Are the terms "atheism" and "theism" logically consistent or useful?

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, for you a definition is "inclusive" if it includes what you call "atheist". Vicious circle.

And for you, you've redefined irrational to mean rational, exclusive to mean inclusive and agnostic to mean atheist. How can anything you say be taken seriously?

But according with the most widely used concepts your definition is ambiguous because it includes in the same category those that deny the existence of gods and those that dont' affirm nor deny.

Which faiths does your definition of theist include? Which hair colors does your definition of "not red" include?

Atheists and agnostics.

Agnostic atheists or agnostic theists?

Between the classification of "RoboTimbo" and the specialists of the matter I have no doubt. I have not found the "robotimbism" in my Encyclopedias of Philosophy.

Between "correct and inclusive" and "cherry picked redefinitions that David Mo agrees with", I know which I'm going to go with.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The longer this debate goes on, the more hairs that get split, the more precision people demand the more it proves my point because we don't have to get this anal about any other topic.

Bob: There's a chair in the room.
Ted: There isn't a chair in the room.

And that's it. No hair splitting over the minute difference between Bob saying "There's a chair in the room" and "I believe there's a chair in the room." No ranking of Ted on some scale of "Hard Chair Believer" and "Soft Chair Believer." No chairgnostics.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The longer this debate goes on, the more hairs that get split, the more precision people demand the more it proves my point because we don't have to get this anal about any other topic.

Bob: There's a chair in the room.
Ted: There isn't a chair in the room.

And that's it. No hair splitting over the minute difference between Bob saying "There's a chair in the room" and "I believe there's a chair in the room." No ranking of Ted on some scale of "Hard Chair Believer" and "Soft Chair Believer." No chairgnostics.

I like this analogy. Given that either there is or isn't a chair in the room, and that we haven't searched the whole room but we haven't found one so far, what is the proper skeptical position?

 

[Pup]

I don't know how can you measure majorities and minorities.

Well, a poll would settle it, but there's also the fact that all atheists lack belief in gods, but some go further and say they believe gods don't exist. By definition, then, there are more atheists who claim they lack belief in gods than those who also claim they believe gods don't exist.

Anecdotally, I'm one of those atheists who believe gods don't exist, and I find I'm in the minority of atheists here. I expect that asking right now on this thread would reveal more self-labelled atheists who lack belief in gods than those who believe gods don't exist.

 

[David Mo]

(...) the fact that all atheists lack belief in gods(...).

1. This is not a fact. This is a definition. You call atheist to everybody that "lacks belief in gods". Other people use other words. "Unbeliever", for exemple.
1.1. The fact is that some people deny that gods exist and other people neither affirm nor deny it.
2.The factual question is: How many people that neither affirm that gods exist nor affirm that gods don't exist call themselves "agnostic"? How many call themselves "atheist"?
3. You can begin counting with Thomas Huxley, that coined the term "agnosticism". He called himself "agnostic" and not "atheist".
4. And since then it is used among those that know what are saying (experts). In this forum not, of course.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I like this analogy. Given that either there is or isn't a chair in the room, and that we haven't searched the whole room but we haven't found one so far, what is the proper skeptical position?

That there maybe be a 3rd position, that we can't know either way. Neither if there is a chair nor if there is no chair.
Always check the fallacies included the fallacy of the excluded middle.

And please don't go literal on me and think I am talking about literal rooms and chairs, because neither are you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. This is not a fact. This is a definition. You call atheist to everybody that "lacks belief in gods". Other people use other words. "Unbeliever", for exemple.

Thank you for confirming that "unbeliever" (or someone without belief) means atheist.

1.1. The fact is that some people deny that gods exist and other people neither affirm nor deny it.

Some theists are Methodists, some are Native Americans. Do you still call all of them theists?

2.The factual question is: How many people that neither affirm that gods exist nor affirm that gods don't exist call themselves "agnostic"? How many call themselves "atheist"?

Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? Do you yet understand that the two words refer to measuring two different dimensions?

3. You can begin counting with Thomas Huxley, that coined the term "agnosticism". He called himself "agnostic" and not "atheist".

And he coined the term as a measure of knowledge, not belief.

4. And since then it is used among those that know what are saying (experts).

Thank you!

In this forum not, of course.

And now you're redefining "not". Where will it all end? LOL. How can anyone trust anything you say when your redefinitions are so slippery?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

And please don't go literal on me and think I am talking about literal rooms and chairs, because neither are you.

Actually, I am. Let's take away the special pleading that religion deserves some kind of extra consideration above and beyond that awarded to questions of everyday physical nature. Let's go literal. There is a literal room which may or may not have a literal chair. Let's say there's a small, literal window in the literal door through which we can peek, and we don't see a chair.

While I'm sure we'd all love to open the door and search the room for the chair, it turns out the door is locked, but with a little effort we can look through the window kind of sideways, you know? Still no chair.

The question is, at what point is it no longer reasonable to claim ignorance instead of a provisional "no?" This isn't Schrodinger's Chair, it's either there or it isn't.

In this situation, if someone asked you if there was a chair in the room, would you really say "I can't know either way. Neither if there is a chair nor if there is no chair?"

I don't know about you, but I'd say "the door's locked, but I don't see one... so no, I guess." If the questioner began to insist that there was a chair in the room, I'd say the burden would be on him to either remember where in the room it was, or find a damn key. It's his chair, I mean really, what does he expect me to do about it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also if we have an infinite series of locked rooms and Bob insists there is a chair behind all of them, yet every time a door gets unlocked Bob still insist with the same fervor that a chair exists behind all the remaining locked room, we can start to call Bob on his assumption even granted the fact that they are still rooms left to be unlocked.

Or yet again the perfect metaphor of the Dragon in the Garage.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Actually, I am. Let's take away the special pleading that religion deserves some kind of extra consideration above and beyond that awarded to questions of everyday physical nature. Let's go literal. There is a literal room which may or may not have a literal chair. Let's say there's a small, literal window in the literal door through which we can peek, and we don't see a chair.

While I'm sure we'd all love to open the door and search the room for the chair, it turns out the door is locked, but with a little effort we can look through the window kind of sideways, you know? Still no chair.

The question is, at what point is it no longer reasonable to claim ignorance instead of a provisional "no?" This isn't Schrodinger's Chair, it's either there or it isn't.

In this situation, if someone asked you if there was a chair in the room, would you really say "I can't know either way. Neither if there is a chair nor if there is no chair?"

I don't know about you, but I'd say "the door's locked, but I don't see one... so no, I guess." If the questioner began to insist that there was a chair in the room, I'd say the burden would be on him to either remember where in the room it was, or find a damn key. It's his chair, I mean really, what does he expect me to do about it?

Okay, religion deserves no special or extra consideration above and beyond that awarded to questions of everyday physical nature.
Then what about other words or rather what they connect to? I won't ask you anything, rather I will try to explain something. When I try to go beyond works like atheist and theists, I find that behind those labels and all other labels are good and bad people. But in fact it has nothing to do in the universal singular sense with good and bad, because these words don't take place disconnected from other aspects of reality. What I am trying to get at is this: I am outside my own culture, because I am crazy, irrational and delusional. As an analogy I am without legs, but still a human. So for those parts where it doesn't matter that I am without legs, I can see my own culture different that those who are in and can function in it as "normal" people.
So I don't think there are any words which deserve special or extra consideration above and beyond any one else, because then I find that I actually overlook something. That includes the words - everyday physical nature, I am sorry to tell you. Natural science is a wonderful, beautiful and useful tool/methodology, but it has its everyday limitations. I.e. you can't live without it, but you don't live solely based on it.

That is what I have found out about words and how they interconnect to the rest of reality. No words are sacred or beyond doubt or questioning and as far as I can tell that is a part of it - some people in practice have functionally sacred words and others don't. In everyday life there is also that.

 

[David Mo]

Thank you for confirming that "unbeliever" (or someone without belief) means atheist.

“Unbeliever” in common language means the same that “atheist” in your particular language. (If your particular language has any sense).

Some theists are Methodists, some are Native Americans. Do you still call all of them theists?

Both are believers in gods. We should call them somehow or other, is it not? “Believers” or “theists” are common names. The first is more popular and the latter is more philosophical. “Theism” has a problem. This name is also used by some authors to name the natural religion that is different to positive religions. But in this forum I am using “theist” as someone that believe in gods.

And he coined the term as a measure of knowledge, not belief.

Both things. “That which agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions”. (Tomas Huxley. Underline is mine)

In any case, quoting Huxley to justify the term “agnostic atheist” is absurd because he saw them as opposite.

How can anyone trust anything you say when your redefinitions are so slippery?

You should ask it to yourself.

 

[David Mo]

Also if we have an infinite series of locked rooms and Bob insists there is a chair behind all of them, yet every time a door gets unlocked Bob still insist with the same fervor that a chair exists behind all the remaining locked room, we can start to call Bob on his assumption even granted the fact that they are still rooms left to be unlocked.

Or yet again the perfect metaphor of the Dragon in the Garage.

I agree. This is the main case against the agnostic. The agnostic continues without affirm or deny there is a chair after 9999 failed attempts to find a chair behind the door and 9999 theist's aberrant explanations of their successive failures.

He seems to me almost so naive as the theist. Almost.

PS for literal thinkers: "9999" is only a colloquialism.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In short:
Something(A) causes you(B).
Something else(non-A) causes you(B).

You as what you know, are, believe and so on. How do you determine/know if it is A or non-A?
That is the problem of "das Ding an sich" or if you like in terms of epistemology:

• I claim A(dogmatic assertion).
• Only A and not non-A, therefore A(circular argument).

With regards

 

[RoboTimbo]

“Unbeliever” in common language means the same that “atheist” in your particular language. (If your particular language has any sense).

Exactly, atheist means a person lacking belief in gods just as unbeliever means a person lacking belief in gods. Well done! Now, if we could only make sense of your other redefinitions.

Both are believers in gods.

Just as atheists are not believers in gods. And yet you only want one name for theists but multiple names for atheists. It's a strange world you live in.

We should call them somehow or other, is it not? “Believers” or “theists” are common names. The first is more popular and the latter is more philosophical. “Theism” has a problem. This name is also used by some authors to name the natural religion that is different to positive religions. But in this forum I am using “theist” as someone that believe in gods.

But some theists are Methodist and some are Native American. Some are Catholic and some are Protestant. How can the same term "theist" mean so many different things? Which one does the word "theist" refer to?

Both things. “That which agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions”. (Tomas Huxley. Underline is mine)

Exactly! Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge, not belief.

In any case, quoting Huxley to justify the term “agnostic atheist” is absurd because he saw them as opposite.

No, I'm afraid he didn't. So when you refer to agnostics, are you referring to agnostic atheists or agnostic theists?

You should ask it to yourself.

Believe me, I have and I'm finding that with your penchant for redefining terms, I would want to double check if you told me the sky was blue.

 

[David Mo]

In short:
Something(A) causes you(B).
Something else(non-A) causes you(B).

I don't understand. Can you explain this?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Okay, religion deserves no special or extra consideration above and beyond that awarded to questions of everyday physical nature.
Then what about other words or rather what they connect to? I won't ask you anything, rather I will try to explain something. When I try to go beyond works like atheist and theists, I find that behind those labels and all other labels are good and bad people. But in fact it has nothing to do in the universal singular sense with good and bad, because these words don't take place disconnected from other aspects of reality. What I am trying to get at is this: I am outside my own culture, because I am crazy, irrational and delusional. As an analogy I am without legs, but still a human. So for those parts where it doesn't matter that I am without legs, I can see my own culture different that those who are in and can function in it as "normal" people.
So I don't think there are any words which deserve special or extra consideration above and beyond any one else, because then I find that I actually overlook something. That includes the words - everyday physical nature, I am sorry to tell you. Natural science is a wonderful, beautiful and useful tool/methodology, but it has its everyday limitations. I.e. you can't live without it, but you don't live solely based on it.

That is what I have found out about words and how they interconnect to the rest of reality. No words are sacred or beyond doubt or questioning and as far as I can tell that is a part of it - some people in practice have functionally sacred words and others don't. In everyday life there is also that.

This appears to be a random slurry of verbiage, with no real meaning that I can pick out. What does any of that have to do with whether there's a chair there?

 

[David Mo]

Just as atheists are not believers in gods. And yet you only want one name for theists but multiple names for atheists. It's a strange world you live in.


But some theists are Methodist and some are Native American. Some are Catholic and some are Protestant. How can the same term "theist" mean so many different things? Which one does the word "theist" refer to?


Exactly! Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge, not belief.


No, I'm afraid he didn't. So when you refer to agnostics, are you referring to agnostic atheists or agnostic theists?

A category has some subcategories in any classification. Men and mice are mammalian, but they belong to different subcategories.

Atheists and agnostics are unbelievers, but they are not the same kind of unbelievers. Atheists deny that gods exist and agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exists. They are two subcategories.

There are different kinds of believers. For example, rationalists and fideists; polytheists and monotheists, … Etc. The Aztecs were polytheists and Methodists ate monotheists. Descartes was rationalist and Tertullian was irrationalist.

What is the problem?

You are misinformed about Th. Huxley. For example:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.​

**​

I trust that I have now made amends for any ambiguity, or want of fulness, in my previous exposition of that which I hold to be the essence of the Agnostic doctrine. Henceforward, I might hope to hear no more of the assertion that we are necessarily Materialists, Idealists, Atheists, Theists, or any other ists, if experience had led me to think that the proved falsity of a statement was any guarantee against its repetition.​

Ps: I have used “atheist” and “agnostic” in the same sense of Huxley. Not as you.

 

[Pup]

A category has some subcategories in any classification. Men and mice are mammalian, but they belong to different subcategories.

Atheists and agnostics are unbelievers, but they are not the same kind of unbelievers. Atheists deny that gods exist and agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exists. They are two subcategories.

What label do you use for someone who believes that the truth about the existence of god is not knowable, but who also doesn't currently believe that god exists? That would be an agnostic atheist under the other labeling system, but what would it be under yours?

"Agnostic" wouldn't work because you're saying agnostics don't deny the existence of gods. "Atheist" wouldn't work because you're saying atheists must deny the existence of god.

 

[Brian-M]

Or even more interesting, a person who believes that the truth about the existence of God is not knowable, but is also completely convinced that God exists, claiming that the existence of God must be accepted on faith alone.

I'd call that an agnostic theist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A category has some subcategories in any classification. Men and mice are mammalian, but they belong to different subcategories.

Are you saying then that some philosophers are so dim-witted that they don't understand that agnostic atheist is a subcategory of atheist?

Atheists and agnostics are unbelievers, but they are not the same kind of unbelievers. Atheists deny that gods exist and agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exists. They are two subcategories.

No, that is categorically false. Not all agnostics are unbelievers, some are agnostic theists. Not all atheists deny that gods exist.

You didn't answer the question, which one group of theists are theists? Is it the Methodists? Or the Native Americans? Surely you and the philosophers aren't going to be hypocritical and say that "theist" can refer to all subcategories of theist.

There are different kinds of believers. For example, rationalists and fideists; polytheists and monotheists, … Etc. The Aztecs were polytheists and Methodists ate monotheists. Descartes was rationalist and Tertullian was irrationalist.

But which one of those can be referred to as "theist"? Just as "atheist" (in your exclusive definition) can only mean people who actively believe no gods exist, "theist" (if you're not being hypocritical) can only mean one of the subsets of theist.

What is the problem?

Your philosophers seem to be hypocritical.

You are misinformed about Th. Huxley. For example:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.​

**​

I trust that I have now made amends for any ambiguity, or want of fulness, in my previous exposition of that which I hold to be the essence of the Agnostic doctrine. Henceforward, I might hope to hear no more of the assertion that we are necessarily Materialists, Idealists, Atheists, Theists, or any other ists, if experience had led me to think that the proved falsity of a statement was any guarantee against its repetition.​

Ps: I have used “atheist” and “agnostic” in the same sense of Huxley. Not as you.

No, you've used it in your own redefinition. I use them in their strict and correct sense, theism/atheism referring to belief and gnosticism/agnosticism referring to knowledge.

Do you see how those are two different things to be measured?