What is the most common mistake that atheists make?

[Smart_Guy]

But at least it would be better than Hell

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet.
The most common atheist mistake is voting for Dems & Pubs.

The joke is funny only because it reveals how theologically ignorant atheists are.

In my experience, Xians find it funny because they realize how much we
have in common, ie, so many other gods & religions we both reject.
As for being ignorant of theology, some (like me) are very much so....but
others are knowledgeable about beliefs they don't personally hold.
A question...
Is it detrimental to not know much of the faiths one doesn't hold true?
I don't think so. It's never hurt me to be inexpert in impractical things
like astrology, faith healing, palm reading, Scientology, Reiki, etc, etc.

 

[Glaurung]

It is one concept of God in Christianity. There are multiple.

You can find Christians who believe in just about anything, but the philosophical tradition of Christian thought regarding the nature of God is not that wide. The intelligent, non-created and non-contingent source of all being. Anything more is detail. (Which are important, although not relevant to the discussion)

The Christian revelation may just be one of countless revelations as far as you're concerned. But regardless of its truth or falsity the god it posits is not the same thing as the gods posited by a village shaman in Africa. It's not one less god than me, because I don't believe in "the gods" either.

 

[HonestJoe]

The most common mistake that atheists make is a category mistake. They mistakenly believe that polytheistic deities belong to the same ontological frame of reference as the monotheistic Deity. This category mistake is made in a variety of (inane) arguments that atheists commonly make. For instance, atheists often argue that atheism is simply believing in one less god than you do. But this is a category mistake. Polytheistic deities (if they do exist) are celestial beings that belong to the same ontological level that angels do; they do not belong to the same ontological level that the monotheistic Deity does.

I think you’re reading too much in to the wording of a flippant throw-away comment. It’s obviously not as simple as the statement would exist but there is a valid argument behind it.

It’s not really about the existence of and belief in a god or gods but the wider religious beliefs about them. There are countless different religious worldviews that some people hold (or have held), most of which are contradictory and mutually exclusive. An atheist doesn’t accept any of them but a devoted follower of any one of them doesn’t accept most, if not all, of the others by definition. Ultimately, the kind of basis by which we doubt them will be very similar.

It’s really a reverse of the question of why that specific god and why those specific beliefs. Why are you Christian rather than Muslim, Buddhist rather than Jew?

 

[Koldo]

You can find Christians who believe in just about anything, but the philosophical tradition of Christian thought regarding the nature of God is not that wide. The intelligent, non-created and non-contingent source of all being. Anything more is detail. (Which are important, although not relevant to the discussion)

You mentioned simplicity in your former post, which you apparently agree to be a detail as of now.

The Christian revelation may just be one of countless revelations as far as you're concerned. But regardless of its truth or falsity the god it posits is not the same thing as the gods posited by a village shaman in Africa. It's not one less god than me, because I don't believe in "the gods" either.

Depends on what you mean by 'same thing'. 'Amaterasu' is not the 'same thing' as 'Quetzalcoatl' either, and yet you don't seem to have any problem putting them both in the same bag.
I fail to see why the christian god wouldn't fit together just as nicely.

 

[prometheus11]

Your post is making my point. You're actually attempting to compare a finite being to infinite being itself.

The fairies I know of are all infinite beings.

 

[Glaurung]

You mentioned simplicity in your former post, which you apparently agree to be a detail as of now.

All simplicity means is that God is without parts. God is not composed of anything but himself. It's been fairly standard in Abrhamic tradition despite what any given evangelical apologist may think at any given day.

Depends on what you mean by 'same thing'. 'Amaterasu' is not the 'same thing' as 'Quetzalcoatl' either, and yet you don't seem to have any problem putting them both in the same bag.
I fail to see why the christian god wouldn't fit together just as nicely.

Firstly, we're not talking about Christianity specifically. We're talking about the monotheistic concept of deity as more or less laid out by classical theism. Straight polytheism asserts the existence of powerful but limited beings which are typically defined by roles within nature. These could be as simple as making it rain, to more abstract roles such as ruling the underworld or what else have you. Comparing the Abrahamic God with such beings is an apples to oranges comparison. Monotheists do not assert that there are beings behind the workings natural phenomena. We're talking about something ontologically different.

It would be somewhat more apt to compare the Abrahamic God with the Brahman. At east over a temporal, Aztec snake god or a Japanese sun goddess.

 

[1AOA1]

I don't understand your post, I'm just used to using a capital G, I don't apply it out of will.

For example,

1. Aluminum. 2.
1. aluminum. 2. bottle

Aluminum agrees with aluminum.
Bottle has nothing to disagree with.
There is agreement on the first level. No conflicts could be established.

1. Aluminum. 2.
1. plastic. 2. bottles

Plastic disagrees with Aluminum.
Bottles have nothing to disagree with.
There is disagreement on the first level. Conflict can be established.

And so on.
1. Aluminum. 2.
1. Plastic. 2.
Disagreement on the first level.

1. God. 2.
1. god. 2. Yahweh
1. god. 2. Asherah.

God agrees with god and god.
Yahweh disagrees with Asherah.
There is agreement on the first level.
There is disagreement on the second level.

When someone says they believe in God, it is a level 1 statement. God Yahweh or god Asherah does not establish conflict because there is agreement on level 1.

1. God. 2.
1. Yahweh. 2. God
1. Asherah. 2. God.

Category error. In the first line, God is level 1. In the second and third lines, God is level 2. Yahweh disagrees with God, but there is an error in "syntax," you could say. Saying-

"1. --- 2. God
1. Yahweh. 2. God
1. Asherah. 2. God."

may also be seen as a category error.

 

[Laika]

The most common mistake that atheists make is a category mistake. They mistakenly believe that polytheistic deities belong to the same ontological frame of reference as the monotheistic Deity. This category mistake is made in a variety of (inane) arguments that atheists commonly make. For instance, atheists often argue that atheism is simply believing in one less god than you do. But this is a category mistake. Polytheistic deities (if they do exist) are celestial beings that belong to the same ontological level that angels do; they do not belong to the same ontological level that the monotheistic Deity does.

I'm not sure if has been said yet, but this is primarily due to "atheists" cultural familarity with the montheistic Abrahamic Religions, particuarly Christianity. it is true that athiests often attack "religion" as if it were a single homogenous entity, when in reality it is very diverse. As intresting as it would be to debate the existence of god with someone who professes a monothetistic religion, such as ancient egyptians or romans, the cultural dominance of abrahamic faiths means we aren't used to doing this very often. So I take your point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you're failing to see is the difference between finite beings and infinite being itself.

What would qualify "infinite being" as God?

BTW: you cited Merriam Webster's definition of "God (capitalized)" in the other thread, didn't you?

Atheists who make such 'witticisms' are only revealing their own ignorance.

And theists who engage in worldplay instead of defending the reasons for their faith are only revealing their lack of justification, IMO.

 

[Koldo]

All simplicity means is that God is without parts. God is not composed of anything but himself. It's been fairly standard in Abrhamic tradition despite what any given evangelical apologist may think at any given day.

And yet not at all a requirement for the word 'God'.

Firstly, we're not talking about Christianity specifically. We're talking about the monotheistic concept of deity as more or less laid out by classical theism. Straight polytheism asserts the existence of powerful but limited beings which are typically defined by roles within nature. These could be as simple as making it rain, to more abstract roles such as ruling the underworld or what else have you. Comparing the Abrahamic God with such beings is an apples to oranges comparison. Monotheists do not assert that there are beings behind the workings natural phenomena. We're talking about something ontologically different.

It would be somewhat more apt to compare the Abrahamic God with the Brahman. At east over a temporal, Aztec snake god or a Japanese sun goddess.

On what basis do you claim to know how all ( or even the majority ) of monotheists think about God ?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

....we're not talking about Christianity specifically. We're talking about the monotheistic concept of deity as more or less laid out by classical theism. Straight polytheism asserts the existence of powerful but limited beings which are typically defined by roles within nature. These could be as simple as making it rain, to more abstract roles such as ruling the underworld or what else have you. Comparing the Abrahamic God with such beings is an apples to oranges comparison. Monotheists do not assert that there are beings behind the workings natural phenomena. We're talking about something ontologically different.
It would be somewhat more apt to compare the Abrahamic God with the Brahman. At east over a temporal, Aztec snake god or a Japanese sun goddess.

I'm pretty sceptical about all of them. Apples and oranges, it's all just fruit.

Basically "monotheism" just means one god, as opposed to many ( polytheism ).

 

[Mindmaster]

Stop trying to hijack this thread.

It's not hijacking. You think atheists are ignorant of theism and really they are unable to accept your reasoning because of the points listed in my post. These are also the reasons other theists won't understand you. Really for both -- it's that your concept of theism is irrelevant to their reality tunnel as much as any commentary that you apparently don't like in this thread is irrelevant to yours. But, I thought you were having a discussion.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that there are many believers (theists) who are guilty of the same category mistake as the skeptics (atheists) are. Nevertheless, this is a common mistake that atheists make because I see it all the time in the arguments they make.

Unpacking this statement a bit, it seems what you're really saying is this: there are monotheists who disagree with you about the nature of God. You think these monotheists are wrong and you don't like it when atheists respond to their claims.

Is this a fair restatement?

 

[Glaurung]

And yet not at all a requirement for the word 'God'.

I'd personally call any being that exists by virtue of itself a god. I believe no such being actually exists but one from which all existence springs.

On what basis do you claim to know how all ( or even the majority ) of monotheists think about God ?

Because there's a well defined tradition (both philosophical and religious) regarding what God is as far as traditional monotheism is concerned. And for myself as a Catholic the Chruch has actually defined it.

We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple

Canon I of the Fourth Lateran Council.

What the average person may or may not think is irrelevant. The tradition is still there. But of course, I think that most educated Christians are more sophisticated then you give them credit. The cosmic sky-daddy notion of God, is a stawman for all but perhaps the most low church believer in the deep south of the US maybe.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't think so. What polytheistic god or goddess cannot be classified as some type of celestial being?

They can be, and certainly many believe they are, and I have no problem with YOU believing they are. But there are also many deities that are considered by others to be immanent in the Earth--they do not exist, act, or dwell elsewhere; whether or not they are "equal" with the "celestial" or different is another matter entirely.

 

[Erebus]

I don't think there's any one mistake all atheists make. Atheism is far too broad a category to make a judgement call like that. I also don't view disbelief in deities as necessarily being a mistake either. We have to make the most of our limited understanding of the world and atheism is a valid response to claims made by theists.

There is one mistake I see some younger atheists make though. There's a tendency to equate Christianity with theism and therefore to apply criticisms of Christianity to theism and theists as a whole.

 

[Willamena]

I think the OP mistakes what a category error is. A category error is an error in thinking, not an error in defining. We can all, each, only work with the definitions that have been impressed on us in a life-time. If one of those doesn't match another person's, that's just a difference of definition, not an error.

Logic has to do with how we all think commonly, and category error, as a logical fallacy, defines a way we mis-think or mis-take the world: we sometimes categorize things where, in that category, they can make no sense, even to us. It's not a statement about someone else's mis-categorizing, but a statement about something we all do from time to time.

 

[Koldo]

I'd personally call any being that exists by virtue of itself a god. I believe no such being actually exists but one from which all existence springs.

Because there's a well defined tradition (both philosophical and religious) regarding what God is as far as traditional monotheism is concerned. And for myself as a Catholic the Chruch has actually defined it.

Canon I of the Fourth Lateran Council.

What the average person may or may not think is irrelevant. The tradition is still there. But of course, I think that most educated Christians are more sophisticated then you give them credit. The cosmic sky-daddy notion of God, is a stawman for all but perhaps the most low church believer in the deep south of the US maybe.

What the average person thinks is at crux of the issue. What gives meaning to words is how people understand and use them.

 

[Gambit]

In what respect?

I have already explained (succinctly) in what respect in the original post of this thread. Atheists apparently believe that the only difference between monotheism and polytheism is that monotheists believe in the existence of only one Deity while polytheists believe in many deities. But other than this, atheists truly believe the monotheistic Deity is just like any other deity. (That's why atheists are always making these inane arguments trying to compare mythological deities to God. And that is why atheists are always using the term "god" (with a lower-case "g") to refer not only to the deities of polytheism but also to the Deity of monotheism.) What atheists fail to understand is that there is an infinite gulf between the deities of polytheism and the one Deity of monotheism. The gulf is between the difference between finite beings and infinite being, between beings composed of parts and the being without parts, between beings that are not metaphysically necessary and one that is, between beings that are conceivable and that being of whom no greater can be conceived.