Animals presumably lack God-belief. Are they atheists?
To so define atheism as the mere lack of God-belief is absurd.
Would it then therefore, be more reasonable to presume that “agnostic” would be more accurate? Or perhaps, would anti-theist be more accurate?
There are things outside ourselves which we do not know, and cannot now know, and perhaps may never know. Yet, at some time in the future, some things now not known may be known, an example of which is the existence of the atomic particles.
From such an one’s perspective (as from those whom so describe themselves as “atheist”), the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven, nor denied.
Science, for example, has failed to prove that God does NOT exist. And while there are individual claimants whom so assert, no scientific body of evidence has arisen to assert – or dissuade through proof – otherwise.
Atheism can be and is defined as “the doctrine or belief that there is no God,” which also claims “a lack of belief in the existence of God.” And it so narrowly defined, that though it is variously worded, the bottom line is that there is a belief.
Belief, however, is accurately defined and understood as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, and perhaps secondarily, as trust, faith or confidence in something or someone.
Atheism is defined as the belief that God does not exist; then is it not inherently antithetical to assert that God does NOT exist?
There is no proof that God does NOT exist.
According to select individuals (not necessarily active upon this forum) whom self-identify as “atheist,” and organizational dogma (principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true) a “belief” is what they possess, yet simultaneously argue against their possession of a belief, or existence of the same.
The American Atheist website says that “…atheists certainly do not “deny” that gods exist. Denial is the “refusal to believe.” ” However, they further conclude that “There is no proof or evidence for the existince (sic) of gods.”
Yet the site also states that “We are atheists because in our view…” Other suitable words for “view” are “perspective” and “opinion.” And an “opinion” is synonymous with “belief.” Thus, their site could also accurately state, “We are atheists because we believe…” How inherently contradictory!
Such a remark is antithetical to that which is previously espoused, that “The common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief…”
Yet setting all that aside, even Richard Dawkins remains open-minded about the claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis writing in his 2006 tome “The God Delusion,” that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.”
There is logical conclusion to which those such as Dawkins arrive, whom assert in The Great Ape Project that chimpanzees, gorillas or baboons have moral rights, or warn of allegedly dire consequences of the “overpopulation” of Earth. Truly, they must be Enemies of Reason. For if apes have the same rights as you… then they are your peers.
Go ask the residents or visitors to Kyoto’s district of Arashiyama, with Japan’s “Monkey Mountain” if they think those viciously dangerous apes ought to have the same rights as humans.
Yeah… don’t keep that chimp in jail! Imprisoning him just because he flung a turd at you because you wouldn’t give him your banana and peanuts!? So he stole your purse, and infected you with SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) when he scratched open your face with his claws… so what?! Why, he has the same rights as you!
Who would be the judge? What law school would they attend?
Planet of the Apes, anyone? “Get your stinkin’ paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”
Now… what’s that about being a “monkey’s uncle”?