Philosophical Underpinnings for Rejecting God

[Jenny A]

---

Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is a single position on a single issue:  the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all.  

It is not a general rejection of an afterlife, or any other supernatural idea although many atheists not believe in the supernatural generally.  Angels and Satan on the other hand are gods (supernaturally powerful beings) and lack of belief in them is required.

Many atheists including myself reach this position through skepticism, but it might be reached by any number of means including simply never have been indoctrinated in a religion.  No stance on naturalism, empiricism, or materialism is required.  Again, atheism is not a philosophy, it is a position on a single issue, the existence of god.

Nor is it necessary in order to be an atheist to believe that all or indeed any gods have been disproved. It is quite common to lack a belief in something's existence because that thing has not been proved and not because it's existence has been disproved.  Right now I lack a belief that there is a million dollars in my crawlspace, but I haven't proven it isn't there.  In fact is not really possible to prove the lack of existence of anything.

Nor yet is it a belief in a god coupled with a decision to reject that god.  Even if you are opposed to the only god you believe in, belief in a god would preclude you from being an atheist.  It's definitional.

---

I really like your post a lot, very, very much, except for this:

"In fact is not really possible to prove the lack of existence of anything."

Right now, I have proof that there are no elephants existing in my dining room.  If there were any elephants in my dining room, they would be seen by me (and smelled, etc.).  So I know that there are no elephants existing in my dining room.

You, of course, do not have the proof, as you are not here to see for yourself.  But very likely, you have proof that there are no elephants existing in the room you are in (if you are in a room).

So it is possible to prove that something does not exist.


Also, there are descriptions that are self-contradictory, and one can know that they do not exist.  For example, I know that there are no married bachelors.  Married bachelors do not exist.  This is because to be a bachelor, one must not be married.

So we have another kind of possible proof that something does not exist.

I should have been more clear. It is possible to prove something isn't in a particular place if the place is small enough to search entirely. I could show that there isn't a million dollars in my crawlspace though it would take considerably more time and effort than it would take you to prove there are no elephants in your dining room. But it is not really possible to prove that something isn't anywhere. Somethings are of course more likely not to exist than others. I can argue that if there were a big foot, we'd have found some bones or captured one by now. But showing that there is no such creature on earth is not really feasible, and showing it exists no where in the universe is impossible. All we can say is that there is no evidence for it.

Proving something self-contradictory doesn't exist like married bachelors or four sided triangles isn't really what I meant either. That is simple a game of definitions. What you are saying is I've defined bachelors and anything outside the definition isn't one.