SignOfTheCross

Could someone please explain why atheism is not a denial of the existence of God or gods, rather a lack of belief in them?

How is this definition any different from agnosticism?

Peace,
SOTC

smugg

Strictly by definition, atheism is a denial of a god's existence while agnosticism is the denial of knowledge of a god's existence.

SignOfTheCross

Okay, thanks for the clear up.

Some atheists I have encountered have totally denied being accused of believing there is no God(s), rather they just lack belief in them.

Peace
SOTC

Spenser

I think it is the use of the word denial. Denial suggests that whatever it is exists and they choose not to believe in it; defining it as 'lack of belief' in a God suggest that they just don't believe in Gods.

JGL53

I think if you search the archives here you'll find this general topic has been debated dozens of times. What does agnostic mean? What does atheist mean? How are they different, how similar?

I sometimes call myself an agnostic atheist, since the former addresses the question of knowledge and the latter the question of belief.

In other words, I don't know and I don't believe.

I, too, find the use of the word 'denial' or 'deny' by christians to define atheism as disingenuous. It's nothing more than an attempt to put us, i.e., the bad guy atheists, on the defensive. Boring.

There are definitions of god that are so tenuous as to be unconsequential, e.g., deism, pantheism. I am rather agnostic about such, but the burden is still on the deist or pantheist, so I will assume such is just wish-fulfillment fantasies until proof comes forth (it hasn't to date).

Other more defined anthropomorphic gods, like those in theism, e.g., jehovah, jesus, allah, etc., seem to be decidedly fantasy creations. Why would I assume otherwise? I must assume them to be non-existent (except as beliefs in a person's mind), since they are self-contradictory, contrary to the most accepted facts and theories in science, and are supererogatory, i.e., provide no needed explanation for any observed fact of reality, just add another "X" factor that requires explanation itself.

The burden of proof is on the religionist/supernaturalist/paranormalist. Having failed in that burden for all of human history, it just seems to me that any sane person would be both atheist and agnostic concerning the unfounded claims of supernatural religion.

Plus, regarding specifically the RCC, I think that any institution that has allowed and covered up molestation of small boys for decades and decades and decades (we won't even get into the crusades, inquisition, destruction of Native American cultures, etc., etc, etc,) is not something whose claims of being the 'one true' anything should have any sway whatsoever on any rational person, except to produce strong feelings of revulsion and utter disgust - certainly not 'belief'.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

braces_for_impact

I don't deny leprechauns exist, I don't beleive in leprechauns. That's the difference. One is assuming existence for it's own sake.

SignOfTheCross

Sorry, I deny leprechauns exist, therefore I don't believe in them.

Peace,
SOTC

beastmaster

Atheists "lack belief" and agnostics "lack knowledge." Atheists are simply atheists, whereas agnostics can be atheist, theist, or other.

JGL53

You 'deny' that leprechauns exist? That implies you have proof or (positive) knowledge that leprechauns do not exist.

I am unaware of any proof that leprechauns do not exist. Please enlighten me (and others who may be in the dark on this important question), and share with us your proof of such.

SignOfTheCross

But objective proof is something Christianity does not, nor should concern itself with. If 33% of Christians worldwide can accept the Gospel message without objective proof, then you have no way of removing yourself from guilt should the Christian deity be true.

[/B]Such claims have no bearing on truth, and are not worth discussing since it is obvious they stem from ignorance.

Peace,
SOTC