For example, let any readers here just ask an articulate atheist his argument that God does not exist, and you will notice that he is in his argument not really into arguing but into evading the issue itself of God exists or not.

  • 2
    It would be nice to have an example. Also, that would be arguing that some atheist arguments are about evading the issue. To demonstrate that all arguments are such, we would need some logical deduction from the premises of atheism (agreeing on them first) leading to the impossibility to argue otherwise.
    – armand
    Dec 9 '20 at 22:16
  • 4
    Just ask an articulate someone for an argument refuting the existence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter. You will notice that they will instead say that you should provide an argument for believing that first, and challenge it if you do try. Atheisits structure their arguments the same way. It is not evasion, it is called the burden of proof, and it is not on them. What you are suggesting is to illicitly shift that burden.
    – Conifold
    Dec 9 '20 at 23:19
  • First know what you atheists are arguing against, otherwise you are into arguing against the wrong target. Dec 10 '20 at 2:45
  • Bringing in orbiting teapot and etc., it is all from the part of atheists, they are into semantic trickery. If they be honest intelligent productive, they first and foremost must learn what it is they are arguing against, otherwise it is all evasion by semantic trickery. No need to compare God to orbiting teapot or flying spaghetti monster and etc. It is clear you atheists are into evasion of the issue itself, God exists or not, by way of semantic trickery. In order words, you atheists are into obfuscation of the issue by obstruction of honest intelligent productive thinking. Dec 10 '20 at 2:59
  • @Markus Dejess: first, I resent the accusatory way you call us atheists when all we did is neutraly comment your question. If you are here looking for a fight this is not the good place. Second, the problem of definition comes more than often from the theists' inability to define their belief in any sensible way. Nonsensical vague definitions require clarifying the terms of the problem before any debate can be had. Maybe that's were your feeling the atheists are avoiding debate comes from.
    – armand
    Dec 10 '20 at 3:08

The question is "Are not all atheists' arguments against God pure evasions from the issue itself of God exists or not?"

So, atheists who argue against God existing must present the concept of God as peoples who know God exists put it, thus:

"God is the permanent everywhere and all the time self-existing being Who created caused the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

As atheists never have this concept of God in their argument against God, they are in effect into evasions of the issue itself, God exists or not.

For example, dear atheists, look up one atheist in the internet with an argument against God existing, and see if he has a concept of God as presented by peoples who know God exists, namely:

"God is the permanent everywhere and all the time self-existing being Who created caused the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

  • 2
    When you say "God is the…" do you speak on behalf of all theists?
    – Sandejo
    Dec 10 '20 at 7:40
  • Defining a concept that way and deriving existence from it is called tautological and dogmatic, which both mean "does not add any true proposition to our body of knowledge", ie. your answer is both only reflecting your own opinion (otherwise you could add references) and void of any useful information deciding the existence of a given entity. I can say "Invisible pink unicorns are those that exist. And are invisible. And pink." mean that I am the only one not evading the question of the existence of invisible pink unicorns? Who are you to question my knowledge about unicorns' existence?
    – Philip Klöcking
    Dec 10 '20 at 9:43
  • Mind, your argument and mine are structurally equivalent. You will have to accept that faith is not an epistemic category when it comes to ontology and only able to constitute certainty but not knowledge. Philosophy broadly accepts that since the enlightenment, ie. for about 240 years now.
    – Philip Klöcking
    Dec 10 '20 at 9:50

Atheism as such is a reactively constituted position. While we from a given perspective might potentially have reason to call a person, a belief or a system of beliefs Atheistic, that only makes sense relative to an operative concept of Theology (however superficial that concept might be).

By its own merits, an Atheistic view is one that lacks any theological content. So, given that Gods do not feature in an Atheistic world, we might reasonably ask what meaning the very notion of “Atheism” might possibly have? “God” is an absent reference, and there is nothing in reality sufficiently similar to one for a family resemblance to be useful in describing it. So, as Wittgenstein recommended, whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should not.

One comes to describe one’s position as Atheistic as a result of interactions with other people and a rejection of their way of describing the world using God discourse. This reflective response can be (I would say generally is) a reasonable reaction to individual statements of theological belief. Where it starts to fall apart, however, is as a determinative label one takes to one’s own position, because of the following fundamental question of interpretation:

“What does it mean to be a God?”

In a world such as ours of quite radical theological diversity, emerging from cultural and ethnic diversity, it is quite a radical claim to affirm that Gods can be conceptually collapsed into each other for the purposes of ideological rejection. Most “Atheists” in western popular discourse come from a background of Protestant Christianity, and as such their models of “God” are strongly influenced by that culture, rendering their responses to Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other faiths not only mostly irrelevant but bordering on completely disinterested except in as much as it supports their narrative to draw parallels.

I don’t think this is a sustainable way to interpret one’s own position while remaining conscious of the context of our participation in the world. It seems like bad faith to on one hand proport to reject one picture of reality while on the other dismiss all other cultural alternatives - the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Supremecist is just as much of a problem regardless of whether they say they believe in God or not.

The position I take for myself is a kind of “Meta-Agnosticism” with respect to my own beliefs - I do not explicitly call anything in my model of reality a “God”, but I am open to the possibility that some people might choose to refer to some of my beliefs as such, and that would be fine. I try to stay open to the plurality of different kinds of God-talk that are out there, and while I ascribe none to myself, I try to not let that define me as a person.

  • So I guess you do believe in invisible pink unicorns, since if you did not believe in them they would be absent of your world, and therefore you could not meaningfully formulate the idea of your non belief ? And because this reasoning does not rely on its object (god or unicorns or anything else), by your own logic you do believe in absolutely everything. "an Atheistic view is one that lacks any theological content" is laughable. Militant atheists are usually much more versed in theology than the average theist, who never gave a thought about the religion they grew up in.
    – armand
    Dec 10 '20 at 8:27
  • So I certainly wouldn’t call anything in my ontology an Invisible Pink Unicorn. But if you want to scrutinise my beliefs and think the best model of me needs them there, then it’s not my place to tell you what to think? Dec 10 '20 at 9:06
  • And an Atheist who has Theological beliefs seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, yes. Dec 10 '20 at 9:07
  • You can have beliefs about stories that people tell, but you cannot then turn around and say that these same stories are also properly theological without on some level rehearsing that theology. Dec 10 '20 at 9:13
  • One can have knowledge about theology without any belief in God. Just like one can know everything about Tolkien's writings without believing in Hobbits and elves. You seem confused about what "theology" means.
    – armand
    Dec 10 '20 at 10:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.