Time to Redefine Atheism vs Theism Debates

Modern-day atheism has found a way to escape accountability of their claims by a contrived method. The way they do it is to claim that instead of atheists they are agnostic. The word agnostic was coined by the ever famous Thomas Huxley also known as Darwin’s bulldog. What it basically means is ‘I am not sure if God exists, I just don’t know’. Thus the debate with atheists of today takes a very weird turn always because on one hand its someone who claims to know God exists (theist) and someone who doesn’t know God exists (agnostic).

The problem with this setting for the theist is if there is a discussion between the two groups one knowing something and other not the format wouldn’t usually be a debate rather it would be an education session. One way to argue against that is to say I don’t have to know everything nor want to know everything, eg one can (and has) said that I really am not interested to know what your birthday is, in the same vein I really don’t care to know if God exists I am happy about my ignorance. However clearly the side that doesn’t know isn’t really ambivalent about how much the question of God’s existence interests them, they are quite eager to jump on it so it can’t be dismissal on their side. The zeal at which they attempt to be in this conversation is sky-high. Thus the issue is rather not that they don’t know nor that they don’t care but something else.

I believe the problem lies elsewhere. The problem lies in the fact that the agnostics of today are crypto atheists but assert their agnosticism in hope that it would land them in a position where they don’t have to defend their position at all. As such the current day atheists claim not just to be an agnostic ‘I don’t know’ but they go one step further ‘no, one cant know’. Now you have a debate, one side claims they know God exists, the other side claims you cant know that God exists.

The problem theists fall into (at least according to me) is to debate ‘Does God Exist’ because that is a debate that isn’t on the crux of the issue. For even if anyone gives a conclusive evidence from his side the atheists can easily claim that is not enough! The debate that ought to happen is how do we know something exist and what does it mean to know something and if their understanding/belief is reasonable/sensible or not. This is the fundamental concern of a topic in philosophy called Epistemology. Epistemology deals with the theories of knowledge, what does it mean to know, how do we know what we know, what is true belief etc. The modern-day atheists whether by design or by coincidence repacked their outlook in such a way to create a faux conflict that we theists try to address, while the core conflict lies elsewhere.

Given in recent time theists and atheists have really gotten tired of the age-old debate that goes nowhere and is beginning to entertain more subtle topics in platform, maybe it is a good time to actually tackle the elephant in the room or if it where Wittgenstein speaking the rhinoceros in the room

4 thoughts on “Time to Redefine Atheism vs Theism Debates

Add yours

  1. You’re not using the plural, “gods”. I don’t believes gods exist, as an atheist, I don’t just consider the existence of one god, but all gods. Nothing agnostic about my beliefs.

    1. Then the post isnt meant for you. I m talking about fairly a large porition of atheists camps who claim they are agnostic. I did generalize a lot but its mostly a documentation of what i see in most of the atheist v theist professional debates.
      Though the central point of the writeup is still valid. The debate is more meta in the sense the debate with you should be how do we know something exist is it sensible or not and then see if God(or any God) fits into that. In that way we can know for sure if anyones faith is a delusion or if it is justified.

      Thanks for commenting, I thought no one reads blogs these days

      1. I don’t think any serious atheist would define themselves as agnostic. I was agnostic for a while, whilst I was going through a lot of questioning during my teenage years (I was indocrinated at birth to be a Christian, who took the Bible as literal truth). In my teenage years, as I met more and more diverse range of people, I started to question my religious beliefs, and the existance of god. It was around my late teens when I would be defined as an atheist.

      2. Actually i think most formal debate between atheist and theist (almost any number of Craig vs atheist) falls into atheists using agnostic response.
        With regards to your past i think thats fairly usual for most people in their middle age today parents were religious/had a religion children during teen flipped.
        I had my moments during my O lvls (quite some time ago) and then flipped back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: