Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,424
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 222:
Line 222: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Summary of why implicit/explict atheism have diminish in importance
Given the: abundance of evidence for the existence of God and for Christianity; God's creation testifying to His existence; the complete [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|lack of evidence]] for atheism; many atheists/agnostics often having difficulty suppressing theistic thoughts; and the growth of global desecularization, atheism and its nomenclature has become increasingly irrelevant.
Given the: abundance of evidence for the existence of God and for Christianity; God's creation testifying to His existence; the complete [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|lack of evidence]] for atheism; many atheists/agnostics often having difficulty suppressing theistic thoughts; and the growth of global desecularization, atheism and its nomenclature has become increasingly irrelevant.
As noted previously, the term implicit atheism is related to the term weak atheism. Weak atheism is broader definition of the traditional use of the atheism.
=== William Lane Craig on attempts to define the word atheism ===
[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg|thumb|150px|[[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[William Lane Craig]] declared:
{{cquote|There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists....
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...
Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to [[Atheist worldview|be a view]]. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a [[Atheism and deception|deceptive game]] is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]</ref>}}
== See also ==
== See also ==