Without God

Some things come around again and again, and this is one of those things. It requires discussion because it seems to have become the substance of an attempted paradigm shift within the Atheist community. Paradigm shifts occur for a reason, and that will be discussed later. First we will discuss the new paradigm itself.

Despite claiming that “there is no God”, it now is declared that that statement is not a denial. Instead of a denial, it is a declaration that the Atheist is “without God”. How does this work?

How does a person come to be “without God”? And that without a denial? The first thought might be that the person had never heard of such a thing as a deity, a First Cause, a God. That would definitely leave the person without God, unless the person had a personal experience of the deity. Presuming it not the case that the person has had a personal experience of the deity, then that person would be “without God”. But that is not the Atheist condition.

Now if a person has heard of the possibility of such a thing as a deity, First Cause, or God, then how can the person claim to be “without God”, unless the possibility has been first rejected? In fact, the statement is a surreptitious truncation of this statement: "I reject God; therefore I am without God". Nonetheless, let's pursue the truncated claim.

If the possibility of a deity is not rejected, but is rather accepted, then the person cannot be an Atheist.

If the possibility of a deity is placed on hold pending the receipt of further evidence, then the person has assumed a stance traditionally known as “agnosticism”.

What other choices are available beyond a) reject; b) accept; c) place the decision on hold? Perhaps: continue in ignorance, having forgotten the whole thing? Atheists have not forgotten the whole thing.

Atheists have, during the enlightenment centuries and up until recently, directly and positively rejected the existence of deity without trying to conceal that in any form of word play. The exceptions are in places and times of persecution, which did exist: Hume rejected the deity but claimed to be a “sceptic”, in order to get a job professoring at the university – he was rejected because his claim was false.(Note 1) But now the Atheists are not persecuted, yet they insist on disguising their true belief behind word-play.

Atheists do not place the decision regarding the existence of deity on hold. Their claim of "without God" is made on the basis of having rejected God.(Note 2) So taking that position is a move taken to camouflage their actual rejection, and to protect themselves against an uncomfortable truth: Atheism cannot be proved using Atheist criteria for proof.

The paradigm is being consciously shifted because Atheism is vulnerable. It makes demands of others that it cannot satisfy itself. It resolves to a position of unproven and unprovable Faith, a religion in the same sense that Atheists define religion. That is the reason for the paradigm shift amongst Atheists during the past decade: they cannot admit to having denied [Q], because they cannot prove their claim of non-existence of [Q]. So they change their stance, rather than change their position. Rather than admit that they believe in a faith-statement, they deny their belief, and conceal it with a new statement claiming that they have not denied [Q]. This, they think, protects them from having to prove their position.

If they do not deny [Q], and they don’t believe [Q], then they are by traditional definition, agnostic on the subject of [Q]. (Or ignorant of the subject of [Q] altogether). And while claiming faux-atheism in the form of agnosticism outwardly, they think that they are not obliged to prove their position any longer.

It is agnostic-envy. And outright theft of the agnostic position.

To claim to believe in, say, [Z] while not really believing in [Z] is dishonest. There is no other way to say that, that I can see: it is dishonest. And at that point it becomes legitimate to ask, “why one would continue a discussion under those conditions, when the other side of the conversation is dishonest?” What rational conclusion can come from such a discussion, other than it is not ever profitable?

It is a clear indication of the religious, dogmatic character of Atheism: claiming to be logical and fact-oriented on the one hand, and blatantly dishonest on the other when it comes to providing “real” and “material” facts for supporting its own belief system - yet requiring just exactly that of competing belief systems. The conclusion, (no God), is more important than actual logic or actual facts to support it. The conclusion, (no God), is a purely religious tenet.

Atheists back-slap each other (virtually) on the cleverness of their ruse. But it is so totally transparent to outsiders that it diminishes the credibility of Atheism drastically. Maybe they have come to believe their own deception. That again says something about the rationality of Atheism.

Notes:
1) Hume considered himself discriminated against due to his Atheism; possibly. But it is also possible that he was not hired because he was a liar.

2) For a short time it was common to hear Atheists claim that they have "no god theory". That was transparent, even to Atheists. So now they have a new claim.