Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[leibowde84]

I don't need to make assumptions when I know that someone is incorrect. The real issue is, 'atheism', has to be defined in a debate, for it to be argued for or against, as does 'theism'. These definitions cannot be too broad, because when they are too broad, the arguments change. If one thinks that the arguments are the same for broad, or narrow, definitions, that the person doesn't know the subject, etc

Both "theism" (which includes everyone that believes in God or gods) and "atheism" (which includes everyone who does not believe in God or gods) are general terms. There are obviously countless subcategories of theism, so why on earth wouldn't the same be true for "atheism"?

Theism = belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

The issue is that theists often want to assign things to atheism that don't make sense in order to more easily attack it. But, that is a fraudulent practice. The terms are general for a reason, as they include a plethora of different options.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a great example of not understanding the subject.

Theism is a claim, but atheism is an absence of the claim made by theism. Obviously, the burden of proof is on those making a claim, not those who refuse to buy into said claim. It is, therefore, up to the theist to provide support for their claim that God exists. Atheists only "claim" (if that is what you want to call it), is that the arguments provided by theists are insufficient. Atheism does not necessarily mean that one claims that God cannot exist. The whole point of it is reluctance to believe something until sufficient evidence is presented. So, just like the positive claim, many atheists feel the negative claim is insufficiently supported as well.

 

[Skwim]

Theism is a claim, but atheism is an absence of the claim made by theism.

Wouldn't that amount to no claim at all? The claim that oysters are terrible tasting would qualify, as would sitting there eyes closed, mouth agape, and snoring would qualify as atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

Wouldn't that amount to no claim at all? The claim that oysters are terrible tasting would qualify, as would sitting there eyes closed, mouth agape, and snoring would qualify as atheism.

Exactly. Atheism's only claim is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God or gods. There is strong atheism, which holds that the existence of God is impossible. But, most outspoken atheists, including Hitchens, Krauss, Smally, etc. merely lack belief in God or gods due to insufficient evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

The issue is that theists often want to assign things to atheism that don't make sense in order to more easily attack it. But, that is a fraudulent practice. The terms are general for a reason, as they include a plethora of different options.

Yup. The same is done of atheists wanting to more easily attack theists, or democrats wanting to attack republicans (and vice versa) and on, and on, and on. On the whole, as I observed earlier, there is just a whole lot of stupid going around everywhere and on all sides of any conflict. All of which could be ameliorated a little more if there was a bit more listening going on. Too much to hope for that, though, considering as a culture my people barely recognize that listening is even a skill that needs to be learned and trained.

Small irony, by your definition of "theist" and "atheist" I would be an "atheist" because I "lack belief" in the existence of my gods. Gotta love how the faith-based theistic religions have kind of monopolized our understanding of theism so we nearly always frame it in terms of a "belief" or a "faith" in the Western world.

 

[leibowde84]

Yup. The same is done of atheists wanting to more easily attack theists, or democrats wanting to attack republicans (and vice versa) and on, and on, and on. On the whole, as I observed earlier, there is just a whole lot of stupid going around everywhere and on all sides of any conflict. All of which could be ameliorated a little more if there was a bit more listening going on. Too much to hope for that, though, considering as a culture my people barely recognize that listening is even a skill that needs to be learned and trained.

Small irony, by your definition of "theist" and "atheist" I would be an "atheist" because I "lack belief" in the existence of my gods. Gotta love how the faith-based theistic religions have kind of monopolized our understanding of theism so we nearly always frame it in terms of a "belief" or a "faith" in the Western world.

It is just what the term "theism" refers to. It is a term dependent on belief. Gnosticism deals with knowledge. But, in actuality, no matter how confident you are in your "knowledge" of the supernatural, that "knowledge" is really just a strongly held belief. Our subjective limitations prevent any kind of absolutes in this area.

 

[Cephus]

This is a great example of not understanding the subject.

No, it shows that you don't understand the subject. Logic. It's not that hard.

 

[Skwim]

Gotta love how the faith-based theistic religions have kind of monopolized our understanding of theism so we nearly always frame it in terms of a "belief" or a "faith" in the Western world.

Okay, frame theism not in terms of belief or faith, or are you speaking of framing it in terms of a specific belief or faith? .

 

[leibowde84]

Okay, frame theism not in terms of belief or faith, or are you speaking of framing it in terms of a specific belief or faith? .

This threw me too. Theism is dependent on belief. It is merely what the term refers to. The specific belief in the existence of God or gods, but belief all the same.

 

[Skwim]

Exactly.

EXACTLY!?! Sitting there eyes closed, mouth agape, and snoring qualifies as atheism? Does watching the Superbowl from the fifty yard line also qualify as atheism? If it does, then everything we do, excluding a belief in a god, amounts to atheism.

"Hey, you two, what were you doing in the bed with your clothes off?"

"We were practicing atheism."

 

[Quintessence]

It is just what the term "theism" refers to. It is a term dependent on belief. Gnosticism deals with knowledge. But, in actuality, no matter how confident you are in your "knowledge" of the supernatural, that "knowledge" is really just a strongly held belief. Our subjective limitations prevent any kind of absolutes in this area.

Absolutely. There comes a point, though, where indulging in skepticism becomes a senseless exercise outside of academia. That's pretty much how I feel about my gods. Rather than waste my time wondering whether or not the sun "really" exists I'm just going to get on with my Summer Solstice celebration...

(That, and my default response to "does X exist" is always "yes" anyway; the better question is always "in what way do I experience and know this thing, and in what way do I wish to interact with it?")

 

[Desert Snake]

Theism is a claim, but atheism is an absence of the claim made by theism. Obviously, the burden of proof is on those making a claim, not those who refuse to buy into said claim.

This is essentially meaningless. Theism is not inherently a ''claim'', whatever you mean by 'claim'.


''absence of the claim', is meaningless;



if someone were to believe in deity or deities, but didn't make any ''claims'', are they therefore an atheist?

 

[Desert Snake]

This threw me too. Theism is dependent on belief. It is merely what the term refers to. The specific belief in the existence of God or gods, but belief all the same.

Actually, this distinction in words or ideas is arbitrary. I disagree with something you write, theoretically, yet you ''believe'' that you are correct. Well, it's just your belief. This could apply to anything.

 

[leibowde84]

EXACTLY!?! Sitting there eyes closed, mouth agape, and snoring qualifies as atheism? Does watching the Superbowl from the fifty yard line also qualify as atheism? If it does, then everything we do, excluding a belief in a god, amounts to atheism.

"Hey, you two, what were you doing in the bed with your clothes off?"

"We were practicing atheism."

That is a bit ridiculous. "Atheism" is merely the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. One cannot "practice" atheism. It is a matter of whether one holds a belief in the existence of any gods or not. Apart from belief in the existence of God, the term "atheism" is not appropriate.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, this distinction in words or ideas is arbitrary. I disagree with something you write, theoretically, yet you ''believe'' that you are correct. Well, it's just your belief. This could apply to anything.

Can you rephrase this. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at with this. Theism depends on belief in God or gods. Thus, atheism depends on the lack of those beliefs. Beliefs are often arbitrary, and thinking that the evidence for theism is insufficient certainly can be. I fail to see why that would be a problem though.

 

[Quintessence]

Okay, frame theism not in terms of belief or faith, or are you speaking of framing it in terms of a specific belief or faith? .

Pardon... what I mean to say is that "believe" is not necessarily a good word to describe a person's position. I've grown to dislike using that word to describe theological persuasion for various reasons. In the prevailing cultural dialogue, it is frequently assumed that beliefs regarding god(s) is a matter of faith, and also that "belief" or "faith" is of central importance to a particular religious practice. With that word "faith" comes some other assumptions that do not necessarily hold true of some particular theist or atheist.

On occasion I've seen talk here regarding gnostic and agnostic varieties of theism and atheism. I think that is a good step forward. For gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, it really is not accurate to describe them in terms of what they "believe," because to them, it is knowledge that has emerged from their experiences. Even that way of looking at things has its drawbacks, though. There can never be any substitute for sitting down with someone one-on-one and listening actively to what they are communicating. It seems to me that each theism, each atheism, each religion each irreligion, has exactly one adherent. No two people have identical worldviews, and as much as we like to simplify so we can categorize, some things seem irreducible.

 

[leibowde84]

This is essentially meaningless. Theism is not inherently a ''claim'', whatever you mean by 'claim'.


''absence of the claim', is meaningless;



if someone were to believe in deity or deities, but didn't make any ''claims'', are they therefore an atheist?

This is nonsensical. There is no requirement for an explicit claim to be made. Believing in the existence of God is the claim, so your hypothetical doesn't make any sense. If they "believe in deity or deities", they are making the claim that they think deity or deities exist. Remember, there is no requirement for claims to be explicit. Not sure where that even came from.

 

[Skwim]

That is a bit ridiculous.

I said,"sitting there eyes closed, mouth agape, and snoring would qualify as atheism," which is an action, not a thought, and you said, "Exactly." So I took it that any action would qualify as atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

I said,"sitting there eyes closed, mouth agape, and snoring would qualify as atheism," which is an action, not a thought, and you said, "Exactly." So I took it that any action would qualify as atheism.

Sorry that you misunderstood me, but, that is incorrect. Theism and atheism are limited to the belief or absence of belief in God or gods. There doesn't have to be any kind of explicit claims, but belief in and of itself is an implicit claim.

 

[Quintessence]

This is essentially meaningless. Theism is not inherently a ''claim'', whatever you mean by 'claim'.


''absence of the claim', is meaningless;



if someone were to believe in deity or deities, but didn't make any ''claims'', are they therefore an atheist?

I think there's something missing here with people talking past each other a bit. Let me see if I understand what you mean here. Are you meaning to make a distinction between someone making a personal statement versus a statement that they expect others to accept (e.g., a "claim")? It seems that this is an important distinction to make.