Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[Alceste]

That's what I said.Of course not. An agnostic is a person who doesn't know whether gods exist or not. Don't mix him up with a person who neither believes there are gods nor believes there are no gods. That is why we use gnosticism/agnosticism when we talk about knowledge and theism/atheism when we talk about belief. Don't mix them up.

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded as though you thought weak atheists were on the fence about the existence of gods.

 

[ArtieE]

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded as though you thought weak atheists were on the fence about the existence of gods.

Some are on the fence when it comes to either believing there are gods (one side of the fence) or believing there are no gods (the other side of the fence.)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I consider framing questions and possibilities in black and white terms, as you have here, to nicely define "extreme".

Unfortunately, this clearly doesn't apply to propositions, which are either true or false. This is not extreme, this is the principle of bivalence, which I would argue, always applies to well-formed propositions in natural language.

This is what I see as the OP is getting at, and I agree. This is extreme.

Then try to defend that claim, because so far, the OP's argument for it has completely fallen to pieces.

What about having partial truth? What about shades of grey?

A nice slogan, but what does that actually mean in this case? What would it mean for minimal theism (the claim that at least one god exists), to be "partially true"? How can "God exists" be partially true- which part?

What about different perspectives on the question of what theism says or suggests, or about what atheism says or suggests?

What about it?

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.

Again, this is a nice slogan, but it doesn't really hold up under close scrutiny: provided that theism is incoherent (which I have not argued explicitly here, having argued it at some length on any number of other threads, and can elaborate on as necessary), that it is false is not a "radical leap" at all. If a view is internally inconsistent, it cannot be true, even in principle.

And this "exhausting all possible perspectives" is a red herring: there are certain elements all forms of theism must have in common, in order to qualify as theism in the first place- the existence of god, for one. I argue that transcendence and agency are the sine qua non of theistic gods generally, and thus is a distinctive, necessary feature of theism as such. However, if a causal agent which transcends all conditions and relations is incoherent, as it most surely is (since causal agency entails being subject to conditions and relations), then we needn't consider each individual type of theism- the necessary, distinguishing feature of theism as such is incoherent. Considering particular forms of theism would be redundant.

I never got back to my response to you in the other thread about fundamentalist views applied to atheism, but I think saying weak atheism isn't true atheism pretty much suggests that.

Not really. I've argued elsewhere why I find the weak vs. strong, implicit vs. explicit atheism distinctions extremely poor. Atheism, as the word has generally figured in the relevant discourse, pertains to the position that theism is false, which is a reasoned, cognitive, positive position. "Weak" or "implicit" atheism is not, and it includes all forms of non-theism including agnosticism. Thus, it is an unnecessarily confusing way of categorizing these views, that runs contrary to established linguistic usage. That said, I don't want this to turn into YET ANOTHER thread arguing semantics over how to define "atheism", "non-theism", etc, although it appears it has already sort of devolved into that.

 

[Alceste]

Some are on the fence when it comes to either believing there are gods (one side of the fence) or believing there are no gods (the other side of the fence.)

I guess I don't see that as a fence. It's a very subtle distinction between two groups of people, neither of which believe god exists. I see agnosticism as the fence.

 

[ArtieE]

I guess I don't see that as a fence. It's a very subtle distinction between two groups of people, neither of which believe god exists. I see agnosticism as the fence.

Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. We are here talking about theism/atheism which is only about belief. How many times must that be repeated?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. We are here talking about theism/atheism which is only about belief. How many times must that be repeated?

I don't know if repetition will help, but how about you elaborate? In what sense is agnosticism "about" knowledge, while theism and atheism are "about" belief?

 

[ArtieE]

I don't know if repetition will help, but how about you elaborate? In what sense is agnosticism "about" knowledge, while theism and atheism are "about" belief?

This is such basic knowledge that I can only refer you to a beginners guide.

"Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not."

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference Between Atheism and Agnosticism?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is such basic knowledge that I can only refer you to a beginners guide.

for thinking that any particular way of grouping these views is "basic knowledge", as opposed to simply one way of defining terms amongst many.

"Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not."

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference Between Atheism and Agnosticism?

That's what I suspected, but both you and the writer stated this in a misleading way; agnosticism is "about belief" in the same sense that theism or agnosticism are "about belief"- but on this way of categorizing atheism/theism/agnosticism, it is a belief about knowledge of god(s), not a belief about the existence of god(s). And that works, so far as it goes. On the other hand, I'll merely point out that this sort of categorization is not only not the only one, is also not without some problems; but I'll leave it at that because this whole semantic controversy over the best way to define "atheism" has been done to death.

 

[Alceste]

Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. We are here talking about theism/atheism which is only about belief. How many times must that be repeated?

If people don't agree with you, you're supposed to make a persuasive case for your opinion. Repetition is boring and ineffective, and condescension actually makes your point of view LESS persuasive.

Just a style tip. People who don't know how to defend a point of view without becoming belligerent tend to be ignored by quality posters.

 

[ArtieE]

If people don't agree with you, you're supposed to make a persuasive case for your opinion.

My opinion? My point of view?

"Religion 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism

- Atheist: Lack of belief in a deity. This is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “theist” meaning belief in a deity.
- Agnostic: Lack of knowledge in a deity. Again, this is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “gnostic” meaning “knowledge.” ...
"Atheism concerns belief while being agnostic is a claim about knowledge."

Religion 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism - Philadelphia atheism | Examiner.com

 

[Windwalker]

With statements such as that God can not be defined, He seems increasingly to be a feeling rather than part of objective reality.

Aren't your feelings part of reality? But to put a better point on it, its more an awareness. Feelings, emotions, may or may not be part of that. Perhaps knowledge is a good descriptive term for it. Do you know you exist? Are you just purely a feeling?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My opinion? My point of view?

"Religion 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism

- Atheist: Lack of belief in a deity. This is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “theist” meaning belief in a deity.
- Agnostic: Lack of knowledge in a deity. Again, this is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “gnostic” meaning “knowledge.” ...
"Atheism concerns belief while being agnostic is a claim about knowledge."

Religion 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism - Philadelphia atheism | Examiner.com

You know, newspaper articles aren't written by God. They are written by individuals like you and me.

(Dictionary definitions, too.)

 

[Alceste]

You know, newspaper articles aren't written by God. They are written by individuals like you and me.

(Dictionary definitions, too.)

I know, right? The Dictionary Defense: The most boring, ineffective, unimaginative debate tactic of all time. Especially unpersuasive when paired with condescension.

 

[Windwalker]

A nice slogan, but what does that actually mean in this case? What would it mean for minimal theism (the claim that at least one god exists), to be "partially true"? How can "God exists" be partially true- which part?

This is your challenge to figure out how to think outside binary thought. I can't help you do that. Arguing as a binary truth about a propositional God will end with you never actually looking at God to begin with. You have to begin to think in far more abstract points of view. Or perhaps far more natural terms, simplicity itself, like life itself. Do you reason life, or do you just live it?

To speak of God, at best you can speak of what God is not, until you come to see beyond thoughts themselves. How can this be argued propositionally? But it can be known, like life itself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I know, right? The Dictionary Defense: The most boring, ineffective, unimaginative debate tactic of all time.

Yeah, we could just step aside and let our dictionaries fight it out.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, we could just step aside and let our dictionaries fight it out.

Lol, yeah, because what would be the point of trying to use words as a tool for the exchange of ideas?

 

[ArtieE]

I know, right? The Dictionary Defense: The most boring, ineffective, unimaginative debate tactic of all time. Especially unpersuasive when paired with condescension.

"Avoiding the issue" is "the most boring, ineffective, unimaginative debate tactic of all time." What is supposedly wrong with the definitions?

 

[LuisDantas]

I can respect this but this sort would not fall under atheism. If your not guessing then it is left open in which case theism isn't necessarily false as atheists claim.

Atheism does not have to involve even guesses. All it has to involve is a lack of belief in gods of any kind.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

My opinion? My point of view?

"Religion 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism

- Atheist: Lack of belief in a deity. This is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “theist” meaning belief in a deity.
- Agnostic: Lack of knowledge in a deity. Again, this is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “gnostic” meaning “knowledge.” ...
"Atheism concerns belief while being agnostic is a claim about knowledge."

Religion 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism - Philadelphia atheism | Examiner.com

 

[LuisDantas]

To answer the question where did everything come from, not a baseball, not an eternal turtle, certainly not some sort of creative force labelled god.

What does that have to do with atheism again?

You seem to be implying that atheism somehow must attempt to answer that question. I just fail to see why it should.

Heck, it is not even a particularly important question for theists.