Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[bobhikes]

How is atheism an explanation at all, let alone an extreme one?

Yes I agree sort of, Atheism is not an explanation of anything. It is however extremely critical of everything non-atheistic.

 

[idav]

Well, it would not be transcendent, which is arguably the sine qua non of theistic gods in general. It would also appear to not be able to perform the function so commonly attributed to God of creating the universe; for if God is just an ordinary object in the universe, then he has none of the special properties which (theologians claim) allowed him to create the universe in the first place.

Why should "god" be a supernatural creator god when nature does not require such a thing? So in a sense I take to the "no supernatural god" concept without resorting to "no god".

"Ordinary" objects in the universe have causes, God would not and no reason to resort to magic to make such a claim. Even all the natural processes must start somewhere, "no god" isn't really supposed to say anything as far as an answer but then why even hold such faith anyway.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Isn't that another way of saying going overboard? It is the same claim atheists make of theists regarding faith. It takes faith to claim "no god".

I guess, but not in the sense you suggest in the OP: that theism and atheism somehow represent extremes of a spectrum, as it were. But this doesn't make any sense since the proposition which defines atheism is a binary one- theism: true or false?

But as I said, the claim that atheism is extreme in the sense of being unwarranted, while meaningful, is nevertheless false: atheism is warranted, because theism is incoherent. Indeed, atheism is the only warranted position, if theism is incoherent. We can cover this in more detail if you'd like.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why should "god" be a supernatural creator god when nature does not require such a thing?

Because that is how the word "god" is used; to talk about the concept of an agent which somehow transcends physical/natural conditions and relations.

So in a sense I take to the "no supernatural god" concept without resorting to "no god".

Ok, so tell me what a natural god would be like- what properties would it have? In what sense is it a god?

Even all the natural processes must start somewhere, "no god" isn't really supposed to say anything as far as an answer but then why even hold such faith anyway.

Because if it is the case that theism is incoherent, then "theism is false" is the only justifiable conclusion; there is no room for faith here. And atheism is not about explaining or answering anything per se in the first place; it is a rejection of a certain variety of (pseudo) explanation- namely, theistic ones.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Yes I agree sort of, Atheism is not an explanation of anything. It is however extremely critical of everything non-atheistic.

I have to call you out on that. Of what is atheism critical? Art, culture, science? None of these things are non-atheistic and atheists are hardly critical of any of these things. The only thing atheists are critical of is the claim of a deity.

 

[MD]

Most atheists are critical of anything that opposes physicalism. They cling to it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I see atheism and theism being extremes as to an explantion of origins. People even will jump one over to the other when faced with questions of evolution. When someone jumps from theism to atheism its called "throwing the baby out with the bath water". I consider myself in between but what is that supposed to mean. I was thinking of the word 'being' which i often use in the verb tense and as I thought about what is between "no being"and "super being" it should be a noun and verb at the same time, something that became something hat existed and started being at the same time. What is in between the extremes of no being vs super being?

That is an unfortunate and inaccurate view! Speaking only for myself, atheism has nothing to do with origins. Nor is it a counter-position that A god exists. I deny zues, I deny thor, I deny a thousand other gods because none have demonstrated a level of credulity.

I don't deny that it is possible for a deity to exist. I deny that I have heard of any that are consistent with reason and observation. I do not deny the god of the jews because I don't believe in gods, I deny him because of his angry, jealous portrayal, the 1000's of biblical inconsistencies and atrocities, and observational science inconsistent with the biblical epic. And that coupled with no credible evidence to suggest it is anything but a fairy tail.

I don't deny christianity because I don't believe in gods. I deny it because of the illogical dogma of original sin, and more importantly because of entirely childish and utterly unethical framework of salvation.

I don't deny alla because I don't believe in gods. I deny alla because his prophet was a madman.

I don't deny any god because I believe in evolution. And if you show me one that has 1/2 a leg to stand on I'll consider him.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Most atheists are critical of anything that opposes physicalism. They cling to it.

As in nature exists, super-nature does not? Absolutely! At least when it comes to making sound decisions. I have no problem with the idea of the supernatural that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted; and that in no way has any ability to effect the natural. At least until my powers of observation tell me different.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most atheists are critical of anything that opposes physicalism. They cling to it.

Indeed. A rational worldview tends to make one cling to things that actually exist.

 

[idav]

Because that is how the word "god" is used; to talk about the concept of an agent which somehow transcends physical/natural conditions and relations.

God can be immanent in a natural sense without having to resort to a magical sort of transcendence.

Ok, so tell me what a natural god would be like- what properties would it have? In what sense is it a god?

Immanence. Encompassing all of reality.

Because if it is the case that theism is incoherent, then "theism is false" is the only justifiable conclusion; there is no room for faith here. And atheism is not about explaining or answering anything per se in the first place; it is a rejection of a certain variety of (pseudo) explanation- namely, theistic ones.

Trying to find the origins is not incoherent. Existence requires something to be the reason and simply saying "god didn't do it" is less coherent because it rather ignores the issue that theists are trying to address. Atheists can reject a thousand explanations of god, with what sort of justification, no replacement theory, just to say theists are wrong? That sort of rejection is not coherent, just saying that faith is not enough goes just as much for atheists unless you have a replacement theory.

 

[bobhikes]

I have to call you out on that. Of what is atheism critical? Art, culture, science? None of these things are non-atheistic and atheists are hardly critical of any of these things. The only thing atheists are critical of is the claim of a deity.

Call you out is being critical of my non-atheistic claim.

Your words not mine Art, Culture, Science? None of these things are non-atheistic. When they are like a statue of the Blessed Mother at a public place. It is no longer art but an offense to Atheists.

Stars, Crosses, Bindi are all forms of Art and Culture and have been for 1000's of years, yet atheists are critical of them. We can only have non-religious culture because all religious culture needs criticism.

Non-atheistic science= pseudoscience(this is a critic as well)

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Yes I agree sort of, Atheism is not an explanation of anything. It is however extremely critical of everything non-atheistic.

Call you out is being critical of my non-atheistic claim.

Your words not mine Art, Culture, Science? None of these things are non-atheistic. When they are like a statue of the Blessed Mother at a public place. It is no longer art but an offense to Atheists.

Stars, Crosses, Bindi are all forms of Art and Culture and have been for 1000's of years, yet atheists are critical of them. We can only have non-religious culture because all religious culture needs criticism.

Non-atheistic science= pseudoscience(this is a critic as well)

You claimed that atheists are critical of any thing non-atheistic. Now you are pointing out that (some) atheists are critical of statues of the Blessed Mother?? The criticism is not because the blessed mother IS non-athiest, it is because the blessed mother IS Theistic.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Non-atheistic science= pseudoscience(this is a critic as well)

All science in non-atheistic. All science is non-theistic.

 

[bobhikes]

You claimed that atheists are critical of any thing non-atheistic. Now you are pointing out that (some) atheists are critical of statues of the Blessed Mother?? The criticism is not because the blessed mother IS non-athiest, it is because the blessed mother IS Theistic.

Non-atheistic = Theistic

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities
Wilkapedia

If you can provide some other definition, I would be happy to read.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Non-atheistic = Theistic

If you mean to say atheists are critical of anything theistic, then why don't you just say that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes I agree sort of, Atheism is not an explanation of anything. It is however extremely critical of everything non-atheistic.

Atheism cannot be critical of anything, as it is a single position one holds. However, if you mean to say that atheists are extremely critical of everything theistic, then you're either clearly ignorant, or clearly dishonest, as any time spent even here on RF perusing the posts of atheists shows that atheists hold a wide variety of opinions, and many atheists are supportive of many things involving theism. And, at the very least, could not be described as "extremely critical of everything non-atheistic (theistic)."

 

[ArtieE]

Non-atheistic = Theistic

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities
Wilkapedia

If you can provide some other definition, I would be happy to read.

Sure. From the same page you cherry picked:

"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most inclusively" means including all atheists, since all atheists have an absence of belief that any deities exist. So this is the definition of atheism. "The rejection of belief" and having "the position that there are no deities" describe a subset of all atheists.

 

[idav]

That is an unfortunate and inaccurate view! Speaking only for myself, atheism has nothing to do with origins. Nor is it a counter-position that A god exists. I deny zues, I deny thor, I deny a thousand other gods because none have demonstrated a level of credulity.

I don't deny that it is possible for a deity to exist. I deny that I have heard of any that are consistent with reason and observation. I do not deny the god of the jews because I don't believe in gods, I deny him because of his angry, jealous portrayal, the 1000's of biblical inconsistencies and atrocities, and observational science inconsistent with the biblical epic. And that coupled with no credible evidence to suggest it is anything but a fairy tail.

I don't deny christianity because I don't believe in gods. I deny it because of the illogical dogma of original sin, and more importantly because of entirely childish and utterly unethical framework of salvation.

I don't deny alla because I don't believe in gods. I deny alla because his prophet was a madman.

I don't deny any god because I believe in evolution. And if you show me one that has 1/2 a leg to stand on I'll consider him.

Well that is interesting. I deny gods that I don't believe in for much of the same reasons as you. Yet all these denials are of personal gods which is an extreme position for an atheist. Your atheist denial is in response to extreme theist positions but what are reasons for denying pantheism or panentheism which tend to be more in between?

Obviously any theist position requires faith to believe and I wouldn't expect atheists to deny every single conceivable being. However the denying of theist positions isn't all there is to atheism. When allah is denied what is believed in its stead? So how does denial of allah, for example, convince a person that no gods exist? It isn't as if denying one god concept shows the futility of every other god concept. Denying one god is not enough to make a person atheist and denying one god concept isn't enough to say no gods exist.

A person doesn't really need to make a decision on the matter, but such a person wouldn't be putting faith in either atheism or theism.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Well that is interesting. I deny gods that I don't believe in for much of the same reasons as you. Yet all these denials are of personal gods which is an extreme position for an atheist. Your atheist denial is in response to extreme theist positions but what are reasons for denying pantheism or panentheism which tend to be more in between?

Obviously any theist position requires faith to believe and I wouldn't expect atheists to deny every single conceivable being. However the denying of theist positions isn't all there is to atheism. When allah is denied what is believed in its stead? So how does denial of allah, for example, convince a person that no gods exist? It isn't as if denying one god concept shows the futility of every other god concept. Denying one god is not enough to make a person atheist and denying one god concept isn't enough to say no gods exist.

A person doesn't really need to make a decision on the matter, but such a person wouldn't be putting faith in either atheism or theism.

You seem to be saying that any specific notion of a god is an extreme position and that denying any specific notion is as well an extreme position? I have to disagree with this as in my experience almost all religious individuals have some specific notion in mind and most atheists deny those specific notions.

Why do I need to deny that any god exists? I deny all those I have examined. Who in their right mind would deny what they have not considered?

Yet I do not think it extreme if 1000 deities have been dismissed, that the premise 'no god has been demonstrated to exist' should be adopted. A score of 1000 to 0 of those that have been examined should seem adequate evidence dismiss any non-specific general notion of the possibility of some generic deity, at least until specifics are provided.

 

[bobhikes]

Atheism cannot be critical of anything, as it is a single position one holds. However, if you mean to say that atheists are extremely critical of everything theistic, then you're either clearly ignorant, or clearly dishonest, as any time spent even here on RF perusing the posts of atheists shows that atheists hold a wide variety of opinions, and many atheists are supportive of many things involving theism. And, at the very least, could not be described as "extremely critical of everything non-atheistic (theistic)."

4 years on the RF and I'm clearly ignorant or clearly dishonest. Hmmm, tough choice. You not being critical are you?