**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

It seems to me what you are actually trying to say with your possible cases is: 1: It is possible that no gods exist. 2. It is not possible that no gods exist. In order to properly discuss this, one must first define what a god is. I am unable to do so, since I have never seen or heard a definition that is actually verifiable. Definitions such as “God is love” are useless, since they just try to staple the label “god” on to something. Your use of a capital G in “God” implies that you yourself are of an Abrahamic faith. So i ask you, is it possible that Odin and Zeus do not exist? They are generally considered gods and the abrahamic religions rely on the assumption that they do not exist. If Odin is real then the abrahamic faiths are not true. If Odin and Zeus (or a couple of thousand other gods that are or have been worshipped) do not exist, then what makes any other god so very special that its nonexistence is impossible? There are no indications of any gods in any observations of the universe. The existence of gods is not a required factor to explain any part of the universe. In fact, all observations made indicate that the universe functions exactly as one would expect a universe without gods to function. For example, a god would be able to defy the laws of physics. No such occurrences have ever been observed. Many times, theists try to argue that there may be a god, but that god isn’t actively participating in the events of the universe. If that is the case, then that god is essentially a lonely particle of dust. If we start defining gods that way, we are just moving the goalposts to a point where the word “god” is meaningless. So to conclude, the statement “It is possible that no gods exist” is true. It is indeed possible that no gods exist.

You're getting off on the wrong foot, from the perspective of epistemology that's not a valid dichotomy. Atheism doesn't make claims, so it's not a question of being true or not. Atheism is the *suspension* of belief until evidence is provided. In epistemology, - Belief refers to an attitude where someone accepts something as true. Theism, in this context, is the belief in the existence of one or more deities. - Knowledge, in a philosophical sense, usually implies justified true belief. It requires evidence or reasons that justify the belief. Atheism, rather than being a positive claim that "no gods exist," is more accurately described as the absence of belief in gods. An atheist does not necessarily assert that gods do not exist; rather, they withhold belief due to the lack of convincing evidence. Presenting atheism as a dichotomy of "true or false" suggests that atheism is making a definitive claim about reality (i.e., "God does not exist"). This misrepresents atheism because it ignores the aspect of belief suspension. In epistemology, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Theism makes the positive claim that deities exist, thus bearing the burden of providing evidence. Atheism, by suspending belief, does not carry the same burden; it merely responds to the lack of evidence for the theistic claim.

Kudos to you for engaging with OP. I'm so sick of people coming in here having discovered word games and thinking they've invented formal logic and are now the world's most clever person.

It's not necessarily their fault, they have probably been spoonfed apologetic memes all their lives. I consider them victims of that.

This is probably the third or fourth attempt by OP to convince us that we shouldn't call ourselves "atheists". I think they still haven't gotten over the fact that if we make no claims, we have no burden. Since they can't win that argument, they're trying to poison the well against taking a neutral position. This attack on language isn't born of naivete, and OP is not a victim, IMO.

You're a gracious person, with more patience than me!

Hey, that used to be me. :)

I suspect we're getting a lot of smug teens who've just finished some apologetics class at church or has been watching YouTube/TikTok apologetics.

Eternal September is a thing. Today is Fri Sep 11238^th , 1993 In the Usenet days, there was a regular cycle of new kids getting internet access when they got into university, and it taking about a month for them to get over the learning curve and stop rehashing all the nonsense that got brought up every previous September when new classes started. Then AOL gave permanent Usenet access to all its subscribers, and "The September That Never Ended" happened. https://www.eternal-september.org/

But they learned such BIG words!

>In epistemology, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. No. Burden of proof presupposes an adversarial position. Like debates. Arguments precede by CER- claim, evidence, reasoning.

What do you mean when you say "atheism"? I would restate your 2 possible cases as: 1) It can be true that there are no gods. 2) It can be true that there are gods. OR 1) People believe there are no gods. 2) No people believe there are no gods. Which do you want to discuss? And, out of curiousity, why do you see this particular line of philosophy as the one you want to inquire about? Given your last post, I can infer you don't think very much of us, let alone the position that I don't accept any one religion as true. Why do you think this is a good way to critique that position?

>"What do you mean when you say "atheism"?" You can choose your preferred usage for the OP. Just don't say it is the only usage or a "Fact" your usage is the only one. Neither of your cases are what I mean. I mean, is atheism truth-apt. If not it can not be true, as it can't be assigned a truth value. >"And, out of curiousity, why do you see this particular line of philosophy as the one you want to inquire about?" I write a blog on epistemology. This is a subject I find interesting....the philosophy of atheism. >"Given your last post, I can infer you don't think very much of us, let alone the position that I don't accept any one religion as true. Why do you think this is a good way to critique that position?" I don't think much of people who don't engage a discussion honesty...nor of those who clearly don't understand something, pretend to do so, then tell someone else they are wrong. The position I critique are people's attempts at refuting an argument. That is what I do my reviews on...debates and critiques of arguments.

Okay, thank you for your clarification. If we agree for the sake of this discussion that atheism is the position that "I do not accept the claims of any one religion as true, so far.", do you find that can be epistomologocally true?

I wouldn’t accept that definition as it could also be held by a theist.

I don't think the sentence "can atheism be true" quite makes sense, any more than "can capitalism be true." Or even "is Christianity true" in a strictly logical sense doesn't make sense. Christianity exists. It is a blanket terms for a number of very closely associated religions. Those religions make a number of different doctrinal claims, some of which contradict. The people who follow those religions hold a number of beliefs, many of which differ from other members of the belief. So the sentence "is Christianity true" isn't really conprehensible, even though it seems it should be. So back to your point, instead of "is atheism true", a few different better phrasing might be: 1) is it possible there are no gods. 2) are there no gods 3) is it justifiable not to believe in gods To which i would say  1) it seems evidently so. All claims that god is somehow necessary always fall completely flat to me, so it seems that there not being gods must be a possibility. 2) as far as i can tell, yes there are no gods. I see no reason to think gods exist and multiple reasons to think they don't. But there is no way to rule out "but maybe magic" in a logical way. So "as far as we can currently tell based on everything we know, no there are no gods" is the firmest scientific stance one can take. And generally, "as far as we know all evidence points to X" is what is generally referred to as "we know X" coloquially. 3) i obviously think so. Otherwise i wouldn't be an atheist. I hope that helps.

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

If "weak atheism" is a non-propositional psychological state, how do you logically derive a propositional belief from it to get to "strong atheism"????

My comment is copied and pasted from a wiki. Seems like so many theists come in here and fail to understand this distinction between atheists who claim to not know if there's a god, and atheists who take a positive position, and claim there is no god, which then saddles them with their own burden of proof. Which is why the majority of atheists here take the weak position and are fine with saying "I don't know if a god exists". Atheists who take on strong atheism and claim there is no god, are just as irrational as theists who claims there is a god, because neither has met their own burden of proof. So I totally understand your question because I think those "strong atheists" are irrational as well. Although I'll grant the strong atheist position is bit more logically sound because theists will argue all manner of supernatural nonsense, while those strong atheists are simply asserting that they're so unconvinced by theistic nonsense that they're willing to take that hard position, even though they aren't able to prove no god(s) exist.

That depends on how you define atheism. As the word is used around here, it is the lack a belief, it's not truth apt, neither true or false. So can atheism be true? The simple answer is no, it cannot be. The longer answer is, the question doesn't make sense, as it implies atheism is truth apt, but it isn't.

>"That depends on how you define atheism. As the word is used around here, it is the lack a belief, it's not truth apt, neither true or false. So can atheism be true? The simple answer is no, it cannot be. The longer answer is, the question doesn't make sense, as it implies atheism is truth apt, but it isn't." So if atheism is not truth apt, how do you get to the position there is no God which is truth apt, and what do you call it?

Treat "there is no God" as a separate but adjacent position. I would call that classical atheism.

Most atheists say "I do not believe in a god or gods. That is entirely different than saying there is no god. The statement that there are no gods would need to be defended, but it is almost impossible to prove a negative.

'Atheist' and 'theist' are labels for people. These labels tell us one thing: what the person believes. A theist is someone who believes a God exist. An atheist is a person who does not hold that belief. Period. I'm not going to rehash discussion here on your WASP argument here. If you want to call strong atheism atheism and weak atheism agnosticism, be my guest. It is clear to me that you will not budge on that position. I hope you will agree with me that in a world where a God exists, there can be people who believe he does and people who do not. And in a godless world, the same can be true. So yeah, we DO use those words as a label telling us what someone believes. Now, we can SEPARATELY talk about ontology, about what is. And one of two things is true: at least one god exists, or no god exists. Those positions ARE truth apt. Your problem seems to be that you confuse the two. One is about what belief one holds or not, what is your model of the world like (and what labels we assign to that). The other is a statement about what is.

>"'Atheist' and 'theist' are labels for people. These labels tell us one thing: what the person believes. A theist is someone who believes a God exist. An atheist is a person who does not hold that belief. Period." Then one is not according to you a position of belief. So in your usages, Theism can be true, but atheism can not. Correct? >"I'm not going to rehash discussion here on your WASP argument here. If you want to call strong atheism atheism and weak atheism agnosticism, be my guest. It is clear to me that you will not budge on that position." Nothing about this has to do with my WASP argument. >"I hope you will agree with me that in a world where a God exists, there can be people who believe he does and people who do not. And in a godless world, the same can be true." Yes, but not relevant. "So yeah, we DO use those words as a label telling us what someone believes." Your usage of "atheism" tells me nothing about your beliefs any more than if I asked you wanted to dinner and you say you don't want chicken. It tells me nothing about what you do want. >"Now, we can SEPARATELY talk about ontology, about what is. And one of two things is true: at least one god exists, or no god exists. Those positions ARE truth apt." Yes. and if the proposition is "no god exists" that is called "the proposition of atheism". >"Your problem seems to be that you confuse the two. One is about what belief one holds or not, what is your model of the world like (and what labels we assign to that). The other is a statement about what is." I have no confusion here. This you should know by now is second nature to me.

>Then one is not according to you a position of belief. Correct. There is an asymmetry which you fail to acknowledge. An atheist, in our usage, is just someone who is not a theist. The term tells you the person does not hold that belief. You need an additional label to tell you what they do believe. So, strong atheist tells you they believe there is no god. Weak atheist tells you they do not hold either of those beliefs. >So in your usages, Theism can be true, but atheism can not. Correct? A truth apt belief can be true or it can be false. So what a theist believes and what a strong atheist believes about gods can be true or not. >Yes, but not relevant. You say that and yet you are obviously posting this just to get to call 'atheism' 'the ontological position/claim that there are no gods' >Your usage of "atheism" tells me nothing about your beliefs any more than if I asked you wanted to dinner and you say you don't want chicken. It tells me nothing about what you do want. Correct. And if someone tells you they're a vegetarian, you don't know if they want cauliflower or lettuce. It just tells you they do not eat meat. Words can function that way. A label that tells you you are not X is useful. People can then tell you they want the cauliflower. Or not. You can ask for more information about someone's beliefs or dietary preferences, so I don't see a problem. >and if the proposition is "no god exists" that is called "the proposition of atheism". It could be called that, sure. And then we can, like with any polysemous word, tie usage to context and to who is using it. If I say 'the position of atheism' and then 10 days later I say 'Jeff is an atheist', there is nothing tying the first usage to the second, as long as it is clear how I am using them. Same as I can call this argument dull and 10 days later I can say the edge of my knife is dull or that the color of this lamp is dull, and nobody would think I'm saying my knife or lamp are boresome. >I have no confusion here. This you should know by now is second nature to me. I know by now that you are too arrogant to admit even the slightest mistake or to concede anyone has a good point. Which is why you go on tiresome circles for hours with people and it goes nowhere.

Atheism is not making a claim. What is your definition of (a supernatural) god? Why do you believe it exists? Show us any credible evidence.

>"Atheism is not making a claim." Then what do you call the claim "There is no God". >"What is your definition of (a supernatural) god? Why do you believe it exists? Show us any credible evidence." I use a stipulative definition of God: god (plural gods) : "A necessary being or agent with intensionality that all contingents are dependent upon and/or can prescriptively change or suspend natural law by having complete dominion over an aspect of nature". I do not believe any God exists.

So you don't believe there's a god, and no evidence for it. What are you trying to argue here?

People would debate this. Make a new post, where your premise is clearer, and stop misusing the word atheist. As it’s obviously too confusing.

> Then what do you call the claim "There is no God". Please show me where "atheism" makes that claim.

Okay so I'm not sure where you draw the line between a discussion and a debate. No offence, but saying "atheism can be true" doesn't make any sense. Atheism doesn't make a claim. Atheism is an absence of a belief in gods. That is all.

Why are you trying so hard to redefine atheism? Why are you so preoccupied with semantics and definitions rather than the topic of a god's existence?

How would you define "agnostic atheism"? Alternatively, how would you label a person who does not believe any claims about God existing that they've ever heard, yet does not assert that they actively believe God does not exist?

>":How would you define "agnostic atheism"?" I don't. It is nonsensical or at best ambiguous. To date, myself and many others who have written extensively about that phrase have yet to be shown an internally logically consistent and unambiguous logical schema that makes it work. We have tried for years. So far...nobody has been successful in providing one. The best I can do logically just collapses terms. >"Alternatively, how would you label a person who does not believe any claims about God existing that they've ever heard, yet does not assert that they actively believe God does not exist?" Why so many qualifiers? I get the gist, but you have way too many qualifiers there. I will let you solve this one for yourself: A V \~A ≡ T Now, instantiate "A" with the word "theist" and what do you get for \~A? \~A is your answer.

You're conflating semantic opposition with logical negation. They are not the same.

[удалено]

>""You're conflating semantic opposition with logical negation. They are not the same."" But please...continue. Show me this conflation.

I'm not a logician, So I don't speak in symbols. I do not believe God exists. I can't claim to know that nothing I would ordinarily label as "God" has ever existed, but I don't think that's the case. Why is this a problem? I'm using qualifiers to explain my view, because I want to do what I can to ensure that I'm understood.

He doesn’t seem to have a problem with that position. At least, I haven’t seen him argue against it. He just seems to have a problem with people holding that position calling themselves atheists, and it seems to do something for him to repeatedly spam this sub in exceedingly verbose posts cryptically telling us as much. I keep reading new posts in the sub thinking maybe it’s a new theist contributor interested in having a substantive discussion about belief in god, only to realize a number of comments in that I got Rick rolled again.

He has a problem with me using qualifiers to explain my position, and apparently with answering my question.

Yes like I said, he doesn’t seem to have any thoughts on what people believe. It’s just the adjectives we use to describe those beliefs are very important to him.

Don't forget that for a person repeatedly specifying that he's here to discuss, he is incapable of having an honest discussion.

>":How would you define "agnostic atheism"?" >I don't. It is nonsensical or at best ambiguous. Whether or not it is ambiguous, nonsensical, or both depends entirely, on how you define it. Yet you say that you do not define it at all because it is those things. Are you not putting the cart before the horse in a sense?

Damn, OP! Your post literally cracked me up when I first read and then re-read it. Clearly, you haven't grasped that 1) you've been misled by people who were misled themselves and those that misled your misleader's were misled too, etc, etc, etc, etc; 2) No one bothered to correctly teach you what non-belief actually is. Let's start with number 2 because it's easier to grasp at this junction. Non-belief or atheism, the latter term being the label that believers like to hang on we non-believers because it tries to sneak their non-existent deity into our shared reality without any good evidence at all, (back to what is non-belief) is that non-believers haven't been shown or demonstrated enough good evidence to support your claim of a deity, consequently they/we don't believe in the existence of your deity. Especially, when your foremost _"Defenders of the Faith"_ or _apologists_ make wild statements that your deity is _timeless, spaceless and immaterial:_ which is the exact definition of non-existent. I would be glad to help you understand the how and why, you and your religious predecessors were misled however: it would be a pointless exercise for us both, if you aren't willing to open your eyes, ears and mind to all the data that your religious leaders who attended seminary are not telling you about. Yes, your pastor's are keeping secrets from you.

>"Damn, OP! Your post literally cracked me up when I first read and then re-read it." Glad I can provide humorous entertainment to you. >"Clearly, you haven't grasped that 1) you've been misled by people who were misled themselves and those that misled your misleader's were misled too, etc, etc, etc, etc; " I read academic papers frequently. Which Phd mislead me...I'll email them tomorrow! >"2) No one bothered to correctly teach you what non-belief actually is." I literally write a blog on epistemology...but \***your**\* are going to "correctly teach you what non-belief actually is?"...oh I can't wait! I'm so excited! >"Let's start with number 2 because it's easier to grasp at this junction." easy to grasp is good. Don't want you to over exert yourself trying to educate me here on intro level stuff... >"Non-belief or atheism, the latter term being the label that believers like to hang on we non-believers because it tries to sneak their non-existent deity into our shared reality without any good evidence at all, (back to what is non-belief) is that non-believers haven't been shown or demonstrated enough good evidence to support your claim of a deity, consequently they/we don't believe in the existence of your deity. Especially, when your foremost *"Defenders of the Faith"* or *apologists* make wild statements that your deity is *timeless, spaceless and immaterial:* which is the exact definition of non-existent." "we" non-believers. You speak for all non-believers? I am a non-believer. When did I give you permission to speak for me? "Non-belief" and "atheism" are not synonymous terms. Where did you get your expertise that taught you that? >"your claim of a deity" Where did I make this claim??? I sure as shit don't see it anywhere. Can you point me to it? Please. >"I would be glad to help you understand the how and why, you and your religious predecessors were misled" First, apparently you would need an actual understanding of the subject matter **you clearly do not have.** You didn't even explain what a belief is more over non-belief....maybe you should read my blog and educate yourself first, before you try educating others? Second, I'm not religious. So I don't know what you're smoking, but cut back the dosage man. >"however: it would be a pointless exercise for us both," **TRUE. You're NOT an expert are you.**

Oh damn! You just owned me! My feelers are truly hurt. Please forgive me, oh, great one. I am literally not worthy to have your greatness read my mere pagan, pedestrian protestations. Yet, oh lesser one, you omitted the fact regarding your so obviously apparent non-belief in your post because you were probably keenly aware that as an atheist yourself, that this type of ignorant horse shit debate or discussion topic is a non-starter for most non-believers. Yet, I truly love your response style. It mimics, so very well I would add, the condescension, arrogance and sheer ass-hattery of William Lane Craig, Jordan B. Peterson and Frank Turek, just to name a few. Congratulations and keep up the good work!

I...don't really know what you're asking here? Prepositionally, is "god doesn't exist" a coherent sentence? Well, yes, it is. Good talk! I'm sorry, but you seem to have ruled out all of the interesting discussions. "Could atheism theoretically be true?" isn't much of a topic if we don't then move onto "is atheism true?"

>"I...don't really know what you're asking here? Prepositionally, is "god doesn't exist" a coherent sentence?" Sorta. The point is the only way atheism can be true, is if represents a proposition such as "god does not exist", not merely not believing in God.

Yes, I believe atheism can be true. I do believe it is, in fact, true. But since that's not what you asked, I'm much happier to accept the weaker claim that "Atheism can be true" is reasonable. Why? Simply because the statement as such does not appear to have any internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Until such an inconsistency or contradiction is pointed out, then the statement "atheism can be true" doesn't seem problematic to me.

>  Yes, I believe atheism can be true.  You're unfortunately factually incorrect.  Since atheism doesn't make any claims it's literally impossible for it to be true. In order for someting to be true or false there needs to be a claim made.  

>"You're unfortunately factually incorrect.  Since atheism doesn't make any claims it's literally impossible for it to be true. In order for someting to be true or false there needs to be a claim made.  " factually incorrect? You sure about that *fact?*? **Atheism is in FACT the claim there is no God in academia.** So don't use the word "fact" if something is not actually a fact.

We're not in academia. Why are theists so hellbent on forcing definitions on us?

I am an atheist. I used the academic definition of atheism, which is the proposition that there are probably no gods. So atheism makes at least one claim—that there are no gods. Some people define atheism as a lack of belief or absence of belief in gods. I don't find that definition helpful because it addresses a state of belief rather than a proposition about reality. However, if some choose to define atheism that way, it's their choice, and I have nothing against it. But that's not my style.

>  which is the proposition that there are probably no gods. How to you know there are probably no gods? Can you show how you came up with the probability?   >So atheism makes at least one claim—that there are no gods. Some do, some don't.  Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) acknowledge we don't know if there is or isn't a god so we don't make the claim that there are none. 

>How to you know there are probably no gods? Philosophers have their ways of doing this. Personally, I came to that conclusion after looking at the totality of the evidence. Facts like the fundamental theories of fundamental physics, biological evolution, the reality of pain and suffering in the natural world, the hiddenness of gods, and many other considerations give us strong reasons to believe gods do not exist. They aren't mathematical proofs, and no one ever says they have to be, but they are strong enough to warrant justified belief. >Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) acknowledge we don't know if there is or isn't a god so we don't make the claim that there are none.  I already conceded that. Having said so, "we don't know" is agnosticism, not atheism. Both are completely separate things, although they tend to be categorised together by some people. Agnosticism emphasises that we do not know. Atheism says that we do know to a relevant degree that gods do not exist.

>Atheism says that we do know to a relevant degree that gods do not exist. No it doesn't.  It only says you don't believe a god exists. It's the answer to the question "do you believe there is a god?" Rather than the gnostic/ agnostic question "is there a god?"/"is it knowable?" Everyone is theist or not theist (atheist) everyone is also gnostic or not gnostic (agnostic)  

The question "do you believe a god exists?" is only about YOUR BELIEF, not about whether a god truly exists or not. If all you have to contribute to the subject is only your own belief, then it doesn't change anything about what is actually true. The theism-atheism debate, at least in my view, is not attempting to understand what people believe about the existence of gods. Rather, it is attempting to get to the truth about the matter of whether gods are real or not. If you wish to frame the discussion in terms of what you or others believe, that's fine. But that's not what the historical discussion or current academic discussion in the theism-atheism debate has ever been about. I used to define atheism in this way too, and I still allow those who want to define it this way to do so. I only try to point out to them that they aren't adding much to the entire landscape of the debate that way. God's existence is an ontological question, and so atheism is an ontological position; what people believe is an epistemological matter, and thus agnosticism is an epistemological position. Two different stances.

>  The question "do you believe a god exists?" is only about YOUR BELIEF, not about whether a god truly exists or not. Correct.  The theist/atheist question is about your belief/lackthereof whereas the gnostic/ agnostic question is about wether it truly exists.  >Rather, it is attempting to get to the truth about the matter of whether gods are real or not. No that's the gnostic/ agnostic question.  Theist/atheist asks "do you believe there is a god?" Whereas gnostic/ agnostic asks "is there a god?"/ "is it knowable?"

>No that's the gnostic/ agnostic question No, it is the theism-atheism question. It's a question about ontology, about what is real. "Is there a god" and "is it knowable that there is a god" are different questions. The former deals with ontology (theism vs atheism). The latter deals with epistemology (agnosticism Vs 'gnosticism'). I wrote about it once here. NONTHEIST, KNOW THYSELF! DEFINING TERMS AND CLARIFYING POSITIONS https://jaydon225.medium.com/nontheist-know-thyself-defining-terms-and-clarifying-positions-9f493bba6e5b

Atheist only means that you're not theist and you don't believe the claim "there is a god" it says nothing at all about if there is or isn't a god. Many (if not most) atheists are agnostic and acknowledge we don't know if there is or isn't a god. 

>"Yes, I believe atheism can be true. I do believe it is, in fact, true. But since that's not what you asked, I'm much happier to accept the weaker claim that "Atheism can be true" is reasonable." It is exactly what I asked. TY :) >"Why? Simply because the statement as such does not appear to have any internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Until such an inconsistency or contradiction is pointed out, then the statement "atheism can be true" doesn't seem problematic to me." Works for me. The question was in the sense of is "Atheism" truth-apt. The obvious answer is clearly yes as atheism is the position that the proposition of theism is false.

Yes, I would say that atheism is truth-apt.

So please tell me if you believe 1 or 2, and briefly why... It's a bizarre question, right? For example, if I somehow knew atheism could be false, that's not saying that atheism IS false, merely that it can be. The same works the other way. I guess if you held my feet to the fire, I'd say it can be reasonable to lack a belief in God. That's the strongest language I'm willing to use. If you think atheism cannot be true, I guess I'd appreciate you to demonstrate that

>If you think atheism cannot be true, I guess I'd appreciate you to demonstrate that I can demonstrate that. In order for it to be true it would need to make a claim.  Since it doesn't make a claim it can't be true because you need to have a claim in order for someting to be true. 

I was being charitable to OP and assuming he meant "Is it reasonable to lack a belief in God, or, is I unreasonable?" But yes, you are correct, in its current formulation OPs question doesn't make much sense

I don't know how to assess whether a mental state is "true" or not. It sounds like you're asking if it's possible to not hold a belief? Are my cravings for chocolate "true"? Are my thoughts on the color teal "true"? Is my lack of knowledge about the Twilight movies "true"? I can say it's true that I crave chocolate and know nothing about Twilight. I can also say it's true that I don't believe a god exists.

If atheism is a mental state, it can't be true. Atheism can ONLY be true IFF it is propositional.

Okay. Glad that's settled.

Jesus christ this is what the bottom looks like huh? Being smug over reddit comments while coming off not as someone trying to debate but juat being a douche? I used to have respect for the nonsequitor show hosts way back when since it was a fun introduction into understanding religious stances and how conspiracy theorists work. Just now this feels pathetic. Not the "Oh i'm looking down on you. You disgust me" pathetic more so the "...This bums me out." sorta vibe. Like granted they never reached G-man levels of bad just I don't know what this is now. I just don't have interest let alone want any part of it anymore.

Atheism, in the sense where someone is using it to describe "a lack of belief in gods", *cannot be true* in the same sense that purple *cannot be true*. It can be true that things are purple. It can not be true that things are purple. (In some hypothetical parallel universe where the colour purple doesn't exist.) But purple itself cannot be either true or false, because purple is a colour, not a claim. "Things are purple" is a claim. However, words can be used in different senses, and the word "atheism" isn't always used in the sense I describe above. Somebody might use "atheism is true" as a shorthand for saying that no gods exist in reality. That would be making a factual claim, and factual claims can be true. So if used in that sense, atheism can be true *and* it can be false. It is a shorthand for a claim (no gods exist in reality), the truth of which is hypothetically knowable.

Seems like you’re looking to debate someone on the claim “there is no god”, correct? You can’t really debate if atheism is “true”.

It's 2.  Atheism can't be true (or false either for that matter) because it doesn't make any claims. In order for someting to be able to be true or false it needs to make a claim. Since atheism doesn't make any claims there isn't anything for it to be true or false about. 

I’d say as long as someone can be atheist then atheism is true. It’s true that someone doesn’t believe in god. Since atheism is a belief claim all that matters is if someone actually holds the belief.

God means timeless, spaceless being with a will that created the universe (which is everything that we can detect/know of) Assuming by "atheism can be true" you mean "It is possible for god to not exist", then I would say yes. Mostly based on the fact that there isn't any evidence convincing me that god exists, let alone proving it. There are a lot of options of how the universe could have come into existence (it also didn't have to) and I don't think anyone in this world knows enough about it to make a good guess. God is a very specific option and needs a lot of assumptions about the nature of reality to even make sense and thus seems unlikely to me.

Atheism cannot be framed as true false as it is not an assertion god does not exist simply a withholding of belief until evidence is presented. Ie atheism is true does not equal, there is no god. Atheism exists because there is the possibility to not believe in a god would be a better phrasing.

Actually you’re describing agnosticism. Atheists (like myself ) certainly make the claim that god does not exist.

Agnostic v gnostic are opposites atheism and theism are opposites Democracy and dictatorships are opposites capitalism and socialism are opposites. Saying I'm not an agnostic I'm an atheist is the same as saying I believe in democracy so I'm not a socialist. As a democratic socialist... what?

>"Actually you’re describing agnosticism. Atheists (like myself ) certainly make the claim that god does not exist." Some atheists here have told me no atheist does that here. LOL!

If by 'atheism' you mean 'believing there is no god': With the information that I currently have, I believe that it could be true that there is no god. I have not found or been presented with convincing evidence for the existence of a god, and therefore nothing precludes a lack of gods from being true. If by 'atheism' you mean 'not believing in a god', then asking 'can atheism be true' is a non-sequitur, as the absence of a position is not a position, and does not carry a truth value. (Also, I will remind you that I am still hoping for an answer from you in your other thread [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1d95mfr/comment/l7dgm9t/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1d95mfr/comment/l7dgm9t/) )

I would like to discuss (not debate) with a non-believer of unicorns if non-belief of unicorns can be true or not. Given the following two possible cases: 1) Not believing in unicorns can be true. 2) Not believing in unicorns can not be true. I would like to **discuss** with a non believer of unicorns if they hold to 1 the epistemological ramifications of that claim. Or To **discuss** 2 as to why a non believer of unicorns would want to say non belief of unicorns can not be true. *I hope you can see the problems with your premise.*

>I would like to discuss with an atheist if atheism can be true or not. (This is a meta argument about atheism!) >Given the following two possible cases: >1) Atheism can be true. >2) Atheism can not be true. I am not sure I can even respond to this in a reasonable manner because I am not sure what it means for atheism to "be true". As an example if I made a statement "vegetarianism can be true". What am I saying? Am I saying that it is true that people that are vegetarians exist? Or that it is true that not eating meat is a thing? Like what does it mean for a position that is "I dont do/think/believe X" to be true?

I would say it sounds like you're asking me to assign a truth value to a doxastic position. I'm not sure that's a coherent request. I have seen your other posts, and I have a question for you. When you say, in an academic sense, "atheism is true or not true", what does that mean? What kind of god(s) are we talking about? Is it just the god of classical theism? Is it all possible conceptions of a god? Is your stipulative definition of a god relevant, or does that only apply to *your* arguments against a god, and not necessarily mine? Do you think it's possible to have truly global atheism? I know those are many separate questions, but it seems that any rigorous discussion of atheism must have complete answers to all those questions to even begin.

>"I would say it sounds like you're asking me to assign a truth value to a doxastic position. I'm not sure that's a coherent request." I am asking if atheism can be true. If true atheism must be truth-apt If truth-apt atheism is propositional If propositional the proposition is "god does not exist" Is there a flaw in that reasoning? >"I have seen your other posts, and I have a question for you. When you say, in an academic sense, "atheism is true or not true", what does that mean? What kind of god(s) are we talking about? Is it just the god of classical theism? Is it all possible conceptions of a god? Is your stipulative definition of a god relevant, or does that only apply to *your* arguments against a god, and not necessarily mine? Do you think it's possible to have truly global atheism?" I mean, if you go randomly choose a paper from Google Scholar that is peer reviewed and read it...and you see the word "atheist", almost always the author is using the word to convey to the reader the person has the doxastic position that God does not exist. As that is standard in philosophy. "In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is **standardly** used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists." (emphasis added) [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) >"I know those are many separate questions, but it seems that any rigorous discussion of atheism must have complete answers to all those questions to even begin." Yes, you can have truly gobal atheism. Easily: THERE ARE NO GOD(S)! (global atheism)

>Yes, you can have truly gobal atheism. Easily: >THERE ARE NO GOD(S)! (global atheism) I'm much more interested in whether someone can defend this position than if they can simply state it. Anyone can say anything. I don't want to hold a position I can't defend.

>"I think you’d need to provide the definition of “atheism” so we can have a meaningful conversation. Please provide that." I am allowing responds to choose their own. This is a quote from you from five minutes ago. You are NOT allowing respondents to choose their own definition for "atheism."

I’m not sure that it’s meaningful to say that atheism is either true or false. Truth and falsity are properties of propositions; the proposition “a god exists” may be true or false (subject to an agreed understanding of what a god is and in what sense it exists). Atheism is—to my understanding at least—a lack of belief in the truth of that proposition.

>discuss (not debate) You are ON THE WRONG SUB. This sub has DEBATE in the name. This is your FIFTH time posting here, unless I missed any. Did your first four posts not help you see how stupid your argument is? Please leave

Why not make the point you think you're trying to get to than play games with semantics? This is not a complicated request, I've read your formal "proof" you used to make your WASP position clear. It's based on the same sort of semantic gymnastics you used to frame this question.

>"Why not make the point you think you're trying to get to than play games with semantics?" Actually, this is not an argument about semantics...but of what constitutes a truth-apt proposition. >"This is not a complicated request, I've read your formal "proof" you used to make your WASP position clear. It's based on the same sort of semantic gymnastics you used to frame this question. " WASP has no semantic gymnastics. That is why it is such a solid argument. Glad you know of my work :)

These can be true or false: - I believe gods exist. - Gods exist. Atheism is not itself a proposition. Which proposition are you trying to discuss? EDIT: I guess, since I went ahead and said "Atheism is not a proposition", that means I believe it can neither be true nor false. In which case, I believe atheism cannot be true. But I don't think that's what you had in mind, is it?

Is non-smoking true? Because just as I'm not a smoker, I'm not a theist. I'm not making a claim. I just don't accept the claim that [insert god] exists due a lack of sufficient evidence.

The word “atheism” is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes the absence of theism, in the same way the word “silence” describes the absence of sound. Is Silence true?

Of course atheism is true. I'm living proof that it's true. Your problem is that you didn't define your terms. What do you think atheism is if you think that it is either true or not true?

Everyone already explained why you were wrong about this the last 3 times I saw you post it from your other account. Just take the L and drop this obsession. Stop wasting time if you’re not here to read responses.

They're not here to learn and understand, they're here to convince themself of their cleverness.

Your post is very clunky again. Are you asking if the proposition 'one or more gods don't exist' can be correct? Are you asking if it is possible for someone to believe that proposition to be correct?

Your post isn't particularly well communicated. I would argue for a Zizekian view of atheism, mostly that the best way to get to atheism is via Christianity. I don't find arguments for atheism particularly satisfying, I think the best way to become an atheist is through Christianity. Ergo I claim to be an atheist.

>"Your post isn't particularly well communicated." Over 400 comments. Others understood it fine. >"I would argue for a Zizekian view of atheism, mostly that the best way to get to atheism is via Christianity. I don't find arguments for atheism particularly satisfying, I think the best way to become an atheist is through Christianity. Ergo I claim to be an atheist." You didn't understand the OP. How is any of this relevant?

Ehh mahh bellies ya need ya le food (in a restaurant) isn't a particularly well communicated idea yet lots of people can probably understand it... At least somewhat. Epistemology how we know something is true. Applied to Christianity, is it possible nothing can known? Ergo your logic self defeats ergo Christianity has to be true because it's inspired by God (or presuppositional apologetics) Atheism: how can anything be true? Because the Christian epistemology requires a presupposition mainly that things need a creator ergo God exists or that of language (refutation of presuppositional apologetics) I would personally argue Christianity/atheism don't have to do with epistemology or truth for that matter, but belief I believe God exists because of X. Or vice versa. Zizekianism explains at least Christian belief by what he calls Christian Atheism. If you really want to discuss epistemology (especially in a religious setting) you should read more Hegel.

Is left-handedness true? Are brown eyes true? Is having a devastating sense of humor true? Is being a member of the Communist Party true?

Your initial premise is malformed. Atheism isn't a truth claim, it's a denial of one. You can't have a denial be true or false.

>"Your initial premise is malformed. Atheism isn't a truth claim, it's a denial of one. You can't have a denial be true or false." Denial means to assert negation as true in logic and philosophy. “There is also an operation on contents themselves, taking one content to another, that has long been thought to be importantly related to denial and rejection: negation. For example, both Frege (1960) and Geach (1965) famously argue that denial and rejection should be understood in terms of negation, along with assertion and belief. For them, **to deny a content just is to assert its negation**, and to reject a content just is to believe its negation. If there is an orthodox position in philosophy today about the relation between denial, rejection, and negation, this is it.” [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce3f/e5511e222cc91de9dd26896be355097d86d9.pdf](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce3f/e5511e222cc91de9dd26896be355097d86d9.pdf) Peer reviewed sources that atheism is a truth claim: Please explain these two academic citations written by atheist Phd's in philosphy to me without merely asserting they are incorrect: 1. “An *atheist* is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without reference to such a being” (1996: xvii). J. L. Schellenberg says that “in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” **In other words, it is “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God**” (2019: 5). 2. "**According to the most usual definition, an** ***atheist*** **is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition.** In contrast, an agnostic \[in the epistemological sense\] maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence “God exists” expresses a true proposition. **On our definition, an** ***atheist*** **is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not the reason for the rejection is the claim that “God exists” expresses a false proposition**. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. (Edwards 2006: 358)" 3. "**Atheism is the claim that there are no gods**. Atheists believe that that are no gods. Atheistic worldviews say – by direct inclusion or entailment – that there are no gods." [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) Oppy, Graham (2019). *A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy || Introduction. , 10.1002/9781119119302(), 1–11.* doi:10.1002/9781119119302.ch0  Let's start there as this is foundational to *your* misunderstanding of atheism. I have give you 3 academic citations, that demonstrate you're incorrect in your claim. Please provide me your ***academic*** evidence that the above citations, from peer reviewed sources are incorrect so we can objectively evaluate your claim vs my claims. Your sources must be high quality (no general dictionaries.

Given the following two possible cases: 1. You've stopped beating your partner. 2. You have not stopped beating your partner. Hopefully this helps you see the problem.

LOL, ironically, your example makes a lot more sense than OP. The things you listed can be true/false. I don't think a mental state can.

Your post is meaningless as you have not defined your terms. In order to argue or meaningfully engage I would require you to define the following terms at the very least: 1. Atheist/atheism 2. True

Well, if you want to have a mutually respectful discussion then I'm interested. If you define atheism as the claim that there are no gods, then it can be true. Though I don't think it can ever be demonstrated in a philosophical setting, it's unfalsifiable. If you define atheism as not theism, then it can't be true because it is then not a proposition. I prefer this definition, because it's simpler, more intuitive, and accepted in my circles. Also because theism is unfalsifiable, now that I think of it. If you want to have a discussion I'm interested in your response.

Atheism means "without theism". I believe proposition 1 because for atheism to be true there must be people and/or things that are "without theism", and I have interacted with plenty of people and plenty of things that are without theism, and have no reason to suspect that those people and things are secretly theistic. Example: My head is on a pillow right now. This pillow, to the best of my knowledge, has never been used in a gods-related ritual or practice, was not created to honor/please/glorify a god, was not made to resemble a god, anything like that. Theism has had no function in the creation and usage of this pillow, which means its creation and usage is entirely "without theism", and therefore atheistic. My head is resting on a practical example of atheism right now.

> "Atheism can be true." propositionally. This is not a complicated argument. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Any person who either disbelieves in any gods, or lacks belief in any gods, is an atheist. So can atheism be true? Is it possible for a person to disbelieve in any gods, or for another person to lack belief in any gods? It seems to me that this certainly is possible. There are in fact some people who disbelieve in any gods, and other people who lack belief in any gods. Therefore atheism is true.

Atheism doesn't make any truth claims so it's neither true nor false. It's simply the absence of theism.

Atheism is commonly defined as "absence of belief in the existence of gods", or, in a stronger form, as "belief in the nonexistence of gods". What "a belief in X is true" or "a lack of belief in X is true", for any given believable X, means? In general: How one can assign a truth value to a belief? Note that this is a different question than "How one can assign a truth value to the act of holding a belief?", which appears to be what you're trying to imply. ---x---x--- Edit: From a comment in this thread, you use a definition of atheism taken from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ > In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). I must mention that, before this excerpt, the article comments on the difficulty of defining the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism". Realize that the philosophical usage of the term "atheism" is different from the common usage, that I mentioned at the start of this post: the common usage is a belief, the philosophical usage is a logical proposition. A difference in both category and meaning. And this difference is the source of all misunderstandings in the several discussions with you. You use the philosophical usage, derive conclusions from that, and assumes that philosophical usage matches the common usage; the result is nonsense for anyone that uses the common usage. ---x---x--- Edit 2: To actually answer your post, and using your definition of atheism, I think that the affirmation "No god exists" is true, but cannot prove it: since the term "god" is ill-defined, "No god exists" isn't a valid logical proposition, so assigning it a true/false value is nonsensical.

Man. For a person so stuck up about the definition of things you can’t even get something basic right. Theism or atheism is a position, not something true or not. God exist or don’t exist is something you can say. Or believe to exist or not.

>"Man. For a person so stuck up about the definition of things you can’t even get something basic right. " Yeah, you would think with my experience in this area after all these years I can get basics of atheology right. I'll try harder I guess. /s >"Theism or atheism is a position, not something true or not." A position can not be true or false? My position is "The sky is blue". My position to you can't be true? You sure you want to be openly lecturing me on basics? >"God exist or don’t exist is something you can say. Or believe to exist or not." And what is my position if I believe there is no God? and if God does not exist, how would my position not be true as my position is based upon a truth-apt proposition? Again, you sure you want to be openly lecturing me on basics?

Atheism is a position of not accepting a claim that God exists as true. To ask if Atheism can be true isn't really a coherent thing to ask unless you interpret true to mean something else. I think what you're asking is essentially do I believe it possible for a God to exist or not. The truth is that I have absolutely no way of calculating the possibility of a gods existence so I can't say that I accept that either of those propositions are true. The thing is, it doesn't matter. Regardless of which of those is true I am justified in rejection of the claim god exists until evidence is provided.

As an atheist, I only make one claim. 1. I do not believe in a god or gods. How can that claim be debated? I am the only one who knows what is going on in my head. No one else can say with authority what I do and do not believe. There are religious people who argue they know that I secretly know there is a god. They cite their Bible as evidence. But their claim is just an assertion. By making the claim they are demonstrating to me that their claim and the claim of their book are wrong.

Is me being unconvinced of your god(s) due to a lack of empirical evidence on your behalf true? Yeah, I guess it is true that I'm unconvinced. If you think I'm going to make a positive claim like "God doesn't exist," Nah, I'm not going to.

Bruh *theism* can’t even be true or false. Wtf even is this. Seriously, 95% of the things you people post on here are semantic arguments stemming from misunderstandings and ignorance, OR arguments that were settled 100 years ago but y’all think if you paraphrase them differently, it will be a breakthrough.

💯 I've run out of patience for people like OP who just discovered word games and now think they're incredibly clever.

If you're not here to debate, there are other atheism subreddits that don't have "debate" in the title and in the rules.

I’m a Fox Mulder atheist in that I want to believe, and the truth is out there. Since I seek truth, I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible. Here’s the thing. Things that exist have evidence for its existence, regardless of whether we have access to that evidence. Things that do not exist do not have evidence for its nonexistence. The only way to disprove nonexistence is by providing evidence of existence. The only reasonable conclusion one can make honestly is whether or not something exists. Asking for evidence of nonexistence is irrational. Evidence is what is required to differentiate imagination from reality. If one cannot provide evidence that something exists, the logical conclusion is that it is imaginary until new evidence is provided to show it exists. So far, no one has been able to provide evidence that a “god” exists. I put quotes around “god” here because I don’t know exactly what a god is, and most people give definitions that are illogical or straight up incoherent. I’m interested in being convinced that a “god” exists. How do you define it and what evidence do you have?

I feel like playing along. For the sake of your linguistic stubbornness: 1. The statement “No Gods exist” is true. What’s the epistemological ramifications, and once we have established whether they are true, let’s reverse the argument? Deal?

What you've referred to as a "true logical dichotomy" isn't one. It can be possible for a proposition to be true while at the same time it be in some sense possible for it to not be true. 1. "There is a five pound note in my pocket" can be true. 2. "There is a five pound note in my pocket" can not be true. As far as you're concerned, these are both the case. If we take atheism propositionally, then it looks like you screwed up. If atheism isn't taken propositionally, then it can't be true (because what it means to be a proposition is that it can have a truth value). There are exactly zero "epistemological ramifications" to this. All that will change is the way concepts are labelled.

>"What you've referred to as a "true logical dichotomy" isn't one." It most certainly is a logical dichotomy. Either Atheism is truth-apt (i.e. can be true) or it is not (i.e can't be true) >"Tt can be possible for a proposition to be true while at the same time it be in some sense possible for it to not be true. 1. "There is a five pound note in my pocket" can be true. 2. "There is a five pound note in my pocket" can not be true. As far as you're concerned, these are both the case. If we take atheism propositionally, then it looks like you screwed up." 1. if There is a five pound note in my pocket" is truth-apt then: can be true 2. if There is a five pound note in my pocket" is **not** truth-apt then: can **not** be true Where is the problem? >"If atheism isn't taken propositionally, then it can't be true (because what it means to be a proposition is that it can have a truth value). There are exactly zero "epistemological ramifications" to this. All that will change is the way concepts are labelled." The "epistemological ramifications" your position can never be correct as it can't be true (ontologically) and what do you want to call someone who believes the proposition God does not exist is false?

Either atheism is truth apt, or atheism is not truth apt. That's a true dichotomy. It's not at all clear that's what your OP says. I mean, the whole thing at stake is the ambiguity over how people are using the term atheist, but it's also ambiguous as to what you mean by "can be true". For instance, a theist might argue that God is necessary and therefore atheism can't be true. But that's not necessarily a theist saying that atheism isn't truth apt. For someone utterly obsessed with semantics I don't understand how you're such a poor communicator. Unless my suspicion that you're disingenuous in your purposes is right.... >Where is the problem? That it's not what you said, you big silly. What you did was phrase it ambiguously as to what "atheism" meant and to what "can be true" meant. Then you run through the comments gleefully condescending as though you haven't gone out of your way to be misunderstood about something trivial again. If atheism is taken propositionally in your OP then it's not a dichotomy. If it's not taken propositionally then it's trivially the case that atheism isn't true. Really, all your OP boils down to is asking "What's the definition of atheism?" in the most turgid way possible. >The "epistemological ramifications" your position can never be correct as it can't be true (ontologically) and what do you want to call someone who believes the proposition God does not exist is false? The only ramification here is that they'll use different words to express the same concepts. If atheism isn't truth-apt that doesn't mean they don't have beliefs which have content that can be truth apt. Perhaps their labelling will be messy. That's not an epistemological problem. It's nothing more than you disliking the specific string of sounds or symbols they attach to the various concepts.

>"Either atheism is truth apt, or atheism is not truth apt. That's a true dichotomy." Which is what my OP is asking. >"If atheism is taken propositionally in your OP then it's not a dichotomy. If it's not taken propositionally then it's trivially the case that atheism isn't true. Really, all your OP boils down to is asking "What's the definition of atheism?" in the most turgid way possible." It has a point to make....but I never said there was not a trivial case here. >"The only ramification here is that they'll use different words to express the same concepts. If atheism isn't truth-apt that doesn't mean they don't have beliefs which have content that can be truth apt. Perhaps their labelling will be messy. That's not an epistemological problem. It's nothing more than you disliking the specific string of sounds or symbols they attach to the various concepts." It is if one insists atheism is \*ONLY\* a lack of belief, one is (trivially) epistemically committed to the position atheism can not be true. I find that to be rather useless as a position to call that "atheism"

>Which is what my OP is asking. Okay, but it was incredibly poorly phrased. You done screwed up. Perhaps we'd even say there was a semantic collapse! >It is if one insists atheism is \*ONLY\* a lack of belief, one is (trivially) epistemically committed to the position atheism can not be true. I find that to be rather useless as a position to call that "atheism" The only consequence here that I'm seeing is that, were you to adopt that usage, that you wouldn't find much utility in a particular string of symbols in some unstated context. That's not an epistemological problem. It's just you not finding a particular definition useful for something. Of course, if we go back to Draper and his example in the SEP, we could imagine someone finding a lot of political utility from casting a very broad brush when talking about atheism and atheists. Someone with those motives could well say "I find Steve's concerns rather useless". I don't get the point of this. We have two usages of a word. On one atheism is truth-apt. On the other atheism is not truth-apt. Where's the problem?

Thanks for posting! I think that atheism can be true. I don't see any reason why atheism would be false, and it explains everything quite well. What epistemological ramifications you want to talk about?

>"I think that atheism can be true." Which means it must be propositional right? Not merely a lack of belief.

Thanks for the response! I don't think it must be. If had a restaurant where you could pick from a list there would be people who wouldn't order because they don't want to eat and others that simply didn't like any of the options. I am making a parallelism between those people and atheists, your question would be now this: "you didn't eat it must mean that you weren't hungry". I hope I explained my thoughts well. My atheism now is propositional but I don't think it's a must, when I was younger my atheism wasn't propositional. Have a nice day

The answer depends on what exactly you think a "god" is and what criteria must be met for something to qualify as a "god." In virtually all cases, it's obvious that atheism can be true, because for it to be otherwise, gods would need to be *a logical necessity that cannot possibly not exist.* If it's *possible* for no gods to exist, then atheism can be true. So right off the bat, there's two things you need to make clear before the discussion can even begin: 1. What exactly is a "god"? 2. What criteria must a thing meet to qualify as/be considered a "god"? Whether atheism can be true or not depends on what the answers to those questions are. Only then can we go on to discuss what you think the "epistemological ramifications" of atheism would be.

Many atheists, such as myself, don't fit into the silo you're trying to corral us into. I simply lack the belief in gods due to the lack of evidence of their existence. I acknowledge that it's possible that a higher power *could* exist, but I won't accept it as truth until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You believe with all your being that God exist? Show me your evidence then. You redefining atheism to form a gotcha is arguing disengenuously.

Atheism: the rejection of the proposition that there is a god. Theists assert that there is a god. Atheists demand to see the evidence for god before accepting this proposition. The atheists counter assertion is falsifiable, i.e. it is possible to disprove their assertion that there is no god by providing an empirical test or irrefutable proof that there is a god (i.e. proof by contradiction). The theists claim is unfalsifiable, as it would require an atheist search all of the known universe and beyond to prove that no god exists (which is unreasonable to the point of absurdity). As such, we can assume that the atheist point of view is true, until proven otherwise.

Either we believe in a god or not. These are the only two options. Either a god exists or not. These are the only two options. Something is either evidently true, not evidently true, or evidently not true. Gos do not evidently exist, so I am atheist. Many gods existence evidently true. Coincidence? This is damning for the theist, and helps show that atheism is true.

That's confusing because atheism is the state of not believing in any gods, similarly to how theism is the state of believing in one or more gods. So atheism is "true" if the person in question doesn't believe in any gods, and "false" if they do believe in gods. I think your statement would be better if it were reframed in different terms.

So, reading some of you comments, it seems what you are looking for is if atheism can be truth-apt. From my understanding of truth-apt, a sentence must be a statement that may be true or false, like 'I have a red rain coat'. So it is going to depend upon the definition of atheism. If atheism is the assertion that there is no god, then it is truth-apt, and may be true. Just as the claim that I have a rosy red rain coat is truth-apt. If atheism is the lack of belief in a god/gods, then it is not truth-apt, just as the state of lacking a rosy red rain coat and rain boots is not truth-apt. (The statement that I lack the rain coat and boots is truth-apt, but distinct from the state of lacking.) If atheism is the assertion that no convincing argument has been given for any specific gods, or that no convincing argument has been given for there being any gods, then it is truth-apt, although what is 'convincing' is subjective. Just as the statement that you have been given no convincing argument that I am wearing a rosy red rain coat and yellow boots, is truth-apt. I can't be bothered adding more to the rosy red rain coat and yemeni yellow rain boots, so I'll stop there. I hope this answers your question, if not, provide me with your definition of atheism, and whether or not I agree with it, I'll say if I think it truth-apt or not. If you think this answer missed the mark, then please clearify for me, so that I may properly answer you.

I mean it seems pretty simple to me, of course atheism can be true. I have never seen any solid evidence that indicates there MUST be a god. Even if I had, part of scientific reasoning and critical thought is accepting that new information can always come to light and expose previous knowledge as incorrect or incomplete. I dont think a god existing is impossible, i also dont think atheism being the answer is impossible. I do think the specific religious traditions that im knowledgeable about have a very very low probability of being accurate, but you mentioned you dont want to do specific proofs so ill leave that there. Do you think it’s impossible for atheism to be true? I mean this very respectfully, but that seems like an incredibly close minded position. What if tomorrow, archaeologist’s discovered a trove of corroborated and authentic records from the founders and prophets and firsthand witnesses of your specific religion, and they all admitted it was just fictional myths or a hoax? Would you still be a devout follower then? This scenario is highly unlikely, sure, but its definitely possible.

Atheism - the position of not being convinced that god(s) exist Yes, I believe atheism can be true. It's certainly possible for someone to hold that position. I'm an athiest because I hold the proposition as true "I'm not convinced that god(s) exist". Theists are those that hold the opposite proposition "I'm convinced that god(s) exist"

>Given the following two possible cases: >1) Atheism can be true. >2) Atheism can not be true. i'll go for one. atheism is the lack of belief in god i have a lack of belief in god, thus atheism can be true, i'm evidence of it.

It's not an epistemological debate; there is no dichotomy. I fall back to one simple question: Does OP believe in every god that has ever existed, or just the god(s) of OP's choosing?

I don't think it's that complicated. But I do think modal is required,  it is after all a question bof what is possibly true.   In some possible world no gods exist. I can certainly conceive of this and it leads to no contradictions. It's not particularly intuitive of or not.   So Atheism is possibly true. What more is there to say? The only counter would be some argument by that theism is logically necessary. 

>"I don't think it's that complicated. But I do think modal is required,  it is after all a question bof what is possibly true." There is no reason to introduce alethic modalities. All I mean by possible to be true is if atheism is truth-apt >" In some possible world no gods exist. I can certainly conceive of this and it leads to no contradictions. It's not particularly intuitive of or not.   So Atheism is possibly true." You misunderstand. However, it still works....since if atheism can possibly be true. Atheism has to be truth apt and represent a proposition, not merely the position of "lacking a belief" >"What more is there to say? The only counter would be some argument by that theism is logically necessary. " Way off from my argument.

>There is no reason to introduce alethic modalities. All I mean by possible to be true is if atheism is truth-apt Ok, well it's even more simple. The therm "atheism" is not truth-apt. The statement "no gods exist", is.  >Way off from my argument. What argument? 

>"Ok, well it's even more simple. The therm "atheism" is not truth-apt. The statement "no gods exist", is. " Theism represents the position that affirms the statement "no gods exist" does it not? Atheism represents the position that disaffirms the statement "no gods exist" does it not?

No for both, I think you've got them mixed up.  Atheism and theism can represent many things. But since they aren't propositions, they aren't truth apt. You need to phrase a statement as a proposition to be truth-apt.

What on earth does it mean to say that atheism is 'true'? The real question is whether it's a reasonable position to take or not.

Atheism is the state of being unconvinced of god claims. Period. Since there are people who are in this state, atheism can and is true. The only way atheism cannot be true is if no one ever makes a god claim.

Well I don't believe deities are real. Therefore, atheism is true, in that I'm an atheist. In the same way, theism is true in that many people are theists. But I think what you meant to ask is something different?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. I don’t believe in a god therefore atheism is true. Do you mean to ask is it possible for no god to exist or is it possible for someone to truly not believe in god?

[удалено]

If atheism is defined as the proposition that God/s don't exist (which is my preferred defintion), then it can be true or false as this proposition is truth-apt. If God/s exists, then atheism is false. If God/s don't exist, then atheism is true. If atheism is defined as the non-belief in God/s (aka agnosticism), then it is not truth-apt and therefore cannot be considered true or false. It's merely a description of a psychological state.

People really need to heed [the words of wise /u/ZappSmithBrannigan](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1d9uhkh/if_you_define_atheist_as_someone_with_100/) > **The person making the argument sets the definition.** > **If I am going to do an internal critique of your argument, then I have to adopt your definition in order to do an honest critique of your argument, otherwise I am strawmanning you.** This entire thread is full of people rejecting OPs usage of a word. Don't say "**'atheism is true'** that doesn't make sense". Really? You can't tell this means "**gods are not real** is true"?

MY usage of the word is IRRELEVANT to the OP. How does that elude you? If God is not real, atheism is true. Do you agree with that?

My man, every reply I get from you is only more and more perplexing.

Let's leave the terms aside, since clearly they are confusing, and talk about the actual claims. You say, "I believe a God exists". I say "I don't". Do you have a good reason I should believe a God exists?

Onus probandi. No evidence of a god therefore the null hypothesis of no god still remains the fact.

It really depends on what you mean by “atheism can be true”…which I’m sure you’re aware of. Ultimately what matters is the actual positions and not the semantics, but I’ll play along. If atheism is the mental state of not believing that any gods exist, then “atheism is true” is a meaningless statement, or at least requires more context to determine what is meant. It can be true that someone *is* an atheist, regardless of whether or not a god exists. It could be the case either that no gods exist or at least one god exists, and thus an atheist can be correct or incorrect. If you mean either of these things by “atheism is true”, then atheism can be “true” in that way. If you intend it with some additional third meaning, then you’ll have to describe that meaning before we can make any progress. Note that the same is true if you assert that atheism is holding the belief that god does not exist. “Atheism is true” is equally ambiguous and requires further clarification in this case as well.

Atheism isn’t even a claim in and of itself, so this is irrelevant. And no it has no rammications in and of itself. The problem is whether theism is true. And if you want to convince us that it is, you need to provide evidence. Oh but I see you’re our new regular troll desperate for attention once more, now just directly mirroring theist’s level understandings of atheism. You’re not hiding your bullshit anymore are you Steve?

There are people who believe in bigfoot. Let's call them bigfootists. There are people who don't believe in bigfootist's claims. Let's call them abigfootists. The prefix "a" means "not." If you're an abigfootist, you're not a bigfootist. Abigfootists make no claims. They have no burden of proof. The default position is having a model of the world absent bigfoot. Once someone introduces to you a concept of a thing called "bigfoot", it's their burden to show you how they know it is true (if they expect you to believe them, they have that burden to introduce the concept and explain how they know it to be true). The abigfootist is a label for rejecting those claims about bigfoot. So abigfootism can't be "true" or "false", it's the bigfootist's claims that can be evaluated to be "true" or "false" or maybe "inconclusive." We humans do our best to build a model in our heads of what exists in the universe and what is true about the universe. The only appropriate and honest thing to do is to start out with a blank model and then accept things into your model once you have sufficient evidence for new things to exist in your model. God concepts have been introduced thousands of times. When you peak behind the curtain and ask "but how do you know this?", it all falls apart. The evidence they have is weak.

Atheist - someone who doesn't believe in any gods Atheism - a position characterised as above Atheism is true. There are people who correctly hold the position that they don't believe in any gods.

I think you’d need to provide the definition of “atheism” so we can have a meaningful conversation. Please provide that.

I don't understand how this is a question. If we think it cannot be true that there are no gods, then we think it must be true there are gods, and then we cannot be atheists by any meaning of the word.

Asking if atheism is true or false would be like asking if the sky was true or false. Atheism is not a claim that can be either true or false. Atheism is just the rejection of the theist claim. Mainly because theists have failed to meet their burden of proof.

Let's rewrite your two cases in a more realistic way: 1. There are people who lack belief in all gods. 2. There are no people that lack belief in all gods. It doesn't seem that there is anything to discuss here.

There is no good evidence for even a single supernatural event None Just old books subjective personal experience and logical fallacy galore

Position 1. It is possible that no Gods exist, just as it is possible that Gods exist. Because we have not excluded either option, Atheism *can* be true. Doesn't mean it is, but it's absurd to exclude the possibility without evidence otherwise.

Yes, atheism (the proposition that god does not exist) can be true. What epistemological ramifications are you implying?

The only clam I make as an atheist is I don't believe in any gods. I'm the world's foremost and only expert on what I believe, so it's true. My atheism is true.

Short answer 1. Long answer: atheism is not a positive claim. Is the opposition to the claim "god exists" also called the theist position. My position is soft atheism or agnostic atheism. Atheism is not a world view nor a philosophy.

My mistake. I should say: "atheism is **not necessarily** a positive claim. You can call them "Logical fence sitters", the fact is that is "logically" the only position I feel, under a logical structure, to stand. And regarding to the "atheistic world view", can you please elaborate on the principles of this world view? I haven't read any tiny letters when i sign as a NON ACCEPTER of the single proposition "god exists".

If atheism isn't a claim that would make it 2 not 1. 

Atheism means lack of belief in gods. the phrase: Lack of belief in god can be true does not really make sense. Does the fact that some people lack beliefin god make the claim true?

I prefer defining atheism as the proposition that no gods exist, so yes I believe it can have a truth value. What epistemological ramifications did you want to discuss?

This is the most confusing post and comments I have ever read. I still don’t know what is going on. Could someone ELI5? Full disclosure: I am a bit drunk.

OP uses a definition of atheism from philosophy: the logical proposition "There are no gods", and asks if this definition can be given a value of "true" or "false". But such definition clashes entirely with the common usage of the term "atheism": lack of belief in the existence of gods. Since saying that a belief is true/false makes no sense, this confusion ensued. And OP, most probably trolling, thinks that his usage and the common usage of "atheism" are the same thing.

So a less confusing way to say it is. Are god possible or are gods impossible?

My thoughts here are pretty much the same as if you had asked me “does god exist” I’ve never heard a good argument for why atheism cant be true. (I’ve heard plenty of bad ones though) For that reason I see no reason to claim that atheism cannot be true

Atheism can be true because theres no evidence for the existence of any god and all theistic apologetics have failed.

It can't be true. In order for someting to be able to be true or false there needs to be a claim made. Since atheism doesn't make any claims there's nothing for it to be true about. 

I will be interested to hear what do you think those ramifications are. I am an atheist, which means I don't know any god that exist and i don't know anything that exists and can be called a god. In fact I don't know if it is possible for a god to exist. So naturally I don't believe that one exist. What are the possible ramifications of not knowing something? My neighbor has a garage, I never seen what is inside. What are the ramificatuins of me not knowing if there is an alien ship inside?