What do you want to Ask an Atheist? Submit your questions online or fill out the form below.
By Jim Downard
Just my observation: Atheism — defined as non-belief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism — seems formed in relation to, or in connection with, the existence of religious belief. Atheism needs the binary of religion or spirituality in order to exist.
Atheism may seem, at first glance, to suggest the doubt of the existence of a deity. However, it does not offer adequate proofs that a deity does or does not exist — a position that appears unprovable. Those who believe need no greater proofs than the ones they have, and for those who do not believe, no proofs are adequate to overturn their certainty.
Thus, atheism offers no proofs one way or the other, but rather remains in conversation (albeit antagonistically) with a culture of belief. In the end it seems that atheism is merely the belief against the *belief* in a deity. It is a reaction to, not a well-defined philosophical stance about the nature and existence of a godless universe, which seems another conversation altogether.
Moreover, like many who follow a ritual of religion without knowing its fundamental underpinnings, many atheists base their views on personal biases, traditions of non-belief, and a contempt for or a sense of superiority toward those who live outside their personal world view. Neither side has solid proof of their position and both seem to be opposite sides of the same conversation.
My questions: How does the conversation of belief/non-belief ultimately address an ethical (socially just) society? This seems much more useful to us all. How does the moral society operate?
Atheism, as I have noted before, may be seen either as a sectarian disbelief in a particular god or the broader current view of disbelief in all gods universally. Logically, it is up to believers in god(s) to make a positive case for belief in their god(s) to the exclusion of all others. That typically is a tough hurdle, which is why so many defenders of particular god(s) prefer to restrict their argument to their faith vs none at all atheism, rather than a far slipperier comparative religion defense. It’s not the imperative of the anti-unicornist to prove the nonexistence of the unicorn (a negative), rather it is up to the unicornist to actively try to show proof that unicorns exist at all (a positive). Same goes for god(s).
