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

[I Am The Scum]

Atheist 0%
Theist > 0%

There's the answer.

This really isn't that difficult.

Do we need to play this game with other entities? At one point does one believe that Bigfoot is real?

Bigfoot eats 100% of the organisms in the woods.
...
Bigfoot eats 0% of the organisms in the woods.

 

[barehl]

So a being that provided 1% of ethics and morality and had 1% of all knowledge would still count as God. I thought Eric Hovind's presupposition argument required 100%. Does that make you a demi-theist?

 

[barehl]

Do we need to play this game with other entities? At one point does one believe that Bigfoot is real?

Well, I guess we can do this with bigfoot if you like.

Spends 100% of its time walking upright.
Spends 90% of its time walking upright.
Spends 80% of its time walking upright.
Spends 70% of its time walking upright.
Spends 60% of its time walking upright.
Spends 50% of its time walking upright.
Spends 40% of its time walking upright.
Spends 30% of its time walking upright.
Spends 20% of its time walking upright.
Spends 10% of its time walking upright.
Spends 0% of its time walking upright.

I assume 100% would be bigfoot and 0% would not be. At what point in between would this creature still be bigfoot?

 

[Pup]

In the first set of examples, you defined each entity as "God." Obviously, if a person believes in any sort of god. he's not an atheist. Instead, are you asking when is a god not a god if you redefine him as having less power? It would have been much clearer if you didn't predefine the entity as a god in the question.

I can think of lots of gods with limited powers that I think their believers and most others would define as gods: local gods, gods of something, gods with a particular duty. I'd say if the entity is labeled a god by those who believe in it, that's a fair enough definition to make it a god for the purposes of discussion.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So a being that provided 1% of ethics and morality and had 1% of all knowledge would still count as God. I thought Eric Hovind's presupposition argument required 100%. Does that make you a demi-theist?

You didn't ask about "a being." You asked about "God." Anybody can have various ideas about God. But the minute you believe that one of these gods is actually taking action in reality (creating universes, answering prayers, etc.), even once, then existence becomes a necessary condition. Once you accept that, you're a theist, not an atheist.

This really isn't difficult.

 

[Brian-M]

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”?

Sorry, this is such a ridiculous response that I feel the need to butt in instead of leaving it to RoboTimbo.

First of all, he didn't even begin to suggest that everything has an opposite.

Second, "is true" and "is false" are opposites, and there are no other positions which count as being exactly opposite of them.

Theism: It is true that I believe God exists.
Atheism: It is false that I believe God exists.

Gnostic: It is true that I know whether or not God exists.
Agnostic: It is false that I know whether or not God exists.

Atheism and agnosticism are positions on two separate questions.

 

[Brian-M]

Atheist 0%
Theist > 0%

This.

Anything other than zero requires belief that a god exists.

 

[Brian-M]

Well, I guess we can do this with bigfoot if you like.

Spends 100% of its time walking upright.
Spends 90% of its time walking upright.
Spends 80% of its time walking upright.
Spends 70% of its time walking upright.
Spends 60% of its time walking upright.
Spends 50% of its time walking upright.
Spends 40% of its time walking upright.
Spends 30% of its time walking upright.
Spends 20% of its time walking upright.
Spends 10% of its time walking upright.
Spends 0% of its time walking upright.

I assume 100% would be bigfoot and 0% would not be. At what point in between would this creature still be bigfoot?

All of those statements assume that Bigfoot exist, because it presupposes that it has time to spend.

My cat, for example, spends 0% of its time walking upright, and yet still manages to exist.

 

[I Am The Scum]

My cat, for example, spends 0% of its time walking upright...

When you're looking...

But you are right. Any description of an entity participating in reality (performing actual actions, taking up actual space, etc.) necessitates its existence.

In other words...
A. Bigfoot does not exist.
B. Bigfoot stole my lunch money one time.

A and B are contradictory.

I really don't know how else to explain it.

 

[David Mo]

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

No.
My question was previous and if you answer it I will explain you my answer.

Remember:

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?​

Fair play, please.

 

[David Mo]

Sorry, this is such a ridiculous response that I feel the need to butt in instead of leaving it to RoboTimbo.

First of all, he didn't even begin to suggest that everything has an opposite.

Second, "is true" and "is false" are opposites, and there are no other positions which count as being exactly opposite of them.

Theism: It is true that I believe God exists.
Atheism: It is false that I believe God exists.

Gnostic: It is true that I know whether or not God exists.
Agnostic: It is false that I know whether or not God exists.

Atheism and agnosticism are positions on two separate questions.

1. You can present a problem with binary classifications based on opposites or not.
1.1. They are different ways to represent.
1.2. Classifications are not true, but useful.
2. My classification is not binary.
2.1. My first criterion is the belief in gods (or to affirm that gods exist).
2.1.2. Atheists don’t believe in gods; theists believe in gods; agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exist (they neither believe nor disbelieve).
2.2. My second criterion is rational justification.
2.2.1. Rationalists think their belief can be rationally justified; irrationalists think their belief cannot be rationally justified.
3. My classification and yours (with the criteria of knowledge and belief) are similar.
4. Your classification is useful because is easy to understand.
5. My classification is useful because…
5.1. It fits correctly with scholars’ uses of the words “atheist” and “agnostic”. I have presented some examples of this.
5.2. It introduces more nuances. (My classification includes six possible categories; yours only four). For example, the refraining of judgement, that is a relevant feature of historic agnosticism, is not well reflected in your classification.

6. The debate in this forum takes place because some members have a dogmatic position.
6.1. They think that their classification is the only possible or excludes other alternatives.
6.2. They think that a simple change of names can revolutionize the whole history of ideas and solve some complex problems.
6.3. They are unable to put themselves in the place of the opponent. This is evident by their reluctance to answer some “compromising questions”.

7. The problem of classifications is not a big problem, except if a classification is used to mask an ideology.
7.1. I don’t think this is my case, because I offer a classification where all the categories are included, even AA, GA, AT and GT of your classification.
7.2. The resistance to admit so is surely due to a hidden agenda that I don’t completely understand.
7.3. Some insults that begin to be used here are much less understandable to me. Be calm, please. This is only a forum.

 

[David Mo]

No.
My question was previous and if you answer it I will explain you my answer.

Remember:

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?​

0. I have some time now and I shall try to close this question, althoug you have not answered my question yet.(I begin to be a little tired of this subject).

1. The problem : Can we have any knowledge of things on which we have not previous knowledge (“never heard before”).

2. My answer: Yes, because I can generalize from my previous experience and logic.
2.1. This is the usual proceeding of simple induction.

3. Examples:
3.1. My past experience says that any evidence about a flying horse has been found. I can generalize: Flying horses don’t exist.
3.2. My past experience says that any evidence about zombies has never been found. I can generalize: Zombies don’t exist.
3.3. My past experience says that any evidence about a god has never been found.. I can generalize: gods don’t exist.
3.4. And so on about dragoons, fairies, giants…and David the Gnome.

4. I conclude: Gods don’t exist.
4.1. What god? Any entity that fits the definition of “god”.

5. So I declare myself to be an atheist. I have a rational justified belief: the existence of gods seem to be practically impossible.
6. Perhaps you don’t accept my statement. Perhaps you prefer refrain your judgement and became impartial about gods, flying horses or zombies. You will be what you call an “agnostic atheist”. (“Agnostic” in my terminology).
6.1. Perhaps you find that my belief is not rationally justified. But the debate between AA and GA is another debate. We can enter in it if you want.
6.2. For the moment I consider that our debate on the concept of “agnostic” is closed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

2.1.2. Atheists don’t believe in gods; theists believe in gods; agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exist (they neither believe nor disbelieve).

No, you can't not believe something exits and (not) not believe it at the same time. If you lack belief that it exists, then you don't believe it exists. It was already explained to you that "not believing" is not the same thing as "believing not".

.2. My second criterion is rational justification.

That would actually be a third dimension other than belief (atheist/theist) or knowledge (agnostic/gnostic). Should we draw a new chart with this third dimension added?

2.2.1. Rationalists think their belief can be rationally justified; irrationalists think their belief cannot be rationally justified.
3. My classification and yours (with the criteria of knowledge and belief) are similar.

Similar in that you are measuring different things. You have added a third dimension - rationalism/irrationalism.

4. Your classification is useful because is easy to understand.
5. My classification is useful because…
5.1. It fits correctly with scholars’ uses of the words “atheist” and “agnostic”. I have presented some examples of this.

No, it actually is measuring a third dimension, separate from belief or knowledge. It would be useful if we were discussing belief and rationality rather than belief and knowledge.

5.2. It introduces more nuances. (My classification includes six possible categories; yours only four). For example, the refraining of judgement, that is a relevant feature of historic agnosticism, is not well reflected in your classification.

No, refraining from belief in gods is atheism. Atheism meaning "not theist".

6. The debate in this forum takes place because some members have a dogmatic position.
6.1. They think that their classification is the only possible or excludes other alternatives.

Some people come to this forum with a dogmatic agenda that they believe is correct and when schooled on it, become cranky.

.2. They think that a simple change of names can revolutionize the whole history of ideas and solve some complex problems.
6.3. They are unable to put themselves in the place of the opponent. This is evident by their reluctance to answer some “compromising questions”.

Indeed, you continue to claim that your horses analogy isn't fatally flawed even when shown that it is.

7. The problem of classifications is not a big problem, except if a classification is used to mask an ideology.

Obviously. That's why some people want to try to force their incorrect classifications onto everyone, even after they've been shown they are wrong.

7.1. I don’t think this is my case, because I offer a classification where all the categories are included, even AA, GA, AT and GT of your classification.

Are you referring to your third category of rational/irrational?

7.2. The resistance to admit so is surely due to a hidden agenda that I don’t completely understand.

If you don't understand your own agenda, how can you try to force it on others?

7.3. Some insults that begin to be used here are much less understandable to me. Be calm, please. This is only a forum.

I accept your apology.

 

[Mojo]

Atheists don’t believe in gods; theists believe in gods; agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exist (they neither believe nor disbelieve).

By these definitions, agnostics are atheists.

 

[RoboTimbo]

0. I have some time now and I shall try to close this question, althoug you have not answered my question yet.(I begin to be a little tired of this subject).

1. The problem : Can we have any knowledge of things on which we have not previous knowledge (“never heard before”).

2. My answer: Yes, because I can generalize from my previous experience and logic.
2.1. This is the usual proceeding of simple induction.

We can only generalize rationally about things of which we have no knowledge if we are secure in our knowledge of the things we are extrapolating from. We are secure in our knowledge of horses and cities and can extrapolate what we know about them to horses and cities that we don't know about.

We aren't secure in our knowledge of gods since the only knowledge we have of them are stories from other humans. We haven't seen gods in test tubes or laboratories to study. We have no type specimen. Therefore we can't rationally generalize about their existence.

3. Examples:
3.1. My past experience says that any evidence about a flying horse has been found. I can generalize: Flying horses don’t exist.
3.2. My past experience says that any evidence about zombies has never been found. I can generalize: Zombies don’t exist.
3.3. My past experience says that any evidence about a god has never been found.. I can generalize: gods don’t exist.
3.4. And so on about dragoons, fairies, giants…and David the Gnome.

4. I conclude: Gods don’t exist.
4.1. What god? Any entity that fits the definition of “god”.

Ok, you're an atheist. You lack belief in any gods.

5. So I declare myself to be an atheist. I have a rational justified belief: the existence of gods seem to be practically impossible.

Justified, but irrationally, as explained above.

6. Perhaps you don’t accept my statement. Perhaps you prefer refrain your judgement and became impartial about gods, flying horses or zombies. You will be what you call an “agnostic atheist”. (“Agnostic” in my terminology).

As also explained previously in another post, I am gnostic atheist about the gods I have heard of when their putative characteristics have been given. If a Christian says that their gods flooded the entire planet, then I can rationally and justifiably know that their gods don't exist. There isn't enough water on the planet to flood it and there is geological evidence that a world-wide flood never happened.

If theists refuse to give the characteristics of their gods, then rationally one can't say that they don't exist. One must remain agnostic about those undefined gods to maintain rationality.

For example, I can say that I believe in a god that caused the big bang to occur and that the god was annihilated in that event and no longer exists. Using your method of extrapolating from the known to the unknown, how do you rationally justify your positive disbelief in that god? What will you extrapolate from?

6.1. Perhaps you find that my belief is not rationally justified. But the debate between AA and GA is another debate. We can enter in it if you want.

We can leave that aside if you like. I think it's been shown that agnostic/gnostic as they measure knowledge are separate and distinct from atheist/theist as they measure belief.

6.2. For the moment I consider that our debate on the concept of “agnostic” is closed.

And "gnostic" as measures of knowledge. As you wish.

 

[Brian-M]

2. My classification is not binary.

But as long as your classification system has distinct positions you can always make binary divisions within it.

For example, if possible positions are: A, B, C, D
You could make the binary division: A, (B, C, D)

Then you could ask the question: Is your position A?

No matter which position the person holds, it's always possible to answer that question accurately with a Yes or No.

If they hold position A, then "Yes" is true.
If they hold position B, then "No" is true.
If they hold position C, then "No" is true.
If they hold position D, then "No" is true.
If they don't hold any position, then "No" is true.

"Yes" and "No" are the only possible answers.

In this case we might be using "I believe that a god exists" as position A.

If so, then we're using "theist" for "yes" and "atheist" for "no".

It doesn't matter if you hold position D ("I believe that no god exists") or position C ("I hold no beliefs either way") or position B ("The question of whether or not a god exists is nonsensical"), the answer is still "no".

 

[barehl]

All of those statements assume that Bigfoot exist, because it presupposes that it has time to spend.

But you are right. Any description of an entity participating in reality (performing actual actions, taking up actual space, etc.) necessitates its existence.

At the college level, these concepts are typically first semester Logic. So, I'm kind of at a loss of what to say.

 

[I Am The Scum]

You asked very simple questions. You got some basic responses. What were you expecting?

 

[barehl]

Let's try an example. You've probably heard of the Crocodile's Dilemma.

A crocodile, who has taken a child. The crocodile promises the father that the child will be returned if and only if the father can correctly predict whether or not the crocodile will return the child.

Is this a paradox? Would you say that it is possible or impossible to resolve this logically?

 

[ynot]

Let's try an example. You've probably heard of the Crocodile's Dilemma.

A crocodile terrorist, who has taken a child. The crocodile terrorist promises the father that the child will be returned if and only if the father can correctly predict whether or not the crocodile terrorist will return the child.

Is this a paradox? Would you say that it is possible or impossible to resolve this logically?

Well a talking crocodile is hardly logical so I have replaced it with “terrorist”.

Obviously the only way the father can possibly get the child back is by predicting he will. This doesn’t guarantee the child will be returned however as it can’t be known that the terrorist will keep the promise regardless of what the father predicts. Any other answer would guarantee the child wasn't returned if the terrorist did keep the promise.

So what’s this got to do with theism and atheism?