Atheism congruent to Theism?

An atheist and a theist have this in common: absolute certainty. An atheist would state with absolute certainty that there is no God. A belief in God requires this same certainty. Both use reason and logic to meet their ends, to an extent, as you can only go so far in using human comprehension/knowledge to deal with the concept of absoluteness/infiniteness. Both may cite documents to back their claims - whether from an ancient philosopher or “divinely inspired” peoples. Both choose, in the end, to accept one absolute or the other.

Can someone come up with more consistencies? Is there more in common between Atheism and Theism than we’d like to admit?

What say you?

As a theist, I can say that I don’t have absolute certainty. I have faith that what Jesus taught was true. He backed up his teaching with actions even to the point of raising form the dead.

Through logic we can conclude reasonably that there is a God. We can also conclude logically that there is no God.

There are many tings that I have in common with Atheists and that I admire them for.

  1. They have put some thought in to the most important questions of our existence. They were not apathetic.

  2. They frequently are searching for the truth.

  3. They frequently decide to follow good moral lives despite their lack of faith in God because they have come to the conclusion that it is best for them and for society.

As a strong Atheist I can tell you I don’t have absolute certainty. It would be impossible to be absolutly certain god does not exist because god is unprovable, just like the invisible pink unicorn or the tiny orbiting teapot. All common sense says there are no orbiting teapots or invisible pink unicorns but can you be 100% without a doubt certain they don’t exist? Not really.

Are you familiar with Dawkin’s 7 point scale? I’ll post it in case you’re not.
"1. Strong Thiest. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’

  1. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto thiest. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.

  2. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in god.’

  3. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existance and non-existance are exactly equiprobable.’

  4. Lower than 50% but ot very low. Technically agnostic. ‘God’s existance and non-existance are exactly equiprobable.’

  5. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto athiest. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbably, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’

  6. Strong athiest. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’"

I consider myself level 6 in theory but level 7 in practice. Most Atheists I know fall into pretty much the same place as I do.

[quote="[LEFT]nichjake[/LEFT], post:3, topic:82783"]
As a strong Atheist I can tell you I don’t have absolute certainty. It would be impossible to be [LEFT]absolutly[/LEFT] certain god does not exist because god is unprovable, just like the invisible pink unicorn or the tiny orbiting teapot. All common sense says there are no orbiting teapots or invisible pink unicorns but can you be 100% without a doubt certain they don’t exist? Not really.

[/quote]

Suppose a naturalist comes to you and says that he has mathematically proven from genetic sampling of existing species, that a pink unicorn has existed at one time in the past. Would you then believe in pink unicorns?

On the ‘Dawkins scale’ mentioned by Nichjake I am a '‘7. Strong Atheist’ with a dash of ‘hard determinism’ thrown in.

I am absolutely sure there is no god.

With all respect, I take issue with a couple of An Agnostics ‘congruencies’ -

** 1. Both use reason and logic to meet their ends**
Theistic belief is based on faith - not logic.

2. Both may cite documents to back their claims - whether from an ancient philosopher or “divinely inspired” peoples.
Not believing in the supernatural does not require citing documentation or an ancient philosopher.

You are incorrect. Faith is not the opposite of logic - they go hand-in-hand for those of us who believe. Besides, as an absolute atheist, you have an irrational faith in rationality. :slight_smile:

I’m guessing you are a naturalist. You do know that naturalism can’t be proved, don’t you? Are you a materialist? If so, I think you should look into Near Death studies. There are a lot of them, and they are compelling evidence of the supernatural.

:wink: I’m sure you’re ready and waiting Maranatha but - I’ll bite. Assuming your naturalist had the appropriate training and expertise to develop his/her mathematical proof I would then have an open mind on the possibility of pink unicorns. I would then expect other qualified people to examine the claim. The move from possibility to probability would depend on the range and depth of other investigations and their findings.:slight_smile:

There are some on this forum that would disagree with your assessment on logic. Indeed, there are believers that use logic (to an extent) as a means of supporting their faith. In fact, there was a thread about this - feel free to look it up.

You’re right, not believing doesn’t require citing documentation or an ancient philosopher - but neither does belief. You may believe the moon is made of cheese even if you had no evidence to support the claim.

Hell, I could believe we’re in the Matrix right now.

You’re absolutely certain there is no God, which is no different than one who is certain there is.

And, it would be impossible to prove that we are not in the Matrix. A chick in its egg can know nothing outside of the egg.

Very true. This is also how I find it difficult to go either way, hence I’m an Agnostic.

No big sup rise here. If other naturalists review his work and agree on the conclusions but don’t have the time or funding to reproduce the work then your open minded position is based on his word. To put in another way, you have faith in the naturalist. Either he is lying, a lunatic or an excellent laboratorist.

I will pray for you. I used to take the same approach, but after more study and contemplation, I came to a different conclusion.

If they’re invisible, would they still be pink?:confused:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.