It would appear quite common for atheist activists to proclaim there is no God.
He have already seen that the Freedom From Religion Foundation defines atheism in this manner. The Christmas season sign that they have local activists put up reads:
“There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that burdens our hearts and enslaves our minds.’’
But the FFRF is far from alone on this. David Silverman, the New Atheist who is president of the American Atheists, offers the same definition:
Everybody is godless, there are no gods, so everybody is godless, I’m just aware of it, there are NO gods, everybody is godless, every single person.
Louise Antony is professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and has in the past excited the atheist activist community by declaring, “I know there is no God”
Activist Hemant Mehta quoted her as saying:
Antony: I’m not sure what you mean by saying that I’ve taken a “strong stand as an atheist.” I don’t consider myself an agnostic; I claim to know that God doesn’t exist, if that’s what you mean.
And responded with glee:
Boom. Gotcha, Gutting. And well put, Antony.
Mehta further quoted her as saying:
Because the question has been settled to my satisfaction. I say “there is no God” with the same confidence I say “there are no ghosts” or “there is no magic.” The main issue is supernaturalism — I deny that there are beings or phenomena outside the scope of natural law.
The response from actvist Mehta? More cheerleading:
BRB, I’m going to go fangirl all over Antony. Well put all around. It’s not that what she’s saying is new to most of the readers of this blog. There’s just something about how matter-of-factly she puts things which I find particularly appealing.
For decades we have been told that an atheist is someone who simply lacks God-belief.
That is, an atheist is one who merely observes there is no evidence for God and thus belief in God is not intellectually justified. This definition has served the atheist activist community well by allowing them to posture as if they are objective observers and judges. As if they are the disinterested party. The way it has been set up, we theists are supposed to come before them and justify ourselves, pleading our cases with our “evidence” in hand. And if we cannot make our case to their satisfaction, then that means we are mentally ill, infected with brain viruses, and a danger to society.
Over the years, I have shown that this set-up is rigged and intellectually dishonest. There are no objective observers and judges. And what is supposed to count as “evidence” is a matter of opinion. Those who demand evidence are usually closed-minded people who insist we appear in their kangaroo courts (this why the issue of whether or not atheists are closed-minded is of central importance).
Another way to think of this as that activists need to be consistently on the offense. By hiding their true definition of atheism, these activists have nothing to defend. Instead, they can constantly go on the attack by pretending they are merely skeptics, not believers.
We now have solid evidence that the whole definition of atheism has been rigged. For there are many atheists who do not really view atheism as a mere lack of God belief because of a lack of evidence (even though this is what they claim). They instead insist there is no God. They don’t just lack God belief, they think they know God does not exist. They think they have knowledge; they think atheism is knowledge. Yet these are people who pretend to know what they do not know. Buyer beware.