Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
The Definition Debate Far too long has the God debate on youtube
been stalled in the semantic miasma that is the definition process for the word atheist.
Endless videos have been posted back and forth that involve atheists supplying the definition
for the term with which they most personally identify. Theists argue back that such people
are only atheists if their specific circumstances, and feelings regarding the God debate are
in lockstep with the definition of atheism that is engraved in their seemingly impregnable
brains. I grow weary of watching atheists succumb to this sidestepping of the real issue
by expending their energy delicately explaining what it means to not believe in God. STOP
THAT! So often theists ignore the varying certainty
of individuals, lumping all atheists into the category of militant, gnostic atheists.
They commit the same mistake that some atheists commit when think all Christians are Creationists,
or all Muslims are violent extremists. A gnostic atheist, which is just as arrogant and confused
as a gnostic theist in my opinion, feels that he or she knows for a fact there is no God.
I consider it a foolish claim that anyone knows for certain that something does or does
not exist, when the very definition of that thing involves it being impossible to prove
or disprove. In frustration with the theists who insist that atheism is a positive claim,
many atheists find themselves shouting that it’s not a believe, it’s a lack of belief!
I find this an inadequate description of the position, though I understand why people explain
it that way. It almost has to be worded that way when people are insisting that your disbelief
in something is a claim that you believe it doesn’t exist.
Here’s the crux of the issue: This definition war tends to erupt because theists wish to
shift the burden of proof on atheists, and atheists want to win the battle by default
because theists can’t prove their position true. Neither of these stances are really
valid though. Theists are the ones with something to prove, as they are the ones attempting
to make the doubter believe. Likewise, just because we atheists aren’t making a positive
claim doesn’t mean we don’t have to justify our disbelief. If you are one of those gnostic
atheists, then yes- you do have to prove that god doesn’t exist, which you can’t do,
which is why I hold the agnostic atheist position. I tend to prefer being right. We are the misunderstood
minority, and as such it is our job to explain our why we hold the position we do. This is
not the same as disproving God’s existence. It’s just explaining why we take the stance
we do. So theists- the next time people tell you
they’re atheists, but they don’t claim to know for sure that god doesn’t exist-
don’t waste you’re energy or time telling them they aren’t atheists. The issue is
they don’t believe in God, so if you’re trying to convince them that they should believe,
make that your focus. It does no good to argue about the label and specific stance you might
think all non-believers must fit into. All it takes to be an atheist is to be someone
who doesn’t believe in a god or gods for whatever reason, or reasons that is. Just
provide what you consider proof of God and the discussion will be far more productive
than a definition debate. Atheists, the next time a theist accuses you
of not being atheist because you don’t claim to know for sure that god doesn’t exist,
ignore the definition issue and focus on making your position clear that you do not believe
in their God. Don’t be afraid to move forward from there, and give all your reasons for
not believing. Just as you might do if someone asked you why you don’t believe leprechauns,
goblins, or unicorns. I personally have no trouble explaining why I don’t believe in
these things. Even though you can’t prove a negative,
nor disprove a non-falsifiable claim, you can have each side understand the other’s
position, present their actual reasons for their positions, and then weigh whose reasons
hold more water. It gets to the meat of the argument much better than bickering over labels.