"Lack of belief"

[Desert Snake]

''lack of belief'', is descriptive. In the atheism or theism context, it does not indicate a differential as to adherence/to an idea.

So, 'theism', is not inherently 'different', in perspectival nature, than 'atheism'.

You could, say, that you have a 'lack of belief', that there are no deities, thusly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

''lack of belief'', is descriptive. In the atheism or theism context, it does not indicate a differential as to adherence/to an idea.

So, 'theism', is not inherently 'different', in perspectival nature, than 'atheism'.

You could, say, that you have a 'lack of belief', that there are no deities, thusly.

"Lack of belief that there are no deities" does not necessarily imply theism ("the belief that there are deities or a deity"). Not accepting one claim does not automatically mean accepting the opposite claim.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Augustus,

Disbelief is a belief, the belief that something is not true.

I'm afraid this is not factually the case. Regardless though, the burden of proof is still on the positive claimant, the theist.

 

[McBell]

Regardless though, the burden of proof is still on the positive claimant, the theist.

Actually, the burden is on the one making the claim.
If the claim is that god does not exist, then that claim has burden of proof.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

so is a-naturalism, and as an a-naturalist, I make no positive claim.

I simply lack belief in evolution, natural origins of life or the universe. The burden of proof is entirely on the other side

(and the obvious alternative remains true by default meanwhile)

see? works both ways just as well does it not?

I'm afraid it does not work that way at all, in fact. You are making purely and superficially grammatical arguments without regard to the actual meaning of the terms you are using. You can't just pick a random word, insert the letter "a" in front of it, and then illogically shift the burden of proof. Words mean things, and whether sticking an "a" in front of a word makes it a claim requiring substantiation entirely depends on the meaning of the particular word in question.

The term theist is defined as one who believes in one or more deities, a claim about entities which we have no evidence for beyond the confines of the human imagination. The term evolution however denotes a natural process for which there is very ample evidence (unlike deities). Therefore, the former term concerns belief, while the latter concerns knowledge.

When someone states they disbelieve in the existence of deities, they are indeed making a negative claim which does not require proof. When someone says they disbelieve in evolution, however, they are actually making a claim which requires evidence to prove. This is because the "a-evolutionist" is actually rejecting the knowledge of something that is evidently true. The work has already been done to establish proof for evolution, so it is therefore in the hands of the "a-evolutionist" to provide evidence to counter this. Claiming a lack of belief in evolution is otherwise akin to claiming a lack of belief in gravity, or in atoms: two other scientific theories, and also evidently knowable phenomena.

Edit: Edited in light of Mestemia's valid point concerning positive vs negative claims. My point is still valid though, that claims must be substantiated.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Mestemia,

Actually, the burden is on the one making the claim.
If the claim is that god does not exist, then that claim has burden of proof.

You're right.

 

[Augustus]

So, to you:

- belief in gods that aren't creator-gods (e.g. most forms of polytheism) doesn't count as belief in gods?
- belief in creator-gods that aren't rules (e.g. some forms of deism) doesn't count as belief in gods?

Do you consider these polytheists and deists (as well as whichever other theists don't believe in a god that fits your definition) to be atheists?

These are definitions 2 and 3. Yes they are gods, but completely separate concepts. Many words have multiple meanings and as long as you understand this then its very simple.

You are looking for a single definition that covers everything, but this isn't possible and isn't necessary.

I consider polytheists polytheists and deists deists. Why wouldn't I?

The term "god" either refers to a concept or it doesn't. If it does, then the definition of the term can be derived from the concept. If it doesn't, then the word is just noise and not meaningful communication....Except they're not separate things. They all relate back to the term "god" in some way.

It refers to multiple, independent concepts. You are making problems where none exist by mistakenly thinking there must be some 'one size fits all' definition.

Someone who is aware of zero god concepts and has rejected zero god concepts has rejected all the god concepts they're aware of. It's an edge case, sure, but it's valid.

And the baby believes in all of the gods she's aware of, has crashed all of the cars she's driven and had sex with all of the men she's dated?? Don't be silly, rejecting is something you do.

Polytheism isn't a new thing. It's been known to monotheists as long as there have been monotheists.

And deism has been a mainstream thing (or at least well-known to the mainstream) at least as far back as the Enlightenment, so I don't see how you can say that acknowledging it in our terminology is a matter of being "PC".

Whether you like it or not, we recognize theists of all description - not just mainstream, western monotheists - as theists. We also recognize that theists aren't atheists. We don't do this out of political correctness; we do it because we realize it would be absurd to call someone who believes in a god of any description to be an atheist.

The point was about the term 'theism' being used to refer to generic 'belief in god(s)'. To do so makes it pretty much useless. I understand that this is a legitimate definition of 'theism', I just find it so flawed that it is meaningless.

I'd have no problem if the word didn't exist, it only seems to be important to people who want atheist to mean 'not a theist'.

As I've said before, it's much more useful to use atheist, polytheist, deist, monotheist, pantheist. Why do you care about the term 'theist', and at the same time go to great lengths to argue that it is meaningless?

I think we're using the same word to describe different things. I'm not necessarily saying that any individual god-concept is incoherent (though I agree that some are); I'm saying that all the various god-concepts, when considered together, can't be reconciled into a coherent whole.

And therein lies the rub, just accept that words often have more than one meaning and everything will be much easier.

 

[Augustus]

I'm afraid this is not factually the case. Regardless though, the burden of proof is still on the positive claimant, the theist.

In what way is it 'factually' not the case? You do believe the world isn't flat don't you?

Burden of proof has nothing to do with what I'm saying btw, it's about your beliefs not facts or argumentation.

 

[Desert Snake]

"Lack of belief that there are no deities" does not necessarily imply theism ("the belief that there are deities or a deity"). Not accepting one claim does not automatically mean accepting the opposite claim.

This is problematic, as it would then indicate, that 'atheism', isn't a position which is referencing theism.
According to your logic, 'atheism' would lose any reference to theism.

Thusly, atheism would then have no meaning.

 

[Desert Snake]

"Lack of belief that there are no deities" does not necessarily imply theism ("the belief that there are deities or a deity"). Not accepting one claim does not automatically mean accepting the opposite claim.

You are implying that 'theism', only has meaning when a counterpoint to 'atheism'. This is false, of course.
You also just said, ''opposite claim'', which means you are now using atheism in the position context, as opposed to a non-position context.

 

[atanu]

Why not? If you don't know "life breath" how do you know it's got anything to do with "the I"?

I said brain stops once the breath leaves. No more no less.

I claimed that brain matter isn't inert. The medical definition of inert is "Devoid of active chemical properties". http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inert
Are you saying that your brain is devoid of active chemical processes?

In the context of my question "Whence the I?", the chemical properties/processes, in my understanding, are not active (not sentient). But I know that some people believe their sentience to be created of chemical interactions or some such similar process.

What exactly did you take into consideration when you came to that understanding?

Several things.

Who is the "owner and controller" in your scenario? The "life breath"?

Owner of what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are implying that 'theism', only has meaning when a counterpoint to 'atheism'. This is false, of course.

Not sure how you made that leap.

You also just said, ''opposite claim'', which means you are now using atheism in the position context, as opposed to a non-position context.

I wasn't referring to atheism when I said "the opposite claim". The opposite claim to theism is the rejection of the existence of gods, which isn't necessary to be an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

Not sure how you made that leap.

I wasn't referring to atheism when I said "the opposite claim". The opposite claim to theism is the rejection of the existence of gods, which isn't necessary to be an atheist.

But sufficient.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These are definitions 2 and 3. Yes they are gods, but completely separate concepts. Many words have multiple meanings and as long as you understand this then its very simple.

You are looking for a single definition that covers everything, but this isn't possible and isn't necessary.

I consider polytheists polytheists and deists deists. Why wouldn't I?

They're all theists. Do you agree that theists aren't atheists?

It refers to multiple, independent concepts. You are making problems where none exist by mistakenly thinking there must be some 'one size fits all' definition.

You're actually making the problem by insisting that atheism be based on rejection of gods. The fact that your definition of "god" doesn't reconcile with how the term is actually used is your problem to solve, not mine.

And the baby believes in all of the gods she's aware of, has crashed all of the cars she's driven and had sex with all of the men she's dated?? Don't be silly, rejecting is something you do.

You don't need to reject anything to reject zero things.

The point was about the term 'theism' being used to refer to generic 'belief in god(s)'. To do so makes it pretty much useless. I understand that this is a legitimate definition of 'theism', I just find it so flawed that it is meaningless.

I get that you don't like the normal definition of theism, but this fact doesn't mean that the definition magically changes.

I'd have no problem if the word didn't exist, it only seems to be important to people who want atheist to mean 'not a theist'.

But it does exist. And atheists aren't the only ones who care about differentiating god-believers of all stripes from non-believers.

As I've said before, it's much more useful to use atheist, polytheist, deist, monotheist, pantheist. Why do you care about the term 'theist', and at the same time go to great lengths to argue that it is meaningless?

It isn't meaningless. It's just as meaningful to talk about gods as a group as it would be to, say, talk about "employees of Acme, Inc." as a group. And, like for gods, if we're talking about "employees of Acme, Inc.", it would be difficult or impossible to come up with some set of characteristics that includes all Acme employees and excludes everyone else, so if we want to differentiate between Acme employees and people who aren't Acme employees, then we'd have to just go by the employee list in HR.

Same with gods: we can define the term "god" based on a hypothetical exhaustive list of individual deities. This approach is somewhat workable, but it means that any term that needs us to deal with all gods as a group (e.g. defining atheism as the rejection of gods) is beyond human capabilities.

And therein lies the rub, just accept that words often have more than one meaning and everything will be much easier.

So accept that polytheists and deists are atheists? Do you think this is how anyone but you refers to them?

 

[Willamena]

You're actually making the problem by insisting that atheism be based on rejection of gods. The fact that your definition of "god" doesn't reconcile with how the term is actually used is your problem to solve, not mine.


You don't need to reject anything to reject zero things.


I get that you don't like the normal definition of theism, but this fact doesn't mean that the definition magically changes.

As a rejection of god or gods is how the term atheism is commonly used. What constitutes "normal" usage is relative.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not sure how you made that leap.

I wasn't referring to atheism when I said "the opposite claim". The opposite claim to theism is the rejection of the existence of gods, which isn't necessary to be an atheist.

In some previous discussion I was told that there's only theism or atheism and nothing in between. A rejection of existence of gods must be an atheist, regardless of any other options, views, or concepts. Are you suggesting that there are multiple options here and not a strong binary situation here? Is the terms more analog than binary?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In some previous discussion I was told that there's only theism or atheism and nothing in between. A rejection of existence of gods must be an atheist, regardless of any other options, views, or concepts. Are you suggesting that there are multiple options here and not a strong binary situation here? Is the terms more analog than binary?

No, I'm not.

Anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. A person who rejected the existence of all gods (if such a person was even possible) would not be a theist, and would therefore be an atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I'm not.

Anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. A person who rejected the existence of all gods (if such a person was even possible) would not be a theist, and would therefore be an atheist.

I read your statement "The opposite claim to theism is the rejection of the existence of gods, which isn't necessary to be an atheist" to mean that rejection of gods is not necessarily making a person an atheist. Sounds like you're suggesting that there could be people who reject gods but are still not atheists. Someone rejecting gods would be a strong atheist, wouldn't they? So it would most definitely make them an atheist if they rejected gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I read your statement "The opposite claim to theism is the rejection of the existence of gods, which isn't necessary to be an atheist" to mean that rejection of gods is not necessarily making a person an atheist. Sounds like you're suggesting that there could be people who reject gods but are still not atheists.

No, I'm saying that there can be atheists who don't reject gods.

Someone rejecting gods would be a strong atheist, wouldn't they? So it would most definitely make them an atheist if they rejected gods.

I never claimed otherwise.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I'm saying that there can be atheists who don't reject gods.

I see. Ok. Thanks for the clarification.