Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I've seen many atheists distinguish that they 'lack belief in a god' instead of "believe God doesn't exist".
I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject? A rock would lack a belief on God, but a conscious being would, if they had thought about it, hold a belief on it, wouldn't they?
If you look out into the universe, see how everything is, and contemplate whether it seems this is a work of an entity or forces of nature, wouldn't you say it seems more likely to you that it seems like something brought upon by natural forces?
This isn't to say you claim to know it or prove it, but it is an opinion drawn from personal experience which makes it seem more likely that a God doesn't exist than God does exist.
Of course, there are some who are 50/50, but I see the same folks that claim to lack a belief in God (rather than believing God doesn't exist) but can give reasons why the universe seems godless to them. There is the lack of evidence that could fall into lack of belief, but then there are arguments such as how everything can be explained without God, the problem of evil (well, accounts for an omnipotent/omnibenevolent deity only), that religions relate to human fantasy or personality, and probably others.
While I do believe in God, I can understand why someone would think otherwise, having thought otherwise at a time in my life. But just because these atheists in question say they have no evidence so they make no claim, doesn't mean they necessary lack an opinion on the subject. What you 'know' and what you 'believe' are two different things - one is certain, the other is opinion.
I guess what I'm saying is, just because you can't prove your side and thus claim you could be wrong, doesn't necessarily mean you lack a belief on the matter. You could host a stance at the same time consider it possible this stance is wrong.
In the same way I believe Atlantis is not real, but I could be wrong.
Peace
You are talking about a large number of individuals, so no one person (me included) can really speak for all. That being said, my opinion is I think most atheists are simply trying to say that because of lack of good evidence for and some good evidence against a deity existing, they have no reason to believe one does, but that there is not 100% certainty. This because theists often push for 100% certainty (absolute knowledge). Those particular people do not realize that this pretty much leaves them with belief in absolutely nothing as well, because it eliminates pretty much all knowledge. I need to state here that this is not nearly all theists......some try very hard to have a rational and reasoned discussion. But it has been presented so often that "you cannot know absolutely" that it becomes tiresome to travel the same road over and over.
You also get the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" statement. And yet it actually is often evidence of absence. If you go to the doctor and have him screen you for cancer and the tests come back negative, would you tell him to put you on Chemotherapy???
As for me, I simply state that I am an atheist because I do not believe any god (s) exist based upon the evidence I have been presented with so far by theists, and the evidence I see that strongly suggests that there are no gods. You can pigeon-hole me any way you wish, it just does not matter to me. If someone insists to me that there is a god of some sort or another, I am open to convincing evidence. But there has been none to date. The ball is in their court and not mine. I do not have to prove their version of god does not exist any more than I have to prove there aren't green aliens on a planet in some distant solar system.