Threads about Theism and what it is

[paarsurrey]

For those of us who see atheism as nothing more or less than the complement of theism (i.e. two options forming a MECE set - everyone belongs to exactly one category), trying to define atheism is also trying to define theism.

We don't use the term "theism" , instead we call ourselves as Believers or Muslims and our Religion is Islam, never needing this term "theism" or atheism to define us , please.

Regards

 

[osgart]

The only theism i got in me is that this might be some sort of purgatory existence where people's souls hang in the balance between heaven and hell. Its all up to the rebellious soul to choose between a life higher or a life lower on the scale of justice. Nothing hinges on belief or faith. Just plain old heart.

Maybe purgatory is the absence of reason, defense, and knowledge. In which case we are all rebels, and outlaws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All of these are couched re: monotheism. I know you understand the difference.

And I hope you understand how “disregard” encompassed “lack of belief.”

 

[Augustus]

And I hope you understand how “disregard” encompassed “lack of belief.”

To use one of your favourites, are you saying that polytheists are atheists?

I also don't believe I am disregarding my "duties" to God. Do you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To use one of your favourites, are you saying that polytheists are atheists?

Are you trying to obfuscate on purpose or are you really missing the point I’m making?

Even though the authors of those definitions had a mindset that belief in a classical monotheistic god named “God” encompassed all of “theism,” they still thought that merely not believing in God and not engaging with the tenets of “God’s religion” was enough to make someone an atheist.

Even though, to them, rejection of theism would have meant only rejecting a single specific god - and therefore would have been practically possible - they still held that mere lack of belief in that god or lack of engagement with that god’s religion was enough to make someone an atheist.

Today, we realize that there are uncountably many god-concepts and that it would be practically impossible for a human being to even know about all of them, let alone reject them. These older definitions shine light on the fact that not only do you try to ask for the impossible in your definition of “atheism,” but you ask for something that’s really unlike what was asked for in the past, even in eras when - thanks to blindness to other cultures - your approach might have been possible.

I also don't believe I am disregarding my "duties" to God. Do you?

The authors of those definitions did.

Remember that gods aren’t believed in in isolation. They normally come as a package deal with a religion cantered around them, complete with beliefs about acts that the god or gods have done and instructions or advice that they’ve given to humanity.

 

[Augustus]

Even though the authors of those definitions had a mindset that belief in a classical monotheistic god named “God” encompassed all of “theism,” they still thought that merely not believing in God and not engaging with the tenets of “God’s religion” was enough to make someone an atheist.

Even though, to them, rejection of theism would have meant only rejecting a single specific god - and therefore would have been practically possible - they still held that mere lack of belief in that god or lack of engagement with that god’s religion was enough to make someone an atheist.

Today, we realize that there are uncountably many god-concepts and that it would be practically impossible for a human being to even know about all of them, let alone reject them. These older definitions shine light on the fact that not only do you try to ask for the impossible in your definition of “atheism,” but you ask for something that’s really unlike what was asked for in the past, even in eras when - thanks to blindness to other cultures - your approach might have been possible.

This rather archaic definition is certainly not the same as the 'babies and rocks' lack of belief though.

I have no problem with treating atheism as a concept with multiple potential meanings and have always argued that it isn't best treated as a vacuum or unposition due to the fact that it is a product of human cultures and philosophies.

The only group that demands theirs is the One True Meaning and that everyone else is wrong are those who favour the modern 'lack of belief' definition.

As such I see no need to try to shoehorn a usage that relates to a specific historical and cultural context into a clearly different meaning from a different time and cultural context. One is a lifestyle choice and the other is a state.

The authors of those definitions did.

Remember that gods aren’t believed in in isolation. They normally come as a package deal with a religion cantered around them, complete with beliefs about acts that the god or gods have done and instructions or advice that they’ve given to humanity.

Exactly, which is why it is not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This rather archaic definition is certainly not the same as the 'babies and rocks' lack of belief though.

When religion is seen as being about duties to God and atheism is seen as neglecting those duties, people and things that have no religious duties - e.g. babies and rocks - can't disregard their duties, since they have no duties to disregard.

Do you think that theism is a matter of duty as opposed to belief? Unless you do, this approach isn't available to you.

I have no problem with treating atheism as a concept with multiple potential meanings and have always argued that it isn't best treated as a vacuum or unposition due to the fact that it is a product of human cultures and philosophies.

If you really feel this way, then why are you so opposed to definitions that involve lack of belief? Why are you so opposed to that meaning for the term?

The only group that demands theirs is the One True Meaning and that everyone else is wrong are those who favour the modern 'lack of belief' definition.

As such I see no need to try to shoehorn a usage that relates to a specific historical and cultural context into a clearly different meaning from a different time and cultural context.

But that's precisely what you're doing when you insist on a "rejection of belief" definition. That approach never actually matched usage, but at least it was possible in a context where the society of the time held that there was only one god worth thinking about. Now, in a context that acknowledges a vast spectrum of god-beliefs of all sorts of descriptions, ut isn't even physically possible to reject every god.

Heck - it isn't even possible for a single human being to be aware of every god.

In the historical and cultural context we live in today, the "lack of belief" definition reflects how people - including you - use the word "atheist."

Exactly, which is why it is not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.

This might be a good time to remember that the only reason I brought up those older definitions was because you made an incorrect point about past definitions of the term.

Past usage doesn't dictate future usage, but you made a false claim specifically about past usage.

 

[Augustus]

Do you think that theism is a matter of duty as opposed to belief? Unless you do, this approach isn't available to you.

Depends on the theism in question, belief is only relevant to a few of them.

In the historical and cultural context we live in today, the "lack of belief" definition reflects how people - including you - use the word "atheist."

No it doesn't.

But I can't be bothered repeating myself regarding your misrepresentation and why I find your reasoning to be fundamentally flawed on this point.

This might be a good time to remember that the only reason I brought up those older definitions was because you made an incorrect point about past definitions of the term.

Past usage doesn't dictate future usage, but you made a false claim specifically about past usage.

Might also be a good time to remember that the definitions you quoted were clearly different from the modern lack of belief one.

So unless you have some actual evidence...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it doesn't.

Let's see about that. Here's some usage:

According to one online source, the following people are atheists:

- Bill Gates
- Douglas Adams
- Richard Dawkins
- James Randi

Do you also consider these people to be atheists?

 

[Augustus]

Let's see about that. Here's some usage:

According to one online source, the following people are atheists:

- Bill Gates
- Douglas Adams
- Richard Dawkins
- James Randi

Do you also consider these people to be atheists?

I assume so.

DA On 'radical atheism':

"If you describe yourself as "Atheist," some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic'?" I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much."

JR
"I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition and that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).

RD
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.



In general, it seems that many atheists who profess a 'lack' of belief are really expressing something like this:

From Dawkins (modified)
De facto atheist. Very low probability of gods, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think the existence of god/s is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that there are none."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I assume so.

DA On 'radical atheism':

"If you describe yourself as "Atheist," some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic'?" I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much."

So you take his rejection of a monotheistic god as a rejection of all gods?

JR
"I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition and that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).

This one isn't even a rejection; all he's saying is that there isn't evidence for it (without even speaking to evidence against).

RD
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

Again: not actually a rejection. In fact, going by your second quote from Dawkins, it seems that he takes great pains to explain that he's not making a rejection.

I haven't heard any of these people ever say or even hint that they reject all gods. I have heard some of them explicitly say that they don't reject gods. Do you still consider them atheists?

Even if you don't consider them atheists any more, I hope you can recognize that plenty of people do: in the current mainstream usage of the word "atheist," there are atheists who haven't rejected all gods... or even a single god, in some cases.

In general, it seems that many atheists who profess a 'lack' of belief are really expressing something like this:

From Dawkins (modified)
De facto atheist. Very low probability of gods, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think the existence of god/s is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that there are none."

Again: I'm not sure what you think Dawkins is rejecting.

On the off chance you do somehow think that he's rejecting gods, I think you're missing an important point: saying that we don't need to reject gods to be an atheist doesn't imply that no atheists reject any gods.

Even while I, a Canadian, sit here in Ontario, I can say that you don't have to live in Ontario to live in Canada. This is even the case despite the fact that I live in Canada by virtue of the fact that I live in Ontario and I've never lived anywhere but Ontario. Do you understand how this relates to atheism? Because I've never gotten the sense that you do.

 

[Augustus]

So you take his rejection of a monotheistic god as a rejection of all gods?

I haven't got the context, but I assume the small g means he isn't limiting his view to monotheism.

This one isn't even a rejection; all he's saying is that there isn't evidence for it (without even speaking to evidence against).

imo "superstition" = not true = rejecting/disbelieving/believing doesn't exist/etc.

Again: not actually a rejection. In fact, going by your second quote from Dawkins, it seems that he takes great pains to explain that he's not making a rejection.

I'm almost certain no god exists so I'm going to live as if there isn't one = rejection on balance of probabilities in my book.

Bertrand Russell said if he was speaking purely from a philosophical perspective he'd consider himself agnostic on a technicality. From a practical perspective though he considered himself an atheist as he considered the existence of god to be ludicrously improbable (he differentiated the 2 positions in the 'traditional' manner).

Again: I'm not sure what you think Dawkins is rejecting.

The existence of god to a high degree of confidence (although short of certainty).

When you rush across the road when a car is coming (but not that close) you practically reject the possibility that the car is going to hit you even though if you were talking from a purely philosophical perspective you would accept that there is indeed a very small possibility.

You seem to be applying different criteria to rejection than me. Disbelief doesn't require certainty, it can just be balance of probabilities.

On the off chance you do somehow think that he's rejecting gods, I think you're missing an important point: saying that we don't need to reject gods to be an atheist doesn't imply that no atheists reject any gods.

Obviously, but as I have explained many times before, that's not the source of our disagreement.