Belief & Disbelief & Burden of Proof. Oh My!

In this post I dive deeper into my thoughts about belief and disbelief. See how my conclusions reveal the atheist.org definition of Atheism to be self-contradicting nonsense.


If I were to propose to you that the sky looks blue, you could believe me, in which case your belief could be phrased in at least two ways.

1. I believe the proposition.
2. I do not disbelieve the proposition.

Saying I believe the proposition means you lack all disbelief.
Saying I do not disbelieve the proposition also means you lack all disbelief.

In either case, you are expressing the same belief. First by positively affirming your belief that the statement “the sky looks blue” is true and second by ruling out the possibility that you believe the statement to be false.


Disagreement could also be phrased in at least two ways.

1. I disbelieve the proposition.
2. I do not believe the proposition.

Saying I disbelieve the proposition means you lack all belief.
Saying I do not believe the proposition also means you lack all belief.

Again, either phrasing expresses the same belief. Two phrases; one meaning.

So we see that belief is a lack of all disbelief and disbelief is a lack of all belief in regards to a single proposition. We can say that belief and disbelief are opposite in meaning.


Every proposition that can be made is two propositions: it and it’s opposite.

The sky looks blue. The sky does not look blue.

Because the two propositions are opposite in meaning it is not logical to believe in both or to believe and disbelieve each. That would be an obvious contradiction. So it must be the case that believing the first requires disbelief in the second and believing the second requires disbelief in the first. Additionally, to disbelieve the first requires belief in the second and to disbelieve the second required belief in the first.

For this reason, it is not logical to reply to the proposition “the sky looks blue” by saying:

I disbelieve both that the sky looks blue and that the sky does not look blue.

because to do so is no different than saying:

I believe that the sky looks blue and that the the sky does not look blue.

The contradiction is quite obvious.


Now lets briefly consider the modern definition of Atheism according to Atheist.org (American Atheists)

They define Atheism as: not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Recall the conclusion above regarding disbelief.

Disbelief is a lack of belief.

So essentially the definition of Atheism can be equated to this:

Atheism is not a lack of belief (disbelief) in gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

That is simply nonsense.

What if we drop of the first part and define Atheism as a lack of belief in God.

The proposition here is God exists.

The atheists is replying by saying:

I lack belief that God exists.

We know that to lack belief that God exists requires belief in the proposition that God does not exist.

So we can phrase the definition of Atheism in two ways.

1. Atheism is a lack of belief in the proposition that God exists (as they put it)

2. Atheism is a belief in the proposition that God does not exist. (rephrased but same meaning)

Either way we’ve remained logically consistent.

Let’s compare our definition again to the one that atheist.org presents.

Atheist.org: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Remember I used the second part of their definition to derive my definition which states:

Atheism is a belief in the proposition that God does not exist.

So, so far as I can tell, Atheist.org’s definition is self contradicting. It amounts to nonsense through and through.

There is not escaping the postulation of a belief by asserting a lack of belief. Anyway you cut it, the atheist belief is clear. Atheism is a belief in the proposition that God does not exist. As such the burden of proof is as much a part of atheistic belief as it is deistic beliefs. You say God does not exist. I say…Prove it.

The Homosexual’s Delusion of Freedom

Human beings who choose to engage in homosexual acts cheer today as they are finally FREE to reap the 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.

Long denied by the all mighty human beings who together we refer to as Government, the homosexual is no longer oppressed and treated unfairly by the all mighty, all knowing ruling elite. Free at last!

Yes the same force who once assumed the moral authority to define marriage and bestow favor on the few for compliance with it’s edict, now retreat from the posture of aggression and rescind their threat of aggression for any and all who dare disobey by claiming the right to file joint income tax returns or visit a sick loved one in the hospital.

While homosexuals were pandering to their masters for equal treatment (which they deserve) I have been asserting the notion that these people in government have no special power, no Rights above and beyond that of any man, to decide what marriage is and who can and cannot participate in it.

I say, as a married person, I don’t want your special treatment. I don’t want your so-called perks. You Mr. Senator; You Mr. President; You Mr. Judge do not have a single iota of moral authority to define marriage for me and hand out favors which flow from the endless theft of the productive portion of society under the supposed right to tax. You are not deity. I don’t worship you’re religion of Government.

These people who cheer today believe equality, freedom and rights flow down from government. I understand government to be force. I’ve encouraged both the Christian and Atheist, the Homosexual and Straight, men and women of all backgrounds and religions to take back what is Rightfully ours and stop running to a pretend authority called Government to grant them a wish.

As long as we look to the human beings who rule us for approval, they assume the power to answer by way of laws. Every man-made law is a threat. A threat that if you do not comply will bring you face to face with the barrel of a gun.

Homosexuals, you think you’re free to marry now. What you don’t realize. What no one seems to realize is that you’ve always been free to live and be and declare whatever you want outside of the shackles which accompany the delusion of supreme authority in government.

Christians who honor these men and women of government as deity, don’t cry to me. You sacrificed your Right to be free to live according to you’re definition of marriage when you applauded DOMA. Couldn’t you see that you gave the authority to define marriage away to mere men. For what? To soak up the tax breaks. To enjoy financial benefits? The pendulum of Government’s force has shifted away from you and now that power you once admired is a knife to your throat.

It’s time to stand for Liberty and turn the other cheek rather than co-opting the force of men in government to force others to comply to you own moral code. Only when individual Liberty is maximized and Government control is minimized or abolished can you enjoy the Freedom bestowed on you by God.

All those out there who think they’re more free today than before because SCOTUS ruled that you too should be eligible for the grace of the master’s in DC. Enjoy it now. It is always short lived. So long as you worship the God of Government and give away your Natural Rights to other HUMAN BEINGS, you will, I promise you, be the target of government force at some point again in the future because rather than choose to take back the authority to get married your way, you  sacrificed it for government’s perks.

Does knowing nothing make you Right?

No matter what you’ve heard, atheism is a belief; a belief that God does not exist.

Atheist – Etymology: 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos “without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly,” from a- “without” + theos “a god”

Of course the problem with beliefs is that they make assertions and assertions can be questioned. Then you have to explain, and provide evidence, and logic… What a hassle, right? Agnosticism, on the other hand is the lack of belief so it’s nearly impossible to debate against because the other side has nothing to defend, nothing to say, and nothing to prove.

Note: this is not to say that Agnosticism is a superior logical position. It is not. It is untenable and utterly useless as a world view. That’s another topic all-together.

At some point atheists started using the agnostic position of doubting the existence of God to further their own agenda – to get more people self identifying with Atheism. People know that Atheism is a disbelief in God. If the atheists can project the impression of winning the argument, people will call themselves atheists and deny God’s existence in droves.

Under the cover of agnosticism they can say that they don’t believe in God without actually saying it. They say they lack belief that God exists but they don’t deny God exists. Clever, Huh? It sounds like they don’t believe that God exists. Maybe they do believe that, That’s not the point. The point is they’re not backing it up. They’ve weaseled their way out of the need to provide support for the belief by denying they have a belief at all. It’s intellectually dishonest and lots of people just are not aware.

All people see and hear is how deist fail time and time again to prove that God does exist. The deist is on the offensive and the atheist position looks bullet proof. It looks convincing. It seems like doubting God is the wise choice.

This no doubt has contributed to what I perceive to be an increase in the number of individuals who self identify as atheists – stating openly that they don’t believe in God – thinking the battle has been won; believing the atheists to be more logical, more scientific and superior debaters.

I want to be one of the “wise” people. I want to feel superior and intellectual. I’m going to be and atheist. That small doubt in God’s existence becomes bold statement of supposed sophisticated philosophical evidence that that God is a myth.

Of course they’d be surprised to find out that the champions of atheism define atheism explicitly as “not having a disbelief in gods or denial of gods”. That’s right. You heard me. According to their own definition if an atheist states affirmatively that they don’t believe God exists, they fail to meet the criteria for atheism. But they are expressing atheism’s beliefs. They are denying God because they don’t know the game and they aren’t paying attention.

Let’s examine the claim that atheism is a lack of both belief and disbelief in God and see where it leads.

Consider any proposition; any statement that can be made. Pumpkin Pie is delicious. You can 1. Believe it to be true. (Lack disbelief) 2. Believe it to be false. (Lack belief) 3. Claim ignorance. (Lack belief and disbelief)

Hmm? Claiming to lack both belief and disbelief in an assertion is nothing more than claiming ignorance. And you denied God because you thought someone was winning an argument about God’s existence when all they were doing was claiming to know nothing.

What is Atheism Anyway? A brief introduction into Atheism

Have you ever wondered what it means when someone says that they are an atheist? I know I have. Perhaps you’re pretty certain that you already know what atheism is. That’s OK. This blog post can still offer insight into atheism that perhaps you hadn’t considered before.

Let’s see what the atheist themselves have to say. A quick Google search will no doubt turn up the answer.

American Atheist (http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?)

“Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system.”
“Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods”

That Atheist Guy (https://youtu.be/HCp66yS8n_4?t=44s)

“Atheism is a non-belief in the existence of a deity” (spoken)
A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of deity” (written on screen)

Atheist Survival Guide (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGe53qM1huM)

1. Atheism is not a belief
2. Atheism is a non belief – a rejection to the claims that there is a higher power or supernatural being. Nothing more than this.

A disbelief in the existence of a diety” ( written on screen)
Those who don’t believe in God have been forced to label themselves as atheists.

Hitchens – What is Atheism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXUX1c9TTSY)

We argue (believe) quite simply that there is no plausible or convincing reason, certainly no evidential one, to believe that there is such an entity.”

“I believe that we are not here as the result of a design (https://youtu.be/fXUX1c9TTSY?t=1m9s)

DorsetGhost (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSSDJdaFEc8)

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in deities.
In a narrow sense, atheism is specifically the position (belief) that there are no deities.


So the answer to the question, What is Atheism, should now be quite clear to you I hope. Let’s move onto the types of atheism:

There is gnostic atheism, igtheism, agnostic atheist, negative atheist, weak atheist, implicit atheist, positive atheist, strong atheist, explicit atheist, broad atheist, narrow atheist, and my favorite…drum roll please…

The Religious Atheist

The religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.

I’m not making this up. I swear.


Well that concludes today’s lesson. I hope this post helped to clear up all the preconceived ideas that “evolve from theistic influences.” (http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?)


Note: No, I didn’t cherry pick these definitions – all offered by self-proclaimed atheists – just because of the obvious contradictions in how they define the doctrine to which they subscribe. These are literally the first results I got when I searched Google for “what is atheism” using both the Web and Video search.

Is Atheism Inherently Agnostic?

Fed up with the “preconceived ideas” evolved from “theistic influences”, the folks over at American Atheists (Atheists.org) set out to set the record straight on what exactly Atheism is.

In a brief article entitled “What is Atheism” Atheism is defined like so: “Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

So according this this definition, a person who claims to be an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in gods. Like a missing block in a brick building, the belief is simply not there and no belief has filled the void.

But do beliefs work that way? Can a switch be neither on nor off? Can one both lack belief and disbelief? That just doesn’t seem logical.

It begs the question, how does an atheist respond If asked directly, “Do you believe in God?”

If my interpretation of the definition is correct, the answer would have to be something like this…

I lack a both belief and disbelief in god.

That sounds familiar. Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah…

Agnostic – “a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

So it would seem that if Atheism is not disbelief, but a lack of belief, it is nothing more than agnosticism.