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

[David Mo]

Yes, that's the point. We're assuming that you don't even know whether or not it exists.
(...)
Why are you bringing up Gods? I'm pointing out that you'd be agnostic about whether Eritria itself even existed (and by extension you'd also be agnostic about whether towns you've never heard of located within Eritria exist).

For the same reason that I know that if any town exists in Eritria it will be not a floating town. I know that floating towns don't exist and I generalise my present knowledge to similar entities that I still don't know. This is the basis of induction.

I had put "agnostic" in quotation marks. It was not the best word.

 

[David Mo]

What is the opposite of agnosticism using that definition? Believing that gods exist and that they don't exist?

Both. There is not a single opposite: theists and atheists are his opposites. The agnostic (AA in your terminology) refrains to assert or deny that gods exist. It is a characteristic position and a definiting one. All the others assert or deny.

What do the philosophical texts call the agnostic theist?

There is not a single word. I have called him “fideist” but more recently it is used “skeptical theist” (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/ )

We already have a term for that - atheist. They lack belief in gods. Why would we need another term for it?

You don’t need. It fit well to the AA and GA.

Using "God" usually indicates the Christian god. We actually get a lot of useful information from the Christian bible about that god so that we can know the nature of it and know it doesn't exist.

You are right. But we can use some meanings of “god” that fit the polytheism and other different religions.

Yes, that's the problem with wanting to conflate a word that describes knowledge (agnostic/gnostic) with another word that describes belief (theist/atheist)

Then you have a problem with your definitions, because I was speaking about them. Nietzsche doesn’t fit in your definition. He perfectly fits in mine: irrational atheist.

Then the first question the AA should ask the theist is to give a defining set of characteristics about their gods. Then we can know if they are knowable or not.

I suppose the theist is using the word “god” in a common sense. If a theist uses words in a particular sense he becomes an unintelligible Humpty Dumpty.
For the common definitions see my comment #56.

 

[David Mo]

OK, I've chosen some. Do you believe they exist?

Yes. I believe that some towns exist in Australia.

Let us stop playing hide-and-seek, please.

 

[Mojo]

Yes. I believe that some towns exist in Australia.

Do you believe that the particular towns I chose, not just "some towns", exist?

Let us stop playing hide-and-seek, please.

The question was not about the general concept of towns in Australia, or what characteristics those towns may have. You have heard of towns, and heard of Australia. You are aware that Australia is inhabited, that people tend to live in towns, and you have some information about the demographics, climate, etc. of Australia. It was about your claim that you believe in entities of which you have never heard. Your chosen example was towns in Australia.

I have written the name of a particular town in Australia on a piece of paper. It may be a real town, it may be fictional. You have never heard of it. Do you believe it exists?

Would you care to answer this particular question rather than the one you prefer to answer?

 

[David Mo]

I have written the name of a particular town in Australia on a piece of paper. It may be a real town, it may be fictional. You have never heard of it. Do you believe it exists?

If you want to play, let us play! It is funny.

My answer: I don't know. I refrain to believe or not to believe in the existence of this town. But if you have not any reason to lie I am inclined to believe in the existence of that town. Why not?

Now it is your turn.

PS: Before you continue speaking about unknown gods I suggest you to paid attention to what I have said about floating towns in my previous comments.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Both. There is not a single opposite: theists and atheists are his opposites. The agnostic (AA in your terminology) refrains to assert or deny that gods exist. It is a characteristic position and a definiting one. All the others assert or deny.

No, not really. Theists and atheists are opposite of each other in that they both are on the belief axis opposing each other. Agnostic/gnostic are on a separate axis since those are a measure of a different thing - knowledge. It's like you're saying that being left handed is opposite to having brown eyes.

There is not a single word. I have called him “fideist” but more recently it is used “skeptical theist” (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/ )

Using two words such as "agnostic theist" is much more useful if we're trying to gauge two things about a person. It's just silly to say someone is an agnostic without also saying whether they are agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

You don’t need. It fit well to the AA and GA.


You are right. But we can use some meanings of “god” that fit the polytheism and other different religions.

Are you atheistic about all those other gods that you haven't heard of? Or do you believe they exist?

Then you have a problem with your definitions, because I was speaking about them. Nietzsche doesn’t fit in your definition. He perfectly fits in mine: irrational atheist.

Well, no. The definitions as I've described them are the most useful that we have on this forum. Everyone perfectly fits in with the definitions we use here. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't.

You never did answer the question of whether you have brown eyes.

I suppose the theist is using the word “god” in a common sense. If a theist uses words in a particular sense he becomes an unintelligible Humpty Dumpty.
For the common definitions see my comment #56.

No. I wasn't asking a theist to describe gods in the generic sense but to describe the particular god or gods they believe in. I also didn't ask for your definitions of generic gods. Obviously, if one is only going to describe gods in the generic sense, then there will be no way to know if those gods exist.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I refrain to believe or not to believe in the existence of this town. But if you have not any reason to lie I am inclined to believe in the existence of that town. Why not?

I know this thread is pedantic enough but I have to clarify something. You appear to be operating as though "Does not believe" is synonymous with "Believes it is false." This is not accurate. For any given idea, a person will either believe it (accept it as true), or they will not. This is logically necessary.

For any idea that I have never heard of, and never mentally processed, it is impossible for me to believe it. Once the idea is brought to my attention, even if it is only done so as a question, I might start to believe it once I think about it.

 

[Mojo]

My answer: I don't know. I refrain to believe or not to believe in the existence of this town. But if you have not any reason to lie I am inclined to believe in the existence of that town. Why not?

What has whether I have a reason to lie got to do with it? I didn't say whether or not the town exists, in fact I specifically said that it may be fictional. Why would you be inclined to believe in the existence of a fictional town?

 

[David Mo]

No, not really. Theists and atheists are opposite of each other in that they both are on the belief axis opposing each other. Agnostic/gnostic are on a separate axis since those are a measure of a different thing - knowledge. It's like you're saying that being left handed is opposite to having brown eyes.

1. Do you think that everything has one and only one opposite? This is a Hegelian or Heraclithean prejudice. What is the opposite of the middle finger? In what sense “opposite”?

Using two words such as "agnostic theist" is much more useful if we're trying to gauge two things about a person. It's just silly to say someone is an agnostic without also saying whether they are agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

2. It is not more or less useful. Perhaps it is more visible, but no more.

Are you atheistic about all those other gods that you haven't heard of? Or do you believe they exist?

3. I am atheist. I believe that gods in general don’t exist. Better, I know they don’t exist.
3.1.The same for floating cities, zombies, fairies and David the Gnome.
3.2. And you?
3.3. If I tell you that in Alt Empordà exist a floating town plenty of zombies what do you think? Do you think it is true, false or you refrain to any judgement? Do you think this is possible?

Well, no. The definitions as I've described them are the most useful that we have on this forum. Everyone perfectly fits in with the definitions we use here. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't.

4. Truly? Where do you place someone that affirms that he can’t present any rational evidence, but he is sure that gods don’t exist? Nietzsche.

You never did answer the question of whether you have brown eyes.

5. I’m sorry. Can you repeat, please?

No. I wasn't asking a theist to describe gods in the generic sense but to describe the particular god or gods they believe in. I also didn't ask for your definitions of generic gods. Obviously, if one is only going to describe gods in the generic sense, then there will be no way to know if those gods exist.

6. See my answer 3.
6.1. When I know that horses don’t fly this general knowledge is valid also for all the particular horses, even those I don’t personally know.
6.2. Except in the Greek mythology and Disney’s films.

 

[David Mo]

I know this thread is pedantic enough but I have to clarify something. You appear to be operating as though "Does not believe" is synonymous with "Believes it is false." This is not accurate. For any given idea, a person will either believe it (accept it as true), or they will not. This is logically necessary.

For any idea that I have never heard of, and never mentally processed, it is impossible for me to believe it. Once the idea is brought to my attention, even if it is only done so as a question, I might start to believe it once I think about it.

1. No. I consider three possibilities: a) to believe x is true; b) to believe x is false; c) don't to believe nothing about x (refrain to believe).
2. We are not speaking about ideas never heard, but on ideas about particular things that one doesn’t know. They are two very different things.

 

[David Mo]

What has whether I have a reason to lie got to do with it? I didn't say whether or not the town exists, in fact I specifically said that it may be fictional. Why would you be inclined to believe in the existence of a fictional town?

1. I’ll be not inclined by principle, but under determinate conditions only:
1.1. That you don’t have any interest to deceive me.
1.2. That you don’t affirm any incredible feature.
1.3. That you speak of a thing similar to others I know,
1.4. Etc.
2. If I know that you are intending to deceive me or you say an incredible thing, etc., I will believe that what you are saying is false. Of course.
2.1. And if I am not sure, I will refrain my opinion on this.
3. My scepticism often depends on circumstances.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. Do you think that everything has one and only one opposite? This is a Hegelian or Heraclithean prejudice. What is the opposite of the middle finger? In what sense “opposite”?

Nope, not everything but I wasn't asking about everything. What is the opposite of Agnostic?

2. It is not more or less useful. Perhaps it is more visible, but no more.

It's actually more useful.

3. I am atheist. I believe that gods in general don’t exist. Better, I know they don’t exist.
3.1.The same for floating cities, zombies, fairies and David the Gnome.
3.2. And you?
3.3. If I tell you that in Alt Empordà exist a floating town plenty of zombies what do you think? Do you think it is true, false or you refrain to any judgement? Do you think this is possible?

Good, we've settled on you being gnostic and atheist.

4. Truly? Where do you place someone that affirms that he can’t present any rational evidence, but he is sure that gods don’t exist? Nietzsche.

He is gnostic atheist. See how everyone perfectly fits into one of four quadrants when you measure two dimensions about them?

5. I’m sorry. Can you repeat, please?

Do you have brown eyes?

6. See my answer 3.
6.1. When I know that horses don’t fly this general knowledge is valid also for all the particular horses, even those I don’t personally know.
6.2. Except in the Greek mythology and Disney’s films.

We know horses exist and we know their characteristics. Are you claiming the same for gods? They exist and they all fit the same mold? Odd thing for an atheist to claim. Do you think the comparison you made to horses is valid?

 

[barehl]

To be honest, I had not really expected people to give such obvious hand-waving arguments. For those who still insist that theism and atheism are real terms, I have some questions that avoid hand-waving.

God created 100% of universe
God created 90% of universe
God created 80% of universe
God created 70% of universe
God created 60% of universe
God created 50% of universe
God created 40% of universe
God created 30% of universe
God created 20% of universe
God created 10% of universe
God created 0% of universe

I'm going to assume that a belief that God created 100% of the universe would make you a theist. I'm also going to assume that a belief that God created 0% of the universe would make you an atheist. Please give the point in between these two where someone would transition from atheist to theist.

God has 100% of all knowledge
God has 90% of all knowledge
God has 80% of all knowledge
God has 70% of all knowledge
God has 60% of all knowledge
God has 50% of all knowledge
God has 40% of all knowledge
God has 30% of all knowledge
God has 20% of all knowledge
God has 10% of all knowledge
God has 0% of all knowledge

I assume that a belief that God has 100% of all knowledge makes you a theist and a belief in 0% makes you an atheist. Where is the transition?

God supplied 100% of ethics and morality
God supplied 90% of ethics and morality
God supplied 80% of ethics and morality
God supplied 70% of ethics and morality
God supplied 60% of ethics and morality
God supplied 50% of ethics and morality
God supplied 40% of ethics and morality
God supplied 30% of ethics and morality
God supplied 20% of ethics and morality
God supplied 10% of ethics and morality
God supplied 0% of ethics and morality

Again, I assume that a belief in 100% makes you a theist and a belief in 0% makes you an atheist. Where is the transition?

God answers prayers 100% of the time
God answers prayers 90% of the time
God answers prayers 80% of the time
God answers prayers 70% of the time
God answers prayers 60% of the time
God answers prayers 50% of the time
God answers prayers 40% of the time
God answers prayers 30% of the time
God answers prayers 20% of the time
God answers prayers 10% of the time
God answers prayers 0% of the time

Same question. Theist is 100%; atheist is 0%. Where is the transition?

If you could please answer these questions then I can take the assertions seriously. If you can't answer these questions then we can consider the terms to be falsified. Thank you.

 

[Finster]

Atheist 0%
Theist > 0%

 

[RoboTimbo]

To be honest, I had not really expected people to give such obvious hand-waving arguments. For those who still insist that theism and atheism are real terms, I have some questions that avoid hand-waving.

God created 100% of universe
God created 90% of universe
God created 80% of universe
God created 70% of universe
God created 60% of universe
God created 50% of universe
God created 40% of universe
God created 30% of universe
God created 20% of universe
God created 10% of universe
God created 0% of universe

I'm going to assume that a belief that God created 100% of the universe would make you a theist. I'm also going to assume that a belief that God created 0% of the universe would make you an atheist. Please the point in between these two where someone would transition from atheist to theist.

God has 100% of all knowledge
God has 90% of all knowledge
God has 80% of all knowledge
God has 70% of all knowledge
God has 60% of all knowledge
God has 50% of all knowledge
God has 40% of all knowledge
God has 30% of all knowledge
God has 20% of all knowledge
God has 10% of all knowledge
God has 0% of all knowledge

I assume that a belief that God has 100% of all knowledge makes you a theist and a belief in 0% makes you an atheist. Where is the transition?

God supplied 100% of ethics and morality
God supplied 90% of ethics and morality
God supplied 80% of ethics and morality
God supplied 70% of ethics and morality
God supplied 60% of ethics and morality
God supplied 50% of ethics and morality
God supplied 40% of ethics and morality
God supplied 30% of ethics and morality
God supplied 20% of ethics and morality
God supplied 10% of ethics and morality
God supplied 0% of ethics and morality

Again, I assume that a belief in 100% makes you a theist and a belief in 0% makes you an atheist. Where is the transition?

God answers prayers 100% of the time
God answers prayers 90% of the time
God answers prayers 80% of the time
God answers prayers 70% of the time
God answers prayers 60% of the time
God answers prayers 50% of the time
God answers prayers 40% of the time
God answers prayers 30% of the time
God answers prayers 20% of the time
God answers prayers 10% of the time
God answers prayers 0% of the time

Same question. Theist is 100%; atheist is 0%. Where is the transition?

If you could please answer these questions then I can take the assertions seriously. If you can't answer these questions then we can consider the terms to be falsified. Thank you.

Which gods?

 

[wea]

God created 100% of universe
...
God created 0% of universe

If you could please answer these questions then I can take the assertions seriously. If you can't answer these questions then we can consider the terms to be falsified. Thank you.

only binary/threashold allowed? no fuzzy logic?

 

[wea]

Loki's wager?

 

[wea]

ok, as Finster said

 

[David Mo]

Nope, not everything but I wasn't asking about everything. What is the opposite of Agnostic?

1. Are you asking on the basis of your terminology or mine?

It's actually more useful.

2. Useful? Useful for what?

Good, we've settled on you being gnostic and atheist.

3. If you likes call me so… But it sounds strange to be matched with Marcion and BAsilides! Perhaps is useful.

He is gnostic atheist. See how everyone perfectly fits into one of four quadrants when you measure two dimensions about them?

4. Gnostic? Nietzsche was an avowed enemy of reason. As Dostoievski who was fideist and so agnostic (in your terminology). Remember: he believes but without any reason (faith). You have called it “agnostic”. So a gnostic = an agnostic. Very useful.

Do you have brown eyes?

5. Approximately.

We know horses exist and we know their characteristics. Are you claiming the same for gods? They exist and they all fit the same mold? Odd thing for an atheist to claim. Do you think the comparison you made to horses is valid?

6.You have not answered my question. Remember:
6.1. “If I tell you that in the Alt Empordà exists a floating town plenty of zombies what do you think? Do you think it is true, false or you refrain to any judgement? Do you think this is possible?”
6.2. If you answer these questions it will be easier to me answering your last question. Please, do it.
6.3. Remember: your claim is that I cannot know anything about things that I had not heard.
6.3.1. For example, an Australian town. Or a town plenty of zombies ...
7. Your turn, please.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. Are you asking on the basis of your terminology or mine?

Mine, of course.

2. Useful? Useful for what?

Discussing atheism/theism and agnosticism/Gnosticism, of course.

3. If you likes call me so… But it sounds strange to be matched with Marcion and BAsilides! Perhaps is useful.

Thank you.

4. Gnostic? Nietzsche was an avowed enemy of reason. As Dostoievski who was fideist and so agnostic (in your terminology). Remember: he believes but without any reason (faith). You have called it “agnostic”. So a gnostic = an agnostic. Very useful.

You're saying that he was agnostic atheist then?

5. Approximately.

You're left handed then?

6.You have not answered my question. Remember:
6.1. “If I tell you that in the Alt Empordà exists a floating town plenty of zombies what do you think? Do you think it is true, false or you refrain to any judgement? Do you think this is possible?”
6.2. If you answer these questions it will be easier to me answering your last question. Please, do it.
6.3. Remember: your claim is that I cannot know anything about things that I had not heard.
6.3.1. For example, an Australian town. Or a town plenty of zombies ...
7. Your turn, please.

LOL. You admit that the horses were an invalid comparison?