Okay, heres my basic understanding of Atheism.
Actually, there are many more claims than that. But for the sake of the context in this OP;
There are two claims regarding the existance of a God. One, is "God exists", the other is "God does not exist". They are mutually exclusive, if we ignore the "Sometimes he exists sometimes he doesnt".
The theist says Ã¢â‚¬â€œ There is a God
The Atheist says Ã¢â‚¬â€œ there is NO God (or gods)
And in the case you are attempting to make, the agnostic says "I don't know".
A belief necessarily addresses one claim. You can believe, or disbelieve the claim of "God does exist", and the same goes for "God does not exist". And each claim has to be substantiated by evidence in order to be valid.
Close enough to work with.
But this is where it gets tough. What if BOTH claims have insufficient evidence to support them? Then we are ineligable to accept EITHER claim as a belief. And this is basically my stance. Therefore, i dont see why ALL atheists MUST necessarily accept the belief of "There is no God".
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not tough at all, but you are missing the entire point: Atheism doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have any evidence to support its own claims. And that is what the OP is about.
But to be more succinct concerning your attempt at the argument: your posit fails the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of Non-ContradictionÃ¢â‚¬Â and as it applies to the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of the Excluded MiddleÃ¢â‚¬Â. You are attempting the bait and switch of conversion by definition again. And you are claiming to be an atheist, while taking an agnostic stance.
There is either God, or No God, because either He IS, or He IS NOT. For God cannot both Ã¢â‚¬Å“BeÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“Not BeÃ¢â‚¬Âat the same time in the same sense. Nor can He Ã¢â‚¬Å“Not BeÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“BeÃ¢â‚¬Â at the same time in the same sense.
The Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of Non-ContradictionÃ¢â‚¬Â is expressed by the propositional formula Ã‚Â¬(p^Ã‚Â¬p). Here I will break the sentence down make it easier to understand. p^Ã‚Â¬p means that p is both true and false, which or course is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“ContradictionÃ¢â‚¬Â. So, negating this statement means that there can be no contradictions. In other words, the law of non-contradiction shows us that a statement Cannot be both true and false at the same time. This law is relatively uncontroversial (except to relativists. And this does lead us directly into the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of the Excluded MiddleÃ¢â‚¬Â.
The Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of the Excluded MiddleÃ¢â‚¬Â is expressed by the propositional formula p_Ã‚Â¬p. It means that a statement is either true or false. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of the Excluded MiddleÃ¢â‚¬Â basically shows that there is no middle ground between being true and being false. Every statement has to be one or the other. Hence, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s called the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of the Excluded MiddleÃ¢â‚¬Â. Why, because it excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity. So while the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us that no statement can be both true and false at the same time in the same sense, the Law of the Excluded Middle tells us that they must all be one or the other. So, we can get to this law by considering what it means for the Law of Non-Contradiction to be true. For the Law of Non-Contradiction to be true, Ã‚Â¬(p^Ã‚Â¬p) must be true. This means p^Ã‚Â¬p must be false.
Based on that, i wouldnt call my atheism to be based on faith.
Based on what you said, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t prove anything. And, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d suggest you go back to the OP, and read it again. Atheism is faith based, because it has absolutely NO evidences for its own foundations; let alone foundations of origins. Therefore, ALL statements other than the Ã¢â‚¬Å“here and nowÃ¢â‚¬Â by any atheist, is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementÃ¢â‚¬Â.
Were inevitably going to get to this, so i might as well nip this in the bud right now. Agnosticism/Gnosticism, and Atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive, because Agnosticism/gnosticism has to do with knowledge, and Atheism/theism has to do with belief.
Incorrect; because agnosticism, by definition, deals only with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“lackÃ¢â‚¬Â of knowledge. Therefore Ã¢â‚¬Å“EverythingÃ¢â‚¬Â agnosticism says about Ã¢â‚¬Å“AnythingÃ¢â‚¬Â within its Ã¢â‚¬Å“AgnosticismÃ¢â‚¬Â is Ã¢â‚¬Å“Faith BasedÃ¢â‚¬Â. Hence, your premise is flawed.
Its why we have, for example, Agnostic Theists, who claim that they believe that God exists, but cannot claim to know for certain that he exists because they must be humble, or because they acknowledge that they may be wrong. And then, we have Gnostic theists like Kirk Cameron who would say that they know, for certain, that a God exists, because he has a personal relationship with him.
That is nothing more than Ã¢â‚¬Å“conversion by definitionÃ¢â‚¬Â (and an equivocation) once again, because it would be like me saying I am an (A)atheist because I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe in atheism! AND, when we have a personal relationship, we DO KNOW!