The unique thing about experience is that it is a rather personal thing. Someone else’s experience can never have the same impact on you as it did on him. His bite of the Apple does not make your tongue tingle with sweetness. In the same way, experiences are hardly transferable. We can speak about it, act about it, write about it, but it will merely be a shadow of the actual thing. As we all know, the gap between the shadow and the reality is a big one.
However, experiences can be over-hyped at times. Seeing is believing – that is what the world believes. Yet is there a solid case for us to take this stand: Since we cannot experience God, He does not exist? Do take note that atheism is not even the lack of belief in a god, but the belief of NO god. It is the reinforcement of the negative absolute statement. Hence there is a world of difference between an atheist and a freethinker.
How can a human with finite intellect confidently presume information that might be beyond their logic? It is like a man who is colourblind declaring that the world consist on of the colours black, grey and white. Even statistics would not give this stand a solid backing. If a strange gene disease were to affect the majority of human population with colourblindness, it still would not discredit the remaining minority’s claim of colour.
Clearly, not experiencing a god does not equate to the absence of one.
They say atheism is the only reason is the only reasonable religion for a logical scientist. However that seems to go against the fundamental principles of being a scientist. No self respectable scientist would dare to declare that he has discovered every species of animal on earth, and neither would he be so quick as to dismiss the possible discovery of new species. Hence how is it possible that they are inconsistent with their work ethic when dealing with religious matters; jumping to the conclusion of there being no god? Surely a scientist cannot be despicable enough to tamper results to suit his personal opinions; does that not make him more of a scientific liar then a seeker of truth?
Thus the core belief of atheism of there being no god at best can only be considered as a hypothesis. Somewhere along the way, some misled soul took it for a truth and created a religion based on it.
the dreaming realist 
It takes much greater faith to believe that there is No God than to believe that there is.
yes i think it takes much greater faith to believe that there is No God than to belive that there is. but im sure that Nick’s against the believe of No God. jee this blog’s becoming like a religious forum. haha. Well, i guess every sentence probably has two polarities. esp a sentence as controversial as “Clearly, not experiencing a god does not equate to the absence of one”. so is it clear that experiencing a god does not equate to the presence of one? *shrug* since you bring in the perspective of nothing being absolute, so I guess, everythingi can only be taken with a pinch of salt. even my own comment. haha.. sometimes I realy don’t know to take things seriously or not, cos it seems like pointless anyway.
“His bite of the Apple does not make your tongue tingle with sweetness.”
Well said. Really well said.
I enjoyed reading through your post. I’ve had a similar discussion with an athaist friend of mine along similar lines recently. Back then, I was unable to put to words what you have so succinctly clarified here, viz, the difference between an atheist and a freethinker.
pun –
Yes pun, this is turning this into a forum, not that im complaining, But it goes to show your still pretty much the same….still fighting for the alternative common sense? (Note that i did not mention making sense.. Haha)
However, like i said before, as a christian, I do believe there are absolutes in some things. Hence may you please point out where and when did i bring in the point of nothing being absolute? And pun, arent you a christian? haha.
Hey Ritwik Banerjee,
Thanks alot for your comment. It encourages pple to keep blogging on.
Pray that this helps you with ur future conversation with your friend. =)
u oso said.. fighting for the laternate common sense. not tt i believe much in tt alternative though. haha.. n does christian mean tt u are not allowed to question the establishment and the ideologies? Is Christianity an ideological tool for oppression of thoughts? I don’ t think so rite.. ahha so my right to question, even for the sake of it, probably does not contradict my identity as a Christian.
No, that’s wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Strong atheism is the positive belief that there is no god.
Pun–
No no, question all u want. But please do understand, Christianity does not agree with relativitism. You can check with other christians to verify. Do question all u want, since faith would be strengthed with doubts, but a Christian believes in moral absolutes. God sets the right or wrong so he is absolutely correct. Haha. So the theory of relativism is contrary to christian beliefs. They are mutually exclusive. Its like you cant believe in Christianity yet claim to believe in Buddha, you get what i mean?
And i doubt there is a need to jump to exaggerations of using christianity as a tool for oppression. Who exactly is getting oppressed here? Dont need to over react and get over enthusiatic pun. Do rememeber that this is a light hearted discussion. Need not make it acrimonious. Hehe.
Let just leave it here. Hear from you again on the other post. =)
Hi Simen
Thanks for your note.
Just wondering, is there a difference in degree change the definition of atheism itself? Strong and weak atheism… im not that sure. Isn’t strong atheism juz a person who conform strictly with the atheistic standards? Well, according to dictionary.com
Atheism is
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
While the American Heritage Dictionary state atheism to be:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
So yeah, im not quite sure about your alternate definition… perhaps you might wanna verify the sources?
Nice post… it is good to see you properly defined atheism not as merely a lack of belief, but as a disbelief. If anyone doubts it they should check out my last post, which shows this definition is accurate. It is very much true that experience is limited to each individual and I agree with you on the double-standard of scientist when thinking of religion vs. science. Nicely said.
Definition of disbelief, dictionary.com:
m-w.com:
As you see, no active belief in the opposite.
You can also take a look at about.atheism.com and wikipedia.
y are we so caught up with definitions? haa.. it’s kinda ludicrous.. that we’re playing word games.. haha.. what are words..subjective usage to get across a meaning.. which mite not fully translate wat u really mi aft all. haha..
To mr questionsoftruth,
I’ve read though your blog. Seems like its a newly set up blog. Continue to writing interesting articles! i suspect i have a reader that would be interested in your myth of Sisyphus as well… haha, we were having a discussion on it not too many blog post ago.
Anw, thanks for your comment! Would love to hear more from you in future. =)
I like your blog too. Thanks for the comment.
To comment on your post though, I agree with a lot of things you said. You said experiences can be overhyped. That is definitely true, and I think that sometimes, in our minds, when we have what we believe is a “religious” experience, emotion builds it up even more. I think sometimes people over-dramatize things. On a sociological view on colors, if over 50% of people on earth said that the true color blue was called red, does that mean it would be? I know that’s a little off topic, but still, makes you wonder doesn’t it?
I like your statement “Clearly, not experiencing a god does not equate to the absence of one.” I mean let’s be honest, it was easy for people like the disciples of Jesus to believe in God, simply because they saw miracles happen. But, I know a few people that even if God wrote something to them in the sky, they would still wonder if he were real. I like philosophy a lot, but I believe that philosophy tries to place God, or gods for that matter, on a level that humans can comprehend, and I just don’t think it’s possible. We aren’t meant to understand, because if we could understand EVERYTHING, then what would separate us from being just as omnipotent as God?
I agree with what Kelsey mentioned.
Deuteronomy 29:29 (New International Version)
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
Thanks Kelsey for your valuable insights.
You comment reminded me of something that C.S. Lewis wrote in “The Seeing Eye” in response to the Russian claims of not being able to see God in space and the idea that God exist and dwells in space.
“It is not in the least disquieting that no astronauts have discovered a god of that sort. The really disquieting thing would be if they had.”
Simen, there’s a difference between lack of belief in god(s) and belief in *no* god. If you equate atheism in that way, then you don’t have an enhanced term but 2 quite different terms; with the same word which causes a problem.
No, and as you and Zach have showed in those definitions, atheism is an *active* disbelief in any god whatsoever. An atheist is someone who has decided to stop believing in any god whatsoever. And this is crucial because no matter what proof, solid or not, you might show them, they will refuse to believe, just like Jesus said, if they don’t believe the Bible, even if someone came back from the dead they would still not believe.
Kelsey, that was a good comment, but I wanted to note out that I don’t think it was that easy for Jesus’ disciples to believe in Him. Heck, they even got depressed after Jesus’ death. But they have saw all of Jesus’ miracles. Cure the sick ones. Chase away evil spirits. Command storms. Even to transfigure in a marvelous way. And still they couldn’t believed what just have happened. Clearly it wasn’t a lack of miracle sight-viewing but an *understanding* of what was going on. They understood Jesus only as an earthly messiah, the “son of David” who would not only be a religious and moral leader but a military one. Only after they knew of the Resurrection and the Coming of the Holy Spirit they understood Him as The Messiah, the One promised to the World to redeem it from its sins that kept it away from God.
The “lack of belief” definition covers both strong and weak atheists. Thus, since it is most general, it’s the term that should be used if you’re gonna use a term without qualifications.
Wrong. Here’s from one of the definitions:
As you see, refusal or rejection of belief in unnecessary. Only absence is required.
That’s just stupid. Of course, if you showed convincing evidence, most atheists would believe! There is nothing in the definition that requires one to be stubborn. That’s just projecting your own feelings onto others.
Pingback: Will the real atheist please stand up? « The Thought Revolution
Thanks very much Cronolink for your comment.
You repharse the point very nicely. Thats what i was trying to say, the big difference and stuff… =)
Anw, You dont have a blog? Its a pity I guess. Would love to read your articles.
Simen-
Your forte is no doubt in dissecting and breaking arguements; very impressive. =)
However, I would just like to point out that how is it that you superimposed the definition of disbelief upon the definition of atheism? Aren’t we talking about the definition of the latter here?
Hahahaha, thanks, Zachary. Well, sorry, I don’t have a blog, 1. Because I loathe them (the general design of most of them, not the content, mind you =P) and 2. Because I lack time. But if it ever sunrises on me to have one, you’ll be the first to know about it (though I don’t think I’m that good at writing articles as you are).
Simen,
We are talking about those who claim that are atheists. When thus, such definition can’t be applied. To find people who actually lack a belief in god(s) or anything supernatural is quite improbable but not impossible. However I could bet you 50 bucks in easily finding a person who lacks belief in a platypus than one in a god.
Simen correctly points out that atheism is the absence of positive belief in God, while you, Zachary, incorrectly believe that atheism requires the active belief that God does not exist. You can insist on your definition all you like and argue against “atheism” as you define it, but you’ll be arguing against beliefs that most people who call themselves atheists don’t hold, which, if you ask me, is a waste of your time.
No intelligent atheist claims that the fact that they don’t experience God proves that there isn’t one. Again, you’re arguing against a position that very few people actually hold. In my experience, people who hold the strong atheist position (that a particular god positively doesn’t exist or that no gods exist) usually do so by claiming that whatever god they’re talking about is not internally consistent and can’t exist. This is different from claiming that God doesn’t exist because they haven’t detected God with their senses.
A weak atheist, on the other hand, will typically argue that while they can’t have certain knowledge that God doesn’t exist, it’s unreasonable to believe in any god. You can’t conclusively prove that unicorns and leprechauns don’t exist, but you might say it’s unreasonable to expect you to believe in them. Likewise the weak atheist with God. A weak atheist will have much more respect for arguments that belief in God is reasonable than arguments that are based on misrepresentations of their beliefs.
Hi Eric.
Thanks for your very humbling comment.
“You can insist on your definition all you like and argue against “atheism” as you define it, but you’ll be arguing against beliefs that most people who call themselves atheists don’t hold, which, if you ask me, is a waste of your time.”
Hm… your above comment left much food for thought then. The funny thing is over here on my blog, people dont argue about the existence of God through miracles, proofs and the like.. Most of it is spent dissecting the definition of an atheist, with each holding its own stand rather firmly. Well, not that I would be jumping the ship anytime soon, but like what you said… If im merely talking about beliefts the most people who call themselves atheist don’t hold, im either
1) wasting my time
2) addressing the wrong audience
3) addressing only the strong atheist
Thanks alot for showing me that. =) Btw, your unicorns and leprechauns example was rather thought provoking. I think I’m going to spend some more time mulling over that seeing if it can develop into anything.
Anyway, regarding the weak atheistism and the strong atheism. What atheism is and what it isnt, I think i might have found the link between them. The author of agnostic atheism under his “About” section may have found the word to it. Might weak atheism actually be agnostic atheism?
Weak atheism and agnostic atheism I think are the same. Learn how atheists describe themselves and how they came to that conclusion. It’s usually not simply because they haven’t detected God with their senses. You’ll be taken more seriously by atheists to whom you talk that way.
So much anger in the world in the name of atheism. If someone got angry at cartoons of Prophet, you could see their logical fallacy. Getting angry because someone who believes in god wrongly defines (presuming for argument’s sake that such a definition agrees) atheism – phew! Spare me. I can only laugh on the logic that these so called chest thumping atheists give. Eric, please don’t trace and kill me for saying that in the name of ‘atheist justice’ (who knows by now you may have defined that too).
P.S : I do not believe in god.
bookcrazy, I actually do believe God exists and am not an atheist. I am in fact a fideist. However, I do think that people should base their opinions on accurate information. For example, if someone goes around saying “Christians believe in eating babies and that’s why Christianity is wrong” I will not hesitate to correct them.
Well, I totally agree with your attitude of basing opinions on accurate information and would anyday stand for your right to correct misinformed opinion. But Eric, just because an opinion is not the same as yours, you must not presume it to be misinformed. My only problem with the attitude of some of the atheists is that they not only do that but also insult them as a group for their opinion. You cannot judge a man by opinions he keeps but by his reasons for it. That’s why I hate religion as an institution in general, but people I would choose and hate – not merely because they are a part of some group.
hi zach=)
rudolf here
Firstly, I would like to state that I take the stand of an agnostic.
Secondly, I would like to point out that your entry does not disprove atheism, although it does show that atheism is not a truth, but a possibility.
With regards to the 1st and 2nd paragraph, I would like to mention that the human mind is weak.
These videos are some extremely good examples that show how easily the human mind can be fooled. These are psychological tricks done by Derren Brown. I advise you to find out more about him if you are interested. Of course, I do not deny the possibility that some of these tricks could be hoaxes. This introduces the possibility that such experiences of God are probably just the result of an easily influenced mind.
Some Christians stress that God exists particularly because they have experienced Him and believe in His existence because of that. Like I have stated earlier, these experiences could be the result of a mind that is susceptible to influencing, etc. Therefore, there is a possibility that these experiences do not prove the existence of God as much as they can since they could be mere delusions.
It is very hard to to deduce whether God exists, simply by observing the way people live their lives, or what kind of experiences of God they re-tell. Christians preach that one should be ‘salt and light’ by living a decent life and worshipping God so that others may see that God has changed their lives, and lead others to believe; but there are so many other people with different religions that have had their lives changed greatly and who have lived descent lives after that.
There are also(as I mentioned previously) people who claim that God can only be experienced, and that this experience must be a spiritual one; but, I can simply ask,” What would you define as spiritual?”. Infact, how can we tell spiritual apart from emotional, or any other kind of experience?
I believe personally, that you can never know whether God exists or not. You can only choose to believe whether he does. The basis of belief can only be faith, and faith is that which exceeds the boundaries of logic as well as emotion.
A Christian that tries to support his faith by believing in God logically will ultimately fail, since it is alleged that God is a being that is beyond human understanding and logical explanations. Therefore, science as well as philosophy will ultimately fail to prove His existence.
A Christian that tries to support his faith by believing in God emotionally, will not last. As soon as he gets tired of church, gets jaded of the usual service, gets bored with the Bible and no longer feels the ‘Spirit of God’ in him, he will just stop believing.
There is simply no way to prove God’s existence; we can merely believe and hope that he exists.
“How can a human with finite intellect confidently presume information that might be beyond their logic?”, I found this very interesting(as well as the rest of the paragraph follwed after it). Firstly, I would like to point out that this is not the only question being asked. The other question is “How do we know that there is any other kind of information existing outside of our finite human logic.”
Let me eleaborate upon this:
“It is like a man who is colourblind declaring that the world consist on of the colours black, grey and white.” From this point that you have stated, we can see that the colourblind man does not see colours as non-colourblind people do. We can definitely say that he is obviously wrong(relative to the non-colourblind person) in his declaration that the world exists only in shades(black,grey, white) because there already exist people in the world who can verify the existence of colours (since they are not colourblind). It is purely up to a colourblind person to believe the non-colourblind that colours exist.
However, lets say that NOBODY in the world can see colours. Everyone is colourblind. Therefore, nobody will ever understand of such a concept of colours, and the only thing that can be said is that the world is seen in shades. No one will even be able to fathom such a thing as colours. This shows that colours cannot be imagined by such people because none of them experienced it, and likewise, a God cannot be imagined by us because none of us have experienced him.
Whatever we define as God right now, is clearly a paradox because:
1)We state that God is beyond human logic and understanding.
2)If God is beyond human logic and understanding, we wouldn’t even be able imagine Him in the first place. (Colours are beyond a colour-blind person’s perception, therefore, he wouldn’t even be able to imagine or define colours in the first place)
And there we can clearly see a self-contradiction.
Hi Ruldolf.
Thanks for your very long and interesting article. I just had to point out some slight flaws that may sabotage your arguement unconsciously.
Number One:
God is fundamentally beyond human logic, but he is not totally beyond it. Just like how a mathematics teacher is superior to us in knowledge, and yet choose to explain to us in simpler terms, just like how they did when they taught us in primary school; God is so much more complex then we can understand, but yet he reveal himself to us in a simplified form, namely Jesus. One that is bonded by the physical laws so that we limited beings can experience Him.
A teacher that teaches primary school mathematics in simplified terms does not indicate the lack of higher education, but instead shows the very thing you thought is being disproven, the evidence of higher education. There is clearly no contradiction here.
Number Two:
Yes, the arguement of colourblindness will not hold water if we are all colourblind from the start.. But presently, there are people who insist there are colours; people who insisted they have experienced God, and seen God. And this is not a fragment of their imagination. Countless number of them went to grave with that conviction. Unless u believe that these martyrs all hopelessily deluded till their death, or perhaps what they insisted is true – they saw the colours. Then again, what you are suggesting is that the United States is not a country, but an asylum, since they are a christian country.
Thank you for the quick response.
I see that you have corrected my ‘definition of God’ in your first point, by changing it from ‘beyong all human logic’ to ‘mostly beyond human logic’.
Yes, I can see your point here, that our minds can only comprehend a small portion of God, which has become who we know as “Jesus”. However, this will lead us to another question – How do we know that the Bible speaks of the truth?
How can we tell that the Scripture is truly a God-inspired piece of work?
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
There are more scriptures out there than simply those within the Bible. The Bible was canonzied and separated from the rest of these books by ‘Holy Men of God’ who were seen as holy enough to distinguish ‘true’ scripture from ‘false’. But this doesn’t tell us how true the Bible is. Infact, many other variations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam include or omit other books in their ‘Holy Scriptures’. Catholics include the book of Canon in theirs, Mormons include the Book of Mormon, Gnostics have the Gospel of Judas, and many various sects have different books. Relative to them, their books are the “True Word”. How then, can we verify that Jesus was really Son of God?
As for your Second point, I will not deny that there are indeed quite a number of people who have claimed to have experienced God, and that they may or may not have been delusioned. However, we cannot verify that they TRULY have experienced God just because they carried their ‘faith’ all the way till death.
We must keep in mind that there are also many other people with beliefs and experiences which are not of God, that have also carried their faith til death. In Islam, suicide bombers die and take lives with them in the name of Alah.
Even some bhuddists have held their faith with them all the way to the deathbed. And to speak of examples that are closer to home, many heartlanders carry their belief in the Old Chinese Gods all the way to their funerals. Do all these examples show that there is an Alah, Bhudda, or Jade Emperor? Likewise, it applies the same way when we talk about how millions of American citizens carry their faith all the way till death.
And, then again, maybe they could have experienced something. But we can never know if they did experience God, Alah, Bhudda, or any other divine thing. It’s a matter of choice to believe.
“Then again, what you are suggesting is that the United States is not a country, but an asylum, since they are a christian country.” – Let’s just put it in a less crude manner. The belief in a Superior Being that is responsible for everything that occurs in the Universe(who is said to love and protect and forgive) provides a lot of emotional support to people. People are comforted by such a belief, because nobody wants to feel helpless in a crazy and messed up world like our own.
I see you reply equally quickly fast as well. =)
As for the lost books, to quote from Carm’s http://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htm
The “lost books” were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren’t lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.
Canoziation of book were inevitable. If not, I could claim that this blog is the word of God as well! We need to separate the diamonds from the dirt.
Yes, what you mention is true. There is no empirical method of proving Jesus, especially not through the experiences of others, since like what I said “His bite of the Apple does not make your tongue tingle with sweetness.” Hence this is where faith comes in. God can never be proven completely, but he left enough hints for us to be able to make that leap of faith.
I wasn’t defending Jesus, I was defending the placing of my faith in Him
By the way, most of your questions about if Jesus was the Son of God and Bible books can be answered in Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ”. That is of course only if you first choose to read it. He, Ravi Zacharias and Josh McDowell have significant amount of books for us to tap on. We need to have considerable amount of knowledge of a subject before coming to a conclusion, if not the conclusion will flawed or incomplete; a conclusion that is filled with countless “what ifs”.
Then I believe we have come to the point where this discussion ends.
I believe that, in the end, it is really up to the person to choose whether or not to believe.
IMO, Atheism and Theism always meet at a 50% mark, effectively tieing.
Pingback: Why I am not a linguistics major, or, Framing atheism « ISQA Report
People here appear to not be familiar with Occum’s Razor. With his glorious tool I do cut out superfluities.
What nonsense. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Most atheists don’t care enough about gods and religions to take the delarative position you label them with. And that’s a mark of a flawed mode of thinking right there: presuming to define what others are by guidelines you impose, rather than by what they actually think, say, or do.
And your reason for belief in a god is that humans haven’t scoured every cubic inch of existence to disprove the existence of some such being? That’s the best you can do? I guess you don’t really understand what “burden of proof” means. By your logic, then unicorns, fairies, and leprachauns are as likely to exist as your god. After all, they seem to share precisely the same attributes, and have similar lists of accomplishment. Way to paint yourself into a corner.
And the false analogies. Where do I start? Comparing undiscovered gods to undiscovered species? That’s the best you can come up with? Here’s a newsflash: species of animals actually exist. Assuming there are not-yet-classified species of beatles or bacteria is understandable given what we know about beatles and bacteria. But the opposite is true about gods. We have heard about hundreds – thousands – of gods, and the only thing they share is that none has turned out to be anything more than an exercise in human imagination. Nice failed analogy which actually refutes the point you are trying to make.
Anyway, enough said.