Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[Audie]

Sure, and Einstein could be wrong as well.

I don't think these great religious minds are wrong, because we are able to go somewhere based on what they have given us. Just as Monotheism was a great improvement over polytheism, the idea that we are all imperfectly perceiving the same God is bringing us to a higher level of understanding.

Sure, and Einstein could be wrong as well.

I don't think these great religious minds are wrong, because we are able to go somewhere based on what they have given us. Just as Monotheism was a great improvement over polytheism, the idea that we are all imperfectly perceiving the same God is bringing us to a higher level of understanding.

A higher level of understanding while still mired in
superstitious magical thinking.

 

[Willamena]

To clarify:

1. The word atheism is polysemic thus has multiple definitions in common usage
2. For various reasons, different people prefer different definitions, but none of them are the One True Meaning.
3. Some atheists seem to operate under the assumption that their subjective preference for one of these definitions is actually an objective fact, and that people using any of the other common usages are 'wrong', or 'misquoting' and are also mendacious for doing so.

I agree. The word atheist has, as its root, the essential definition that informs each of its various usages--that is "no God or gods," or atheos. As you said, there is no "one true" usage, per se, but there are strong uses that explicitly reference some version of "no god," and weak uses, which only imply it. All usages do reference the essential definition, but some people seem to need one to be an 'umbrella' of sorts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you not familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant, or do you simply find it impossible to understand?

I know the story. I know it well enough that you're claiming the position of the omniscient narrator who can see the whole picture and not that of one of the blind characters who represent actual people.

I must be faithful to the revelation of God that I have received. But I acknowledge that others have perceptions of God that differ from mine. I don't see why that is hard to understand.

The issue is when you try to claim contradicting claims: for instance, personal and intelligent god-concepts vs. impersonal and unintelligent god-concepts. To the extent that one is true, the other is false. If God were to exist, it would either have intelligence or not; it would either have personality or not. Integrating these conflicting beliefs together would mean that only one is right: the believer who thinks that God is impersonal and unintelligent might have made a reasonable inference from what he saw of God, but he's ultimately incorrect when he applies that inference to God as a whole.

And when we look at all the different people who claim that God commanded to do conflicting things or has conflicting desires, if we assume they're all right, then the overall picture of God we get is a trickster-god who's trying to mess with people. Is that the God you believe in?

 

[Audie]

I agree. The word atheist has, as its root, the essential definition that informs each of its various usages--that is "no God or gods," or atheos. As you said, there is no "one true" usage, per se, but there are strong uses that explicitly reference some version of "no god," and weak uses, which only imply it. All usages do reference the essential definition, but some people seem to need one to be an 'umbrella' of sorts.

It is legit to pick which meaning applies to ones self.

 

[Falvlun]

Why should I assume that they are? Especially when they all give very different descriptions of their experiences?

Let's give a different example. The chemist Dalton (who developed the modern theory of atoms) discovered that he was not able to see things that other people could. In particular, he had what is now known as color blindness. Now, how can someone who is color blind come to the conclusion that there really are colors s/he cannot see? Well, one thing is the number of people who claim to be able to see colors. But much more important is the fact that they give consistent and repeatable results when asked questions about colors. So, one person would be able to say a particular apple is green and another is red. And then another person can come in and give exactly the same answers. This can be repeated with consistent results through any number of people who can see colors.

In contrast, just look at the variety of different views people have about the supernatural and deities. It almost seems that each different person has a different view. Certainly, it is difficult to get agreement except in very rare circumstances. This suggests strongly that people are NOT all seeing the same thing, but instead of something objective, it is something created in their own minds.

The sheer numbers mostly tell that people *want* to believe *something*, but the lack of consistency suggests that none actually see anything.

You seem to think I’m making a stronger statement than I am. I am not saying that “numerous people believing in X” is some perfect proof for X. I’m not saying that it meets some rigorous scientific experiment standard.

I am simply saying that the more people you get affirming something, the more plausible we find it. This seems to be basic human psychology that plays out in a myriad of ways. It makes sense why we consider it evidence when multiple people confirm something.

If you were following the discussion that occurred prior to where you jumped in, it was about the difference between belief in blue fairies and god. Blue fairies do not consistently have billions of people over tens of thousands of years believing they exist. God(s) do. That is a dynamic difference. That’s a crap ton of corroboration.

Sure, you can drill down and say why you want to discount all those people. I agree with many of your issues with their testimony. And regardless, in and of itself, it’s not going to be proof— it’s just a bit of evidence.

But the point is that we take god claims much more seriously than blue fairy claims because of how ubiquitous the belief is. You don’t need to drill down to discount the odd blue fairy believer. You don’t have words for blue fairy belief. You don’t have forums discussing their existence. Because you don’t need to. It’s simply not as plausible a belief as god—

 

[Audie]

I know the story. I know it well enough that you're claiming the position of the omniscient narrator who can see the whole picture and not that of one of the blind characters who represent actual people.


The issue is when you try to claim contradicting claims: for instance, personal and intelligent god-concepts vs. impersonal and unintelligent god-concepts. To the extent that one is true, the other is false. If God were to exist, it would either have intelligence or not; it would either have personality or not. Integrating these conflicting beliefs together would mean that only one is right: the believer who thinks that God is impersonal and unintelligent might have made a reasonable inference from what he saw of God, but he's ultimately incorrect when he applies that inference to God as a whole.

And when we look at all the different people who claim that God commanded to do conflicting things or has conflicting desires, if we assume they're all right, then the overall picture of God we get is a trickster-god who's trying to mess with people. Is that the God you believe in?

It must be great to get the facts from god, then you
can relax.

I talked to a Mormon who prayed hard for a week,
for god to tell him if LDS was right.

And finally, god did!

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to think I’m making a stronger statement than I am. I am not saying that “numerous people believing in X” is some perfect proof for X. I’m not saying that it meets some rigorous scientific experiment standard.

I am simply saying that the more people you get affirming something, the more plausible we find it. This seems to be basic human psychology that plays out in a myriad of ways. It makes sense why we consider it evidence when multiple people confirm something.

If you were following the discussion that occurred prior to where you jumped in, it was about the difference between belief in blue fairies and god. Blue fairies do not consistently have billions of people over tens of thousands of years believing they exist. God(s) do. That is a dynamic difference. That’s a crap ton of corroboration.

Sure, you can drill down and say why you want to discount all those people. I agree with many of your issues with their testimony. And regardless, in and of itself, it’s not going to be proof— it’s just a bit of evidence.

But the point is that we take god claims much more seriously than blue fairy claims because of how ubiquitous the belief is. You don’t have words for blue fairy belief. You don’t have forums discussing their existence. Because you don’t need to. It’s simply not as plausible a belief as god.

And my point is that they have no more reason to believe in a God than they do in to believe in blue fairies. The actual evidence is equivalent. It's just that one is a popular belief.

And yes, I strongly disagree that having more people believe something makes it more probable *unless* they have a means to verify that something. Otherwise, it is simply a story someone imagined that others liked.

And we see this all the time historically: the flatness of the earth, the stars being pasted on a sphere a few billion miles away, a global flood, etc. I can come up with any number of universally held beliefs that were totally false. They weren't made plausible because everyone believed them.

The number of believers has no bearing on the plausibility.

 

[Audie]

And my point is that they have no more reason to believe in a God than they do in to believe in blue fairies. The actual evidence is equivalent. It's just that one is a popular belief.

And yes, I strongly disagree that having more people believe something makes it more probable *unless* they have a means to verify that something. Otherwise, it is simply a story someone imagined that others liked.

And we see this all the time historically: the flatness of the earth, the stars being pasted on a sphere a few billion miles away, a global flood, etc. I can come up with any number of universally held beliefs that were totally false. They weren't made plausible because everyone believed them.

The number of believers has no bearing on the plausibility.

There is more reason to believe in god,
as there is so much more one can do with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you were following the discussion that occurred prior to where you jumped in, it was about the difference between belief in blue fairies and god. Blue fairies do not consistently have billions of people over tens of thousands of years believing they exist. God(s) do. That is a dynamic difference. That’s a crap ton of corroboration.

Blue fairies, specifically? No. Belief in nature spirits in general? Over human history, that's probably more prevalent - and more ancient - than belief in gods.

I find it interesting that people's go-to examples of ridiculous claims - pixies, fairies, leprechauns, Thor, Zeus, etc. - are just religious beliefs that have fallen out of popularity.

 

[Audie]

Blue fairies, specifically? No. Belief in nature spirits in general? Over human history, that's probably more prevalent - and more ancient - than belief in gods.

I find it interesting that people's go-to examples of ridiculous claims - pixies, fairies, leprechauns, Thor, Zeus, etc. - are just religious beliefs that have fallen out of popularity.

Belief in various spirits rhat need to be dealt
with are extremely widespread. "Blue fairy"
is a cstchall for such, is it not?

 

[PureX]

Indeed it is. I was using it as a generic for sentient beings who are real / have objective existence / exist in nature / are not imaginary / would still exist even if no brain held the concept of them.

We have no way of knowing what would or would not exist if we were not here to experience and identify "it's existence". We can't even be sure that what we DO experience as existing is what we think it is. So this reality that you imagine to exist apart from your imagined reality is an incoherent proposition.

But that's just the point ─ if it's not imaginary, it's real, and if it's real, what is it?

You still don't get that imagination is real. It exists. It is responsible for our concept of reality and for our concept of unreality, both. Both are imagined states of being.

Do you then agree with the definition I use? Namely: a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds to / conforms with / accurately reflects objective reality.

"Objective reality" is an incoherent imaginary condition that, by definition, we can never verify because we imagine it not to be imaginary.

 

[Augustus]

The person who tries to restrict usage to only one meaning is wrong.

I agree. That's what I said.

So we agree that anyone who insists that either the 'lack of belief' or the 'disbelief' meanings are 'wrong' is in fact the one who is wrong.

Which is generally what happens in arguments over definitions of atheism: people argue against the "lack of belief" argument on the grounds that rejection of belief is needed to be an atheist.

It's as ridiculous as someone arguing that a crane can't be used to describe a piece of construction equipment because a crane is a bird.

From my experience here, it is far more common that the 'lack of beliefers' are insistent that using the other definition is factually wrong, and even that using it constitutes some form of intellectual dishonesty.

Anyway, seeing as we both seem to agree that the word is polysemic, it doesn't really matter.

Many people in the thread clarified how they were using the term.

Some pointed out they prefer a different definition which is fine, others said the definition was wrong and that it constituted a fallacy which I disagree with.

 

[Augustus]

"Some" seems like a step back, but the example has not been
fortcoming.

No idea what you are on about now.

'Some' is exactly what I said in the first post, and I've given you an example twice. You even directly referenced the example in a reply.

There are more on the first page of the thread if you others, and countless in other threads. But, if you still can't find any here you won't have to wait too long before someone insists that it is 'wrong' to use atheism according to one of its standard definitions.

 

[Falvlun]

And my point is that they have no more reason to believe in a God than they do in to believe in blue fairies. The actual evidence is equivalent. It's just that one is a popular belief.

And yes, I strongly disagree that having more people believe something makes it more probable *unless* they have a means to verify that something. Otherwise, it is simply a story someone imagined that others liked.

And we see this all the time historically: the flatness of the earth, the stars being pasted on a sphere a few billion miles away, a global flood, etc. I can come up with any number of universally held beliefs that were totally false. They weren't made plausible because everyone believed them.

The number of believers has no bearing on the plausibility.

Plausibility is not synonymous with probability. It’s more akin to “believeability”. The first definition I googled said that it was the “quality of seeming reasonable or probable.” My emphasis.

Number of believers certainly has bearing on whether something seems reasonable.

The fact that people believed incorrect things doesn’t negate this. Confirmation by multiple people remains a common tried-and-true method.

People do have more reason to believe in God specifically because more people believe in God— making the belief more plausible. This is my primary point.

As a secondary, I’d like to address the “same evidence” canard. That’s just not true if you consider the millions of personal testimony. Yes, they vary— but I’m sure you’d still get millions within a single religious concept that largely correspond. And while they vary in the details, they come to the same conclusion: god. Again, not perfect evidence. But it’s not the same as no evidence. And it’s certainly more than blue fairies got.

 

[joe1776]

Atheists do not "deny the possibility". That is made up bs from you..

You must have your own special definition of atheism.

What are your definitions of atheism and agnosticism?

Anecdotes about Elvis sightings point to the possibility. In the so-what dept.

That's a false analogy. In both the quantity and evidence patterns, the anecdotal evidence for Elvis sightings are unique and can't be compared to anecdotal reports on other topics. You've only revealed your bias with that comment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. That's what I said.

So we agree that anyone who insists that either the 'lack of belief' or the 'disbelief' meanings are 'wrong' is in fact the one who is wrong.

From my experience here, it is far more common that the 'lack of beliefers' are insistent that using the other definition is factually wrong, and even that using it constitutes some form of intellectual dishonesty.

You're conflating two different issues:

- do some people use the term "atheist" in the "rejection of belief" sense? Yes. Defintions reflect usage, so it's part of the definition.

- does the "rejection of belief" definition create irrational implications and incoherencies? Yes. In that sense, it's "wrong" to use it.

Anyway, seeing as we both seem to agree that the word is polysemic, it doesn't really matter.

Right: it means all the definitions are part of the word, which seems to be a concept you're still struggling with.

Some pointed out they prefer a different definition which is fine, others said the definition was wrong and that it constituted a fallacy which I disagree with.

Seems to me that the person throwing around logical fallacies is you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No idea what you are on about now.

'Some' is exactly what I said in the first post, and I've given you an example twice. You even directly referenced the example in a reply.

There are more on the first page of the thread if you others, and countless in other threads. But, if you still can't find any here you won't have to wait too long before someone insists that it is 'wrong' to use atheism according to one of its standard definitions.

It's almost like you can't understand the difference between:

- "this usage isn't recognized as common," and
- "this usage, while common, has implications that make it unreasonable for any supposedly rational person to use."

 

[Augustus]

You're conflating two different issues:

- do some people use the term "atheist" in the "rejection of belief" sense? Yes. Defintions reflect usage, so it's part of the definition.

- does the "rejection of belief" definition create irrational implications and incoherencies? Yes. In that sense, it's "wrong" to use it.


Right: it means all the definitions are part of the word, which seems to be a concept you're still struggling with.


Seems to me that the person throwing around logical fallacies is you.

Nope.

It's almost like you can't understand the difference between:

- "this usage isn't recognized as common," and
- "this usage, while common, has implications that make it unreasonable for any supposedly rational person to use."

That's not what I was taking issue with.

It's almost like you arbitrarily decide what you want me to have said and reply to that instead of what I actually said in the context in which I said it. Wouldn't be the first time.

Never mind...

 

[Falvlun]

OK, to answer my own OP, here's the definitions I used, as a reminder:

Theism: a belief that there is at least one deity.

Agnosticism: not knowing if there's a deity or deities.

Atheism: a belief there are no deities.

If a person says (s)he's an "agnostic", I tend to think that's quite clear. Obviously they mean that (s)he doesn't know if there are any deities or not. To me, that's a logical position, namely if one doesn't know then they don't know.

OHOH, if a person say that (s)he's a "theist", that becomes more iffy because what is their belief based on? In some cases it may be what's called "blind belief", namely that they were just brought up to believe way, and they just accepted it without question. But, there are many who believe that there were some experience(s) that they had that pushed them in the direction of belief or confirmed their belief. With the latter being the case, their belief is logical because at least it's based on something.

But with "atheists" (see above definition), they say that there aren't any deities, but what evidence is that based on? Some atheists poke fun at theists and/or theistic beliefs, which is why I constructed this thread to begin with after seeing that in action here on numerous occasions, including just a few days ago, but I tend to think that the joke is on them. How could they possibly know there aren't any deities anywhere?

Of the three entities, "atheism" is that one that really more of a blind belief, and yet I see some self-proclaimed "atheists" strut around in smug arrogance making fun of theists and what they may believe.

BTW, I've been in all three positions during my adult life, and some here know what I've been through on this, and that's still being reflected in "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts.

Interesting explanation! Almost makes me want to go back to being an agnostic but alas, I know it would be dishonest to how I really feel.

I just wanted to address 2 things.

1. In regards to the theists, where do you rank those who have not had some experience but instead rely on unexamined tradition?

2. And in defense of my atheism (not that it’s particularly needed around these parts), here’s my answer to your question: “How could they possibly know that there aren’t any deities anywhere?”

That’s true. I don’t know for certain. But I’m okay with that. I think there are very few things that we know for certain anyway. I think most of our world views are simply beliefs based on our best currently available evidence. And that’s what my atheism is— a belief that gods don’t exist based on the currently available evidence.

But beliefs aren’t set in stone. You and I have experienced that with our changing beliefs. If at any point I do feel that convincing evidence is obtained, I can change my belief. I can admit I was wrong at that point. But until then, I feel that my current belief accurately represents reality as best as I can figure.

 

[Audie]

You must have your own special definition of atheism.

What are your definitions of atheism and agnosticism?

No, I am just me, and dont necessarily fit others'
attempts to define / confine my ideas with ther
definitions.

It is a bit like defining the word "species".

The word is useful but gets fuzxy and sometimes
contentious when looked at too closely for an
exact definition.

Creationists try to demand an exact definition,
or make things up, biologists are genrrally content
to leave it be, for lo, no ex freakin' zact meaning
seems possible.

Maybe more to the point would be why it could possibly
matter to you or all the other theist sorts to come up
with a precise definition.

I suppose we allow for some possibility that flying
saucers are real. Certainly, a disciplined thinker wont
say "I know" saucers or hods dont exist.

How might you define your level of disbelief
in flying saucers?

I dont believe in them, or in any god either.

Why the interest in categories and definitions?

ETA- "false analogy" is so tiresome.
How about you supply the perfect one?

And the exact difference between mermaid
ufo, elvis sightings and god-anecdotes.*

So, you know, I can understand my bias.

* no bias now, include the kitchen god and
every other sorta supernatural spirit. You
may have to come up with a unassailable def.
for "god".