practicing it. The burden of proof between theism and broad atheism falls on the theist to prove their god or gods exist. Proving to the theist that their god or gods do not exist is not even something a true broad atheist would want to do, because their belief system does not oppose other belief systems or even the possibility that gods do exist. The broad atheist just finds it so improbable and unknowable that spending any time or effort attempting theism no longer holds value. Of course there may be other reasons broad atheists have for their beliefs.
EXPLICIT ATHEISM
Explicit atheism is not self-supporting. An explicit atheist asserts that the absence of gods is not just their belief, but a fact. Asserted facts must be supported by evidence, and now the burden of proof falls on the explicit atheist to show it is impossible for gods to exist. It comes down to their belief being asserted as a fact. To my knowledge there is no self-sustained logic that a explicit atheist could use that would achieve their objective. The broad forms of both atheism and theism are based on beliefs that are not falsifiable at their core.
WRONG?
As stated earlier, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. A perfectly acceptable practice in one culture may be completely wrong elsewhere. All belief systems, atheism and theism included, can be observed with the “explicit” or “broad” approaches.
For instance, a Christian, Muslim, or atheist who assert the others do not have the right to practice their beliefs, or that they should and will be punished for what they believe are in the “explicit” category. Sometimes this means that an entire sect of a religion can be explicit in nature. Their beliefs explicitly state that people who do not worship their god or gods in a particular manner will burn in hell for all eternity, for example.
In these same belief systems exist people who are “broad” believers, and do not force their beliefs onto others or dismiss them without any evidence or discussion. These people observe respect and tolerance for others who believe differently than they. They believe what they do because it is what makes the most sense to them personally, and they do not expect the rest of the world to comply with their belief system.
CONCLUSION
Explicit atheism will be incorrect until a self-supporting argument can be made that disproves the possible existence of any god or gods. Broad atheism is not either wrong or right in an empirical sense, it only takes on one or the other property for the individual judging it.
Nov 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
i agree. the broad atheist sees that the evidence so far does not support the existence of god, but if enough credible evidence was found, they would change their minds. explicit atheists are in the same position as agnostics who believe there can never be any evidence either way. in the future we may develop some instrument to detect god(s), but right now the probability of god(s) existing, in light of the evidence, is quite low.
Nov 24th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I think I may be a broadly explicit atheist, in that I lack belief, do not deny that deities could possibly exist, but claim that the chances of any given deity existing out of all possible combinations is infinitesimally low, and thus can dismiss any given description of an unverifiable entity beyond our current ability to observe as incredibly improbable and can deny it in that manner. I am an explicit atheist towards any given god. Toss every conceivable religion and conception of a deity in front of me at once, and I am broad atheist (and possibly several centuries older).
Dec 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
“To my knowledge there is no self-sustained logic that a explicit atheist could use that would achieve their objective. ”
Simple. If there is no evidence for a proposition, you are perfectly justified in saying that it doesn’t exist.
“As stated earlier, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. A perfectly acceptable practice in one culture may be completely wrong elsewhere.”
Nope. Logic and reason are universal.
“Explicit atheism will be incorrect until a self-supporting argument can be made that disproves the possible existence of any god or gods.”
For starters, the idea of “God” has not been adequately defined. Until a definition arrives that isn’t internally contradictory, it is reasable to doubt its validity and assert its falsity.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
you have been greatly mis-informed as to the definition of atheist. There is only one kind of atheist that would be as you describe it the “explicit” atheist. An atheist is one who believes in no god whatsoever, whether it be the christian god, allah virishna, zeus, and many others. The other type of atheist, as you describe it actually , to me, sounds more like an agnostic. He would think that there is no way to prove whether or not a god could exist. I suggest you do your homework before you delve into a topic with which you have no experience
Apr 11th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Explicit theism will be incorrect until a self-supporting argument can be made that proves the possible existence of any god or gods.
So the ball is in the Theists’ court. Can they prove the existence of one, or many gods? I doubt it.
Jun 13th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I should think that ‘Non-Theist’ is a perfect understandable word withoutout
stating that it is “Broad Atheism” Atheism is an active assertion that
God, etc. doe not exist. Non-theists tend to say that the proposition,
“God Exists”, cannot be proven or verified; so that it becomes a fruitless
and useless idea. Atheism and Non-Theism are two perfectly useful
terms; so why muddy up the picture? Religions like Hinduism and
Buddhism or fringe Christianity/Islam really depend upon practice not ‘theology’ You may learn more from the practice of Pranayana than infrequently saying a Pater Noster’ once a day.
Jul 9th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Hinduism is a cool religion that is also oriented towards peace and prosperity.-**
Jul 22nd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
the religion of my grandfather is Hinduism and he says that it is a great religion.”";