The Logical Misstep: Why Atheism as 'Lack of Belief' is a Deflection, Not a Position

The Logical Misstep: Why Atheism as 'Lack of Belief' is a Deflection, Not a Position

The False Distinction in Atheist Rhetoric

A frequent argument made by atheists is that atheism is merely a lack of belief rather than a belief in the opposite. This distinction, however, is often used not as a genuine philosophical stance but as a rhetorical escape hatch to avoid intellectual accountability. The moment an atheist asserts that "there is no God," or that "there is no evidence for God," they are not merely withholding belief—they are making an ontological claim about reality.

To illustrate this fallacy, some argue that not playing golf is not a sport, that being asymptomatic is not a symptom, and that being asexual is a sexual preference. But these analogies are deeply flawed. Unlike simple negations, the question of God's existence is an active ontological debate, not a passive category. This essay will explore why atheism, when framed as merely 'lacking belief,' is an intellectually vacant stance, why it inadvertently becomes a belief in the negative, and why atheists who reject all evidence as ‘no evidence’ are engaging in avoidance rather than reasoned debate.

The Problem with Framing Atheism as a Mere Lack of Belief

The assertion that atheism is simply non-belief rather than a counter-belief is a rhetorical strategy, not a substantive position. It is an attempt to:

- Avoid the burden of proof while still making an implicit claim.

- Dismiss theistic arguments without engaging with them.

- Redefine atheism to evade philosophical scrutiny.

Yet, this tactic does not hold up under examination. If one claims "I don't believe in God," they are not just passively avoiding a claim; they are rejecting a proposition that billions of people throughout history have accepted. This places a burden of justification on the atheist, just as it does on the theist.

The philosopher William Lane Craig has pointed out:

“If atheism is not a belief but merely the absence of belief, then the most rabid, dogmatic atheist is no different from a rock or a blade of grass, which also lack belief in God.”

To define atheism as merely a lack of belief is to strip it of any intellectual content—it is not an argument; it is an absence of one.

The Contradiction of Claiming ‘No Knowledge of God is Possible’

Another common claim among atheists is that “Nobody can obtain any knowledge of God or any supernatural claim.” However, this itself is a knowledge claim. If one states that "we can never know if God exists," then they are making a universal declaration about the limits of human epistemology and metaphysics. This is not a neutral position—it is a claim that requires justification.

Furthermore, agnosticism, in its true form, does not claim certainty about the impossibility of knowledge but rather admits uncertainty. However, when atheists insist that "all claims of God are unknowable", they are no longer acting as agnostics but are instead positing a belief about the nature of reality.

As Socrates famously said:

“True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.”

To claim that all knowledge of God is impossible is not an expression of humility, but of dogmatism.

The False Claim That ‘There is No Evidence for God’

One of the most common phrases in atheist rhetoric is, “There is no evidence for God.” However, this is a false and misleading claim for several reasons:

1. It ignores centuries of philosophical argumentation.

Arguments such as the Cosmological Argument, Fine-Tuning Argument, Moral Argument, and Argument from Contingency are well-developed frameworks based on observable reality.

Even if one disagrees with them, to dismiss them as “no evidence” is intellectually dishonest.

2. It assumes evidence must be empirical.

Many truths we accept are not empirically provable but are rationally inferred (e.g., morality, logic, consciousness).

As Albert Einstein put it:

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

3. It selectively dismisses theistic arguments while accepting naturalistic ones.

Many atheists accept the multiverse theory, abiogenesis, and materialist explanations of consciousness without empirical proof, yet they reject theistic explanations on the basis of lacking empirical evidence.

This is a double standard—dismissing one set of claims as faith-based while accepting others on speculative grounds.

Thus, the claim that there is ‘no evidence for God’ is not a neutral statement—it is an ideological assertion.

Atheism as an Oppositional Stance, Not a Worldview

Atheism, in its current form, often functions not as a self-sustaining worldview, but as an oppositional stance to theism. If atheism were merely the absence of belief, then it would offer no framework for understanding morality, consciousness, meaning, or the origins of existence.

Yet, when pressed, atheists often adopt alternative belief systems such as:

- Materialism (the belief that only the physical world exists).

- Moral Subjectivism (the belief that morality is not objective but subjective).

- Determinism (the belief that free will is an illusion).

These are not mere ‘lacks of belief’; they are philosophical positions. The moment an atheist affirms any of these views, they are engaging in a belief system—one that, ironically, has less explanatory power for existence than theism does.

As C.S. Lewis noted:

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.”

If atheism is simply a lack of belief, then what exactly does it offer in place of theism? If it provides no answers, then it is merely a rejection of belief rather than a rational alternative to it.

Addressing the Intellectual Evasion of Modern Atheism

Atheism, when framed as merely a lack of belief, is an evasion rather than an argument. It allows atheists to avoid defending their position while simultaneously rejecting the beliefs of others. However, the moment an atheist states that God does not exist, that no knowledge of God is possible, or that there is no evidence for God, they have stepped into the realm of belief—one that requires justification.

To say "I don’t believe in God" is not simply an absence of belief—it is a rejection of a proposition that demands an alternative explanation for existence. If atheists wish to maintain intellectual credibility, they must offer a positive account of reality, not merely dismiss theistic claims.

To paraphrase Blaise Pascal:

“We must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed.”

If atheists wish to reject theism, they must defend their rejection with reason—not merely redefine their stance to avoid accountability.

William W Collins 

cr January, 2025