If you were accused of not being an atheist, could you prove them wrong?

If your answer is: Yes, please elaborate.

 

Yes.

 

The monotheisms that dominate at this point in history would probably all view followers of other religions as atheists for not worshiping or believing in, the god of their own sect.

Most of the devout organized religious are atheist as they choose to not worship the Sun god Rah or give thanks to Zeus for life, so if the simple claim of disbelief is not enough "proof" for the inquisitor it may come down to a matter of definition.

 

Please elaborate.

 

Is your answer Yes or No thanks; it's not a trick question.

 

Yes, all you would have to say is "I don't believe in any God's".

 

LOL! i believe it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative.

 

im not sure i understand the question. like you say "i'm an atheist" and the other person just says "i dont believe you"? haha
u dont need to prove anything, just call him/her a freak and walk away

 

What is there to prove?

Logic dictates that they don't know what I believe. If they don't have logic, how can anything be proven to them?

 

So if you were accused of being a theist, could your support your belief or rather lack of belief in a diety is what your really asking, correct?
The answer is No. There is no possible Yes answer.
The adjective of "theist" or "atheist" refers to a persons beliefs and as such does not lend itself to being proven either way.
A person may be able to make a case outlining what has brought them to their beliefs, but proof is not a viable or reasonable conclusion that can be made for either position.

You really need to come up with some better skills regarding logic and language.

 

A belief has to function a certain way to be considered the same belief though.

There are distinctions in the word cat and dog because they mean different things, just like there are a distinction between the word Atheist and Theist.

If someone doubts your belief, they are doubting your understanding of a concept.

I bet if you didn't know calculus and you took a test that you wouldn't do very well.

Belief is about understanding and understanding can be easily proven.

 

I could prove them wrong by not proving anything.

I can be a smart ass too!

 

Well, it depends who I am talking to but generally speaking if you talk to me at lengh about religion you'll see I am atheist of some discription...
I would imagine it would be a lot harder to define the type of atheist I am.
I'm not sure myself.

 

Your over thinking it and attributing meaning to the word that does not apply relative to the question.
If I say I believe in God, can you "PROVE" that God does not exist?
You can no more prove God doesn't exist anymore than I can prove God does exist.

be·lief   /bɪˈlif/
[bih-leef]

–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
3. confidence; faith; trust.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

 

Well you had asked for elaboration and like I originally stated, it would come to definition.

And yes, it does sound like a trick question.

 

I do not have to "PROVE" god doesn't exist to explain why you shouldn't believe in it.

But to be an advocate of what atheism means, I DO have to understand the belief.

The only reason I'm not a Christian or Islamic is because the beliefs DO NOT MAKE SENSE.

Its all about understanding. And understanding is something we can prove.

 

An understanding is something you have and we may come to an understanding, but you cannot prove understanding in the absence of being understood.

There is belief as a symbol chosen to represent an unknown or unseen variable, It must be believed because there are no objective constituents for belief in reality. This kind of belief is dogmatic and does not allow for heterodox thinking.

There is another kind of belief, faith, which can be simply a willingness to suspend judgment to allow something to emerge.

 

That is it in a nutshell with you.
You are so opposed to the beliefs of these two religions that you are blind to the failings of your own logic and transform everything into a "battle" between you and "them".

There are other theistic religions in the world, are you in opposition to them as well, or just the ones that have a basis in the Bible?

 

thdope:

Though where else, but in its absence, would one ever need to prove understanding? If we are to be above semantics, we must be above semantics!

Aren't the constituents infinite, objectively speaking?

Ilike how you put this.

Though what about the belief that we engage our judgement for the very same reason?

 

PB

I think you misunderstand Heehs position.

As atheists, we find ourselves in opposition to ALL religious feeling. Our laughter wants something else! We are so far from wanting to prevent belief! lol