Hi! Just thought I’d briefly introduce my “apologetic”.
I don’t typically argue for God’s existence when I talk to atheists. I mainly critique their beliefs.
I do this because I often find that atheists don’t adhere to the own goalposts they set.
Blind faith is anathema to the average atheist, and yet I find that most internet atheists are guilty of just that. I’ve put my thoughts on the matter into a simple argument:
soft agnostic – One who makes no claims as to God’s existence. Most atheists on the internet adhere to this position and call it atheism.
atheism – The theory or belief that God doesn’t exist, i.e. the accepted philosophical position of atheism that is a knowledge claim.
1) If soft agnostics feel that atheism is probably true while lacking evidence for this position, then they have blind faith in atheism.
Support: Soft agnostics don’t claim to know that atheism is probably true, and so can’t justifiably conclude that it is.
2) Many soft agnostics feel that atheism is at least probably true and yet concede they have no evidence for this position.
Support: Most any internet non-theist feels that atheism is more likely than not, at least, they’re very rarely 50/50 on God’s existence.
3) Therefore, many soft agnostics have blind faith in atheism being (at least probably) true.
Usually when I present this argument to atheists online, they try to dismiss the argument because I don’t use their accepted terms. You’re probably not going to want to do that – it’s a terrible objection. I’m mainly using these terms because they denote separate positions.
The point of this post is to illustrate how the new definition of atheism is merely wordplay. One doesn’t see these kinds of games in academic philosophy – atheist philosophers argue *against* theism being true. A simple glance at the IEP page on atheism would convince any open-minded person of this fact.
And really, if a theist wanted to play the same games that atheists did, they could – they could just call themselves a-materialists, those who lack a belief in naturalism being true. At that point, the theist could just sit back and wait for atheists to provide evidence.