Multiple atheist activists define atheism as a belief – “there are no gods”

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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, atheist activism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Multiple atheist activists define atheism as a belief – “there are no gods”

  1. John hendee says:

    ATHEISM IS A RELIGION First I need to say to all those who consider yourselves to be disciples of Jesus. As a follower of Jesus we are called, may I say, commanded to love atheists. Some among us used to be such. Many of them are sincere people, just looking for the best way to explain and live life. Be kind. Listen. Love them. Don’t go to war with them.

    Don’t be afraid of them.

    Love them. If they choose to ‘war’ against you, love them anyway. (Do you really need some ‘verses’ to explain why?)

    Good grief anyway. Most of them, just like most of us who have come to Christ have had questions, doubts or objections about Jesus (More likely ‘church’, some obnoxious Christian or ‘religion’) and most of them have never had the opportunity to sit down with someone to hear a good and clear presentation of who Jesus really is and what life with him is all about. Many of them have just ‘fallen in line’ with what some professor or star said that seemed cool or popular. Maybe they knew someone who is a bad example of being a Disciple, and they concluded they certainly didn’t want to be one. OR they just had bad teachings about who God is and what he really wants from us. Many of those reasons seemingly give people a good reason to ‘chuck’ God. Better to ‘believe’ in nothing than something that seems to be a weird thing. That was my scenario for many years.

    Now, back to my simple observation. I’m a simple guy but I’ve worked with a lot of people in life. I know others have probably already written more deeply about this than I am here. I’m going to try and keep it short. Obviously much more could be said.

    After writing out my thoughts below, I Googled ‘religions of the world’ and Atheism shows up on most of the charts found there. On most studies atheists account for less than 3% of the world population. That 3% is becoming more vocal in these days, but so what. It really isn’t anything new. And what is worst, a person who claims to be an atheist or a person who claims to be a disciple but is way off track in their teaching or life style? The later is often on the ‘inside’ doing much more damage to the cause than any atheist could ever dream of.

    Now some atheists might not want to be thought of or seen as a religion or being religious but many in the world see them as such. It appears to me that atheism has all the common features of any world religion. They have a belief system they attempt to spread and solicit followers (convert them that is), they have doctrine or teachings and beliefs and they espouse those core beliefs as if they were ‘scripture’. They worship, believe in and trust their beliefs. They defend their beliefs. They can become dogmatic. They profess that THEY have the Truth. Is it a system of belief to be spread.

    And for every atheist you find, you are likely to find a different explanation or interpretation of all the following items in their belief system. There is no authoritative ‘bible’ for atheists that I have seen.

    While I haven’t read it, someone wrote a book titled “I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist”. It might be a good read, but the title explains it clearly. To be an atheist you have to have faith that whatever beliefs you hold are THE TRUTH. If you are wrong, you are in big trouble.

    I see atheism as a religion based on the following short list I thought of. Atheists and atheism have: a god or really various gods; they vary some from atheist to atheist; there is NO ONE god or standard, Their god is man himself, ‘mother nature’ (some unidentifiable force at work making all that happens in nature happen.). The god might be a combination of ideas, philosophies or viewpoints which try and explain and account for how we, much less everything else that is here on earth (including earth) got here, what it’s purpose is, is there any meaning to it all, how life is to be lived, etc.

    faith, They have faith that their ideas, explanations and philosophies are right. I’ve also discovered that many of them have deep, serious inner doubts about their own views or thoughts. And that is understandable.

    hope, They have to hope that they are right. If not, they are in big trouble.

    beliefs, They have their beliefs about God, god, life, existence, etc. They vary greatly from atheist to atheist. Each one has to sort of make up their own system in as much as there is NO one definitive system set out for them. So each one picks and chooses what seems to make sense for them.

    moral system, They have their own system of beliefs. They are varied and most have to be based on a Godless, evolutionary philosophy which in the end is very pessimistic, negative, self centered and abusive.

    It has laws or commandments. “Thou shalt nots” and “thou shalts”.

    It has traditions; many.

    Salvation=death.

    Heaven; what you make of your life here on earth.

    Atheists ‘worship’ (Webster; to regard with extravagant respect, honor, or devotion.) their favorite writers, spokes persons, ideas, philosophies and life style.

    And atheism: Claims to be the way, the truth and the life. Claims to be right. It promises a lot. Freedom, intellectual self respect, etc. It has it’s preachers or spokesmen. A few of them are well known. It is interesting how some have claimed that some well known people in history are to be counted among their ranks, while many of those same people stated they weren’t atheists.

    Atheism: Seeks to proselyte or convert people to their viewpoint or faith. It promotes itself; books, pamphlets, brochures, classes, seminars, bill boards, TV shows, political campaigns, DVD’s, CD’s, etc. etc. Often mocks those of ‘other faiths’. Often judges those of ‘other faiths’ as not being very intelligent but instead superstitious or ignorant. Often is intolerant of those of ‘other faiths.’

    It has it’s writings, writers, gatherings, web sites, groups, teachings, ‘evidences’ for no God ‘evidences for it’s gods. Testimonies from followers It has its’ belief in its’ version of creation, or how everything came into existence or got here; evolution; no creation; everything just came out of nothing or has always been here.

    Some of their ‘professors or wise men’ like to attempt to belittle, mock and quiet those in their school or college classes who have different view points or religious beliefs. Those professors who ‘pontificate’ and mock those who differ from them, and seek to embarrass and humiliate them, are really ‘little’ people. Big titles, little people. Any who act that way are actually insecure and they hide behind their academic titles, and positions.

    While I respect the right of those who claim to be atheists, I am also aware that many of them are such because of: Bad experiences with some religious people. And they dumped God because of that. Bad experiences, loses or suffering in life. And they dumped God because of that. Never having heard a clear presentation from a legitimate person as to what Jesus is all about. Atheism seems like the most logical route based on the information at hand. I understand that.

    With others it is that they don’t want to give up their chosen life style; they like what they are doing. It is like was said of the Israelites in the Old Testament when it said that ‘they all did what was right in their own eyes.’ Now to do that, or to live MY WAY, I have to get rid of God somehow. That is what is behind some atheists choices. It is a ‘license’ to live with the morals they want and to accept God would hinder that. It is easier to ‘get rid of God’ (Good luck) than it is to think about giving up my life style.

    Or as the Bible does say, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.” It is a heart issue. A hard heart leads to a closed mind.

    I have atheist friends. I have many Christian friends who used to be atheists. My dad was a skeptic till he was 79.

    Hey Disciples of Jesus. Just love them. Take the abuse if you find yourself with an abusive one.

    Just love them. Listen to them. Share with them if they are even open to listening. You will likely see ‘chinks’ in their armor at some point. . Some of them just haven’t had anyone share ANY GOOD REASONS WITH THEM AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND FOLLOW JESUS. And you surely aren’t going to ARGUE them into changing their mind. Listen, share, love.

    Top of Form 1

    Bottom of Form 1

  2. Good eye, Michael. When I’ve asked atheists to make a case (or bear the burden of proof) for the non-existence of God and they always reply with “atheism doesn’t make claims, it’s a lack of belief.” I’ve always responded with “So what?” I don’t care what the definition of “atheism” is, I care about what YOU believe. The person, not the label. Why do I dodge the “true” definition of atheism in debate? We have the reason right here. Atheist activists like Mehta may tell us the definition of atheism is a “lack of belief” but what does MEHTA think about the issue of God? He says “There is no God.” Whether atheism is a lack of belief or a firm stance on the non-existence of God bears no resemblance to what the person holding that tag actually believes.

  3. pennywit says:

    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.

    Burden of proof, I think, depends on the agenda. If you want to convince an atheist to join your religion, then you need to prove your religion to the atheist’s standards, whatever those standards might be. If an atheist wants to convince you that you should be an atheist, then he bears the bruden of proof, and he has to meet your standards for proving your religion wrong. If you’re looking for a general debate, then the standard and burden of proof ought to be agreed-to beforehand.

    Gotta say, though, I lost patience for those debates not long after college.

  4. Michael says:

    pennywit,

    I agree with all of this, including the bit about patience. But I am not talking about some interpersonal dynamic. I’m focused on the larger picture of activism. The atheists in question here are activists. This is not a trivial point. It is the whole point. As activists, the agenda is cultural. They seek to create, spread, and entrench a cultural narrative through the use of social media and, when possible, traditional media. And I’m focused on the use of deception that underlies their activism and narrative.

    In the future, we’ll look at how people like Mehta are truly propagandists. But since the word “propagandist” has a negative connotation, they want to be known as “activists.”

  5. TFBW says:

    Propaganda is merely one of the weapons available to the activist. It’s probably fair to call Mehta a propagandist if he engages in it frequently, and a glance at his blog should be enough to affirm that he does. Other weapons available to the militant activist include censorship (should one have the social clout to enforce it — think “safe spaces” and such like), litigation (e.g. sue for removal of 9/11 cross from 9/11 memorial), and rabble-rousing (e.g. inflame an angry Internet mob against the target — a certain incident with an orphanage in which Mehta was involved springs to mind). These aren’t all clear-cut distinct things: propaganda is an invaluable tool for the rabble-rouser, for example.

  6. Ratheist says:

    “And what is supposed to count as “evidence” is a matter of opinion.”

    Differences in background beliefs can lead people to different ideas about what evidence is relevant to a claim and hence create the illusion that warrant is paradigm relative. But that just means its personal, not subjective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s