Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[bobhikes]

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.

Deities are the belief of theists correct. I don't see the difference. When you debate do you debate for theism or against it. Aren't you critical of theism or do you support it.

I am confused maybe I don't understand Atheists. May be I'm clearly ignorant or clearly dishonest.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

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?

I swing from Theism to Atheism like a pendulum and there isn't any 'in between' for me...I am trying to find out how one both can and cannot believe in God simultaneously.

So many things are there to give evidence of God's existence and so many things that can equally disprove it...God created a beautiful universe in which innocent children starve and die....in which those who love and pray to God are just treated like dog faeces by their fellow human beings...

At the moment I am on an Atheist bent, after yet another round of Karmic 'Russian Roulette'...Karma is so much of a huge fricken 'cop out' and I put that in the same boat as 'the Lord moves in mysterious ways'...yeah, so mysterious as to convince me that He doesn't exist.

God is my 'mania' and Atheism is my 'depression' ...life is my lithium, so I must choose it over either/both.

'Blind faith' isn't called 'blind' without reason, and the more I swing towards the Atheist part, the more my Theist philosophies all start to fall apart, but the reverse never happens.

I'll probably be a Theist again next week though. lol

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I swing from Theism to Atheism like a pendulum and there isn't any 'in between' for me...I am trying to find out how one both can and cannot believe in God simultaneously.

So many things are there to give evidence of God's existence and so many things that can equally disprove it...God created a beautiful universe in which innocent children starve and die....in which those who love and pray to God are just treated like dog faeces by their fellow human beings...

At the moment I am on an Atheist bent, after yet another round of Karmic 'Russian Roulette'...Karma is so much of a huge fricken 'cop out' and I put that in the same boat as 'the Lord moves in mysterious ways'...yeah, so mysterious as to convince me that He doesn't exist.

God is my 'mania' and Atheism is my 'depression' ...life is my lithium, so I must choose it over either/both.

'Blind faith' isn't called 'blind' without reason, and the more I swing towards the Atheist part, the more my Theist philosophies all start to fall apart, but the reverse never happens.

I'll probably be a Theist again next week though. lol

Imo, you don't have to be "either or". Just be an apathetic agnostic who leans towards the existence of God(s) but who does not rely on them/it for anything. That's where I am now. Truthfully, I've been there for awhile. Be your own savior. In other words, you intellectually believe that God(s) (probably) exist, but you live as if they don't. Hence, intellectual agnostic theism but functional atheism.

Here's a song that speaks to me about that experience, imo:
[youtube]dx7sLNyIeQk[/youtube]

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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

There are extreme forms of atheism, as much as there are extreme forms of theism.

Extreme atheism is probably best represented with anti-theism and believing that the deity doesn't exist compared to atheism in which the person wouldn't put much money on there being no god, while extreme atheists would throw all of their money down, and may have a superiority complex to the theist.

Extreme theism is pretty much extreme devotion to God, where when parts completely contradict logic they will believe it anyways, convinced that it is only a test or perhaps a trick to deceive all mankind. The extreme theists, most of the time, will know many exact details of their god, but other times, after going in depth about what they know of god and when the opposing debater points out some flaws (which are almost determined to happen when you go into detail) they might just say that nobody can know about him. Compared to non-extreme theists, who are focused on serving God's duty (often times it can relate to Humanism) rather than serving God.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Immanence. Encompassing all of reality.

Thanks, but as you likely can imagine, I'm well aware of what immanence is. And unfortunately, even when God is claimed to be immanent, transcendence remains the sine qua non of theistic gods generally since transcendence determines and/or is prior to immanence, as it is prior to the created world god is immanent in.

Trying to find the origins is not incoherent.

Positing a causal agent who transcends all conditions and relations- all being- is most definitely incoherent.

Existence requires something to be the reason

Well, not necessarily. Perhaps existence is necessary, perhaps it is eternal.

and simply saying "god didn't do it" is less coherent because it rather ignores the issue that theists are trying to address.

Well no, because "less coherent than incoherent" is incoherent to begin with (irony!), and there's absolutely nothing incoherent about pointing out that, since explanations are propositional AND mysteries beg questions rather than answering them AND if X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos), then X neither justifies nor explains why anything happens; indeed, it is the only warranted conclusion. Mysteries are not explanations; therefore theism does not even provide an explanation in the first place.

Atheists can reject a thousand explanations of god, with what sort of justification, no replacement theory, just to say theists are wrong?

Analysis of the essential (i.e. minimal) truth-claims of theism of such, which shows that theism is not internally sound.

That sort of rejection is not coherent

Prove it. You're basically claiming that rejecting some view X because X is internally contradictory is "incoherent". This claim is eminently false; if a view is internally contradictory, it could not be accurate, even in principle. But then, if a view could not even possibly be accurate, then how is it rational to NOT reject that view?

... just saying that faith is not enough goes just as much for atheists unless you have a replacement theory.

That's clearly mistaken. Think about the muddy footprints in the kitchen; if I know that Peter is out of town, then do I really need to know who actually did it in order to know that Peter did NOT? Clearly not; we can know that a claim is mistaken without knowing what the correct claim is; and that there is a correct claim here at all (RE "origins"), is a gigantic assumption in the first place.

 

[Alceste]

I am not saying everyone does that. I simply used evolution as an example as something I have seen. What I mean to say is that sometimes theists have doubts but for some reason some theists, once they find their faith headed towards doubt, rather than reconcile they just throw out the concept of god completely. I see that I think as often as theists choosing a different god concept.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I don't think it's "extremism" to stop believing in the god concept you were raised with though, even if you don't replace it with some "new and improved" god concept. Once you realize the one god proposition you have been trained to accept is untrue, the natural reation is to recognize that if that can happen to your god concept, which you have been brainwashed since childhood to accept, it can happen to anyone's god concept, since they are all promoted by exactly the same methods that you were deceived by. IOW, it would seem that they are all equally likely. Which, as out turns out, is not at all likely.

 

[LuisDantas]

God is my 'mania' and Atheism is my 'depression' ...life is my lithium, so I must choose it over either/both.

'Blind faith' isn't called 'blind' without reason, and the more I swing towards the Atheist part, the more my Theist philosophies all start to fall apart, but the reverse never happens.

I'll probably be a Theist again next week though. lol

Have you ever felt that this might just not be a big deal?

Like, say, not settling on a favorite color?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

There has been a hell of a long thread that I got tired of being in because it simply made no progress which was about this exact thing. I think it was "are babies atheist".

But the term "atheist" is a non-descriptor. Which makes it impossible by most means to be out of the theist/atheist ranges. Why? Because atheist litterally means "not a theist". How can one be a theist and not one at the same time? They are contradictory.

What I think you are getting at is that you are spiritual in some way without the need for god's or religion. That there is some kind of driving force to the universe. Am I right?

 

[LuisDantas]

There are extreme forms of atheism, as much as there are extreme forms of theism.

Perhaps. I question that as well... but my question here is about it being an answer, not about it possibly being extreme.

I have never saw any form of atheism that is an answer beyond "how does that person stand on the matter of belief in God?"

But let's tackle this "extreme atheism" matter as well.... :drool: bwahahah!

Extreme atheism is probably best represented with anti-theism and believing that the deity doesn't exist compared to atheism in which the person wouldn't put much money on there being no god, while extreme atheists would throw all of their money down, and may have a superiority complex to the theist.

So much for "extreme", then. That is about as meaningful as prefering to write with green ink instead of blue or black.

Anti-theism, if I can be excused to talk in my own defense, is just not a big deal.

It is only "extreme" in the most technical of senses, and hardly comparable in any way to extreme or fundamental theism, which is a very harmful mindset.

Extreme theism is pretty much extreme devotion to God, where when parts completely contradict logic they will believe it anyways, convinced that it is only a test or perhaps a trick to deceive all mankind. The extreme theists, most of the time, will know many exact details of their god, but other times, after going in depth about what they know of god and when the opposing debater points out some flaws (which are almost determined to happen when you go into detail) they might just say that nobody can know about him. Compared to non-extreme theists, who are focused on serving God's duty (often times it can relate to Humanism) rather than serving God.

That is a fair analysis.

 

[ArtieE]

Deities are the belief of theists correct.

A theist believes in the existence of one or more deities.

I don't see the difference. When you debate do you debate for theism or against it. Aren't you critical of theism or do you support it.

Or are you neither a theist nor critical of theism? Can you understand that one can be "not a theist" and at the same time not be against theism?

1. Theism (belief in the existence of one or more gods)
2. Atheism (absence of belief in the existence of gods) (weak atheism)
3. Anti-theism (belief in the non-existence of gods) (strong atheism)

Strong atheists are a subset of atheists. Those are people who are "not theists" and at the same time believe gods don't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

I swing from Theism to Atheism like a pendulum and there isn't any 'in between' for me...I am trying to find out how one both can and cannot believe in God simultaneously.

You can't. If you believe in the existence of god(s) you are a theist and the pendulum has swung one way, if you believe in the non-existence of gods you are an anti-theist or strong atheist and the pendulum has swung the other way. If the pendulum hangs straight down you are neither and is per definition an atheist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You can't. If you believe in the existence of god(s) you are a theist and the pendulum has swung one way, if you believe in the non-existence of gods you are an anti-theist or strong atheist and the pendulum has swung the other way. If the pendulum hangs straight down you are neither and is per definition an atheist.

Um, no.

Anti-theism and strong atheism are not the same things. Anti-theism is active opposition to theism. It's not just that you don't believe in god(s), but you think no one else should either for the good of humanity. Strong atheism is the assertion that no deities exist, rather than saying that you simply don't believe. Not all strong atheists are anti-theists.

The various forms of agnosticism would be the middle road of theism and atheism.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

The various forms of agnosticism would be the middle road of theism and atheism.

Yup. I have changed my title to reflect this. I am now a functional agnostic.

 

[ArtieE]

Um, no.

Anti-theism and strong atheism are not the same things. Anti-theism is active opposition to theism. It's not just that you don't believe in god(s), but you think no one else should either for the good of humanity. Strong atheism is the assertion that no deities exist, rather than saying that you simply don't believe. Not all strong atheists are anti-theists.

I equated anti-theism with strong atheism to make the distinction between theists and strong atheists clearer to bobhikes.

The various forms of agnosticism would be the middle road of theism and atheism.

Um, no. Theism and atheism is about belief agnosticism is about knowledge. Different concepts. We are talking about belief, not knowledge when we are discussing theism/atheism.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I equated anti-theism with strong atheism to make the distinction between theists and strong atheists clearer to bobhikes.Um, no. Theism and atheism is about belief agnosticism is about knowledge. Different concepts. We are talking about belief, not knowledge when we are discussing theism/atheism.

I know what agnosticism is, but some people don't believe one way or the other and just call themselves agnostics and nothing else.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I equated anti-theism with strong atheism to make the distinction between theists and strong atheists clearer to bobhikes.Um, no. Theism and atheism is about belief agnosticism is about knowledge. Different concepts. We are talking about belief, not knowledge when we are discussing theism/atheism.

What about those unsure in their beliefs?

If a God does exist, it's not something we can actually 'know'. I don't know (and you don't either).

God may/not exist, and has given me no reason to believe either way, so I leave my options open.

Maybe yeah, maybe not, maybe....meh.

I just know a few things...if God does exist, it is not to be taken seriously whatsoever (so everybody keeps on telling me) and...

If there is a God, it has used methods of creation indistinguishable from nature, it has declined to make itself known for all of recorded history, it doesn't intervene in affairs on Earth and has made itself impossible to observe.

Even if you believe in that God, why would you think it would want to be worshiped?

I think I passed. lol

 

[ArtieE]

I know what agnosticism is, but some people don't believe one way or the other and just call themselves agnostics and nothing else.

If people call themselves agnostics and nothing else they mean to say that they don't know whether gods exist or not. They say nothing about whether they believe gods exist or not. If they wanted to say anything about belief they would have said "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist" not just "agnostic". Agnosticism is not some "middle road".

 

[Windwalker]

You're using "extreme" in a curious sense then; it isn't that it has gone overboard, since there are only two options- either theism is true, or it is false, and neither option is "extreme" in that sense.

I consider framing questions and possibilities in black and white terms, as you have here, to nicely define "extreme". This is what I see as the OP is getting at, and I agree. This is extreme.

What about having partial truth? What about shades of grey? What about different perspectives on the question of what theism says or suggests, or about what atheism says or suggests? No?

Your conclusions that theism = incoherent = false, is a radical leap to Answers with a capital A (absolutist thought), which implicitly suggests you have exhausted ALL possible perspectives on this and can conclude therefore it is false. Are you sure you have considering everything, all points of views and understandings, to make this pronouncement in regards to theism, or even to atheism for that matter?

 

[bobhikes]

A theist believes in the existence of one or more deities.Or are you neither a theist nor critical of theism? Can you understand that one can be "not a theist" and at the same time not be against theism?

1. Theism (belief in the existence of one or more gods)
2. Atheism (absence of belief in the existence of gods) (weak atheism)
3. Anti-theism (belief in the non-existence of gods) (strong atheism)

Strong atheists are a subset of atheists. Those are people who are "not theists" and at the same time believe gods don't exist.

There are many definitions to many words and one should never assume what is being said. It is fun to use the different definitions and see how people react. I learned a lot. Thanks for playing.

Extreme -most or exceedingly great in degree

Critical -involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.; judicial: a critical analysis.

I would doubt any Atheist would not use this with any thing non-atheist for the most part I use this for most of my major decisions in life.

 

[ArtieE]

There are many definitions to many words and one should never assume what is being said. It is fun to use the different definitions and see how people react. I learned a lot. Thanks for playing.

You too.

Extreme -most or exceedingly great in degree

Critical -involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.; judicial: a critical analysis.

I would doubt any Atheist would not use this with any thing non-atheist for the most part I use this for most of my major decisions in life.

"Any thing non-atheist"? Which things are "non-atheist"?