While I am still forming my arguments against "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" (which will be presented in good time), I would like to take you through some of the logic and structure behind both my arguments and assertions, and my atheistic worldview in general.
I consider myself an anti-theist atheist. This means that fundamentally, I am an atheist - I do not hold any belief in any god or god-like figure. But I also hold the position that if the God of the Bible/Talmud/Koran does indeed exist, that God is not worth worshipping due to the moral atrocities this God permits and commands. That, and the religions based on the scriptures of this God are at best irrational, and at worst manipulative and harmful.
I am an atheist because, in my honest and rational opinion, the assertions presented as evidence for the existence of God are either logically flawed, do not actually point to the God of the Bible, or have otherwise been refuted - thus those assertions have not met a burden of proof sufficient to warrant belief. And remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is because I use the Null Hypothesis as a basis for evaluating positive claims. In short, the Null Hypothesis is the edict that any positive claim is automatically assumed to be false until the claim has been proved and found to be substantuiated.
I also consider science, and the scientific method, as being the best and most useful tools humanity has devised in order to find answers to questions and to make human life as productive and healthy as possible.
Thus if a claim cannot be tested, repeated, observed or falsified, it should not be worth considering.
To use a courtroom analogy, I find God not guilty of existing. By extension, I also find any other god that various religious followed have claimed to exist not guilty of existing as well.
I do not need to know if gods do indeed exist or not before I reject their existence, due to a burden of proof not being met to back up claims, hence I reject agnosticism.
To counter theists who try to make an argument, I tell them that they are almost as atheistic as I am. Christians are atheistic towards all the other gods worshipped throughout human history - Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Vulcan, Marduk, Kratos (my personal favourite, but that's because of the video games he is featured in), et al, which is great, because so am I.
By not believing in the God of the Bible, I just go one god further.
If someone asks me if it is possible for God to exist, my answer is yes, it is possible, but as scientific knowledge progresses, the gap where God could be found gets smaller and smaller. I don't outright reject the possibility of God, but I find that until the existence of this God is established, we may as well not concern ourselves with this God's existence.
On the Richard Dawkins scale of 1-7 of atheism, Dawkins puts himself as a 6. I put myself at 5.5.
Until next time, be good to each other, and to yourself.
When a Christian says they accept the big bang as the best explanation for the origin of the universe, but then reject the theory of evoluti...
I came across this (admittedly old) article on the Creation Ministries International website while doing research for another project I am ...
This blog post is part 3 in a series responding to the Creation Ministries International article, " Is The Bible Immoral? ", where...
This blog post is part 10 in a series responding to the Creation Ministries International article, " Is The Bible Immoral? ", whe...