Soldout, I’m not an atheist, but I am going to defend their position as if I was.
First of all who told you that you possessed the “true sense” of Atheism? You have an opinion on what Atheism means and you invite the reader to either agree with your definition of atheism or not, but that does not mean that this is the one true sense and all others are false only that this post departs from this particular definition, from this sense. You say that the logic is irrefutable. Well, let me take as a given, as agreed, your definition, at least for now. Maybe we’ll change our opinion about the matter later…
So, let’s look at the ususal suspects:
Believer: A person who believes in the existance of God. But as anon implied, “God” is another term that is loaded and needs to be agreed upon, that is, defined. Otherwise we could mean several different things, just as there are several different myths.
Agnostic: A person who isn’t sure whether God exists or not. Again, we have to limit the statement to doubting what one has taken to be actually God. From X definition comes X number of obstacles that can make one doubt the X definition of G.
Atheist: A person who doesn’t believe in the existance of God on who says there is no god. Based on this one will find a single subject between the believer and the atheist. Their conclusions are opposed, but their method to reach that conclusion is the same: faith.
Now let me quote your allegory:
“If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search every square inch of that country in order to confidently say there was no gold. I would also have to search every person to make sure that there were no gold fillings and search every aeroplane in Chinese airspace. Such a mammoth task would be near impossible but would be necessary in order to prove my statement.”
Objection: Gold is a public object. That is, it does not depend much on an agreement about what we mean. We need only a lump of gold on a table and both to look at it for us to obtain a similar enough idea, with accidental variations. With God we lack a public object to limit our idea and so we get not just accidental variation but essential differences about the idea of God. Because of that, I could not state the existence of what is, for all purposes, an imagined entity. I could say that there is no Fratanga in China and you would suffer the same limitations of trying to prove a negative. But Fratanga is just something I made up and necessitates no extension into China or any other region of the Universe at large. I would not need to demonstrate then that there is or isn’t Fratanga in China, but whether that Fratanga, or idea of God actually extends beyond the limits of my mind.
Gold, as such, is an idea provided by an object against other objects. That is, somehow, the lump of Gold is arrested as an object and the table upon which it sits as another. I can name them both different, but the mind, even in children, separates the objects. As such, I am already ahead of the game. God is not dicernible among other objective phenomena because it is limited alone by the imagination, which translates to no limit.
So, 1) God, unlike gold, is not defined enough to allow us to declare where it is or is not. If I say that there is God, it doesn’t necessarly follow that what I imagine God to be extends to how God actually is, or that I had then “found” Him out in the Universe, here or there.
2) If I say that there is no God, again, as the believer does, I project what I have imagined as God over the rest of the universe, when in fact I might just be pointing out that I have an image of God that cannot be found. Either way I have stacked the cards.
3) If I was an agnostic, I would say that maybe there is or maybe there isn’t any gold in China, but that still presupposes the dicernability of the thing in question, that is, it presupposes that I actually know what I am in search of, and thus that I am capable of my doubt in X because I know what to compare the evidence against. Thus, I might not be sure that gold exist in China, but I know what gold is, and my doubt is only there because I have yet to explore all the possible corners where gold could hide, all the mines, rivers, etc, where normally gold, as I should know, is found. The true agnostic looks perplexed when asked about whether he thinks God exists or not. To him the question will look as:“Do you believe in ________?” Similary, when theists battle atheists, the agnostic actually hears:“I believe/don’t believe in ______.”
So, can someone be an actual atheist? Yes. At least, the argument rest on as many leaps of faith as the believer’s case. So, just as we have believers who have no right to tell me what there actually is, I have atheists who with the same deficiency try to tell me what there actually is not. And the agnostic is a fool who is caught between them unsettled about which fantasy is to his liking.
It is absolutely impossible to state that there is no God, just as it is absolutely impossible to say that there is a God. But if you allow the believer then you allow by implication also the atheist or unbeliever. This does not have anything to do with what we find eventually. Suppose you pass out and wake up in a white field of clouds. Would you know based on this that you died and gone to heaven? Suppose that a man with a long beard and a white robe came over and told you he was God, how would you prove that he is or isn’t who he says he is? By miracles? That would only prove he had power. For all you know he might be but a powerful extraterrestial, another created being who believes that he is the creator of all.
To conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense,
O- My idealized atheist simply says there is no God. Like the theist, he goes by design. The theist sees an intelligent design that allows him to safely infer the existence of an intelligent designer which he then calls God. The atheist, from the same observations, concludes instead that there is an unintelligent element in nature, which leads him to believe that there is an incoherent chaos behind it all, a lack of planning, a rule by chance occurrence, by luck, and for such origins, the universe needs no God.
— although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.
O- My point: I agree that both rely on faith, but both depart from the same observed world but if you concentrate on the good and try to ignore the bad then you become an optimistic, half full, theist; if on the other hand you concentrate on the bad and ignore the good then you become a pessimistic, half empty, atheist. But, that said, either can claim to be basing his beliefs on science. Also, “without proof” is a subjective statement for “proof” is in the eye of the beholder and when it comes to God, whatever we mean by that, what we believe seems to us to be already proved while the other’s beliefs seems to be believed with no compelling proof.
— To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge.
O- Just as much as to say the opposite.
— On the other hand, to say that there is a God only requires personal experience
O- I have a personal experience of Purple Wombats, therefore they too exist.
— or an understanding that the design in creation warrants a designer.
O- Creation warrants only chance and luck (Darwin).
— But ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics.
O- Under “believers” you can place “theist”, “Atheists”.
That could be of benefit to you if you are sincere. I agree with Xunzian’s practical outlook in many ways. On the other hand we tend to look for truths which are ultimate, as an understanding of those truths is considered essential. It must be part of our human nature or something. So I think it is worth pursuing this idea of whether the existence of God can or cannot be posited based on a limited perception of reality. The beginning of that process likely begins with defining for yourself (and for others) exactly what you mean by “God”. In my opinion if your conceptual notion of “God” is logically refuted it doesn’t mean your religion is bunk. It may mean though that you have limited “God” to your conceptual definition of God. If that were the case and you subsequently realized it your overall attitude would likely become more sophisticated (and even more simple).