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

[Manopolus]

I was completely ignored the last time I posted in this thread (admittedly in a less specific manner), but I guess I'll try again, just because I've had another random thought on the matter. I've read some of the previous posts, but I haven't seen one that addresses my main concern on the question at all.

As someone who is non-dogmatic, I completely fit the broad category of the term "atheist." However, since I don't consider the physical existence or lack thereof of a deity to be particularly important to my mindset, it seems to me that calling me an atheist is sort of like calling a Satanist (as described by theists -- not the atheist political tool that it is often used as) a Christian, since they both believe in the existence of the Christian deity.

It's not quite equivalent, but it's close.

My primary reasons for thinking the way I do regarding religious dogma are of an ethical nature, rather than being a question of physical existence. Of course, why would I choose to believe in the physical existence of something only supported by something I don't condone if there's no external evidence anyway? So yeah... atheism still technically fits even if I don't consider it a particularly meaningful descriptor of my views pertaining to religion.

So... basically what I believe and the ONLY thing I "believe" regarding religion is in one particular ethic:

No one should EVER allow some institution (church, God, whatever) to have such power over them that they're not allowed to think and judge for themselves the merits of an ethos or other individually separable (as opposed to absolutist clumping) doctrinal claims under threat of punishment (hell, or whatever) or in hopes of a personal reward of any sort. Understanding and agreement is required before acceptance on each individual matter, separately. This concept is a prerequisite to personal responsibility. However, once you take the absolutist clumping away, you no longer actually have a religion... it's just a random list of disconnected ideas at that point.

That doesn't fit the normal assumptions of what drives an atheist, given the usual definition. The term doesn't offend me, but it just isn't particularly useful to me either.

Don't get me wrong, there is another issue in that dark space between my ears (meh... okay, I probably shouldn't have narrowed it down quite that far). I also think that social and personal ethics advance to a superior position with time... which sort of suggests that modern man is more ethical than people that wrote ancient religious texts (yeah, we're better than slave owners were, ethically speaking). Religion actually proclaims the opposite: the more ancient it is, the more likely it is to be right. This also belongs in the realm of morality rather than physicality though.

...and the term "atheist" is an answer specifically to the question of physicality. I don't consider that question nearly as important as the other issues I've mentioned.

 

[David Mo]

Game over.

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

By these definitions, agnostics are atheists.

1. You don’t understand what is a classification. When I define “agnostic” in a sense you cannot say “this is not an agnostic”.
1.1. Excuse me, this is my definition. And my definition is different to yours.
1.2. You can argue that your definition is better than mine but not that your definition “is” the unique definition.
2. People that lacks a belief about the existence of x is people that don’t affirm neither that x exists nor x doesn’t exist.
2.1. There is a clear difference between the three positions.
2.2. For example Saint Augustin, d’Holbach and Protagoras.
3. If you ask these people if they know or not what affirm all they say that they know. Even the fideist says that he knows with faith.
4. So we have to distinguish between those that justify their belief without rational reasons (irrationalists) and those that justify their belief rationally (rationalists).
4.1. This way I can distinguish between an atheist irrationalist (Nietzsche) and an atheist rationalist (d’Holbach); an agnostic irrationalist (someone indifferent); an agnostic rationalist (Huxley) and so on.
4.2. Without this classification some thinkers that in reality are very different will be placed in the same category.
4.2.1. And this is not useful at all.


5. I have explained this many times and you continue with your objections based in your dogmatic belief that your classification is the only one.
6. I’m sorry but the game is over.

PS: All your stubbornness depends of the false belief that only if you define "atheism" as "lack of belief" you can justify it. This is a false belief.
.

 

[David Mo]

1. You don’t understand what is a classification. When I define “agnostic” in a sense you cannot say “this is not an agnostic”.
1.1. Excuse me, this is my definition. And my definition is different to yours.
1.2. You can argue that your definition is better than mine but not that your definition “is” the unique definition.
2. People that lacks a belief about the existence of x is people that don’t affirm neither that x exists nor x doesn’t exist.
2.1. There is a clear difference between the three positions.
2.2. For example Saint Augustin, d’Holbach and Protagoras.
3. If you ask these people if they know or not what affirm all they say that they know. Even the fideist says that he knows with faith.
4. So we have to distinguish between those that justify their belief without rational reasons (irrationalists) and those that justify their belief rationally (rationalists).
4.1. This way I can distinguish between an atheist irrationalist (Nietzsche) and an atheist rationalist (d’Holbach); an agnostic irrationalist (someone indifferent); an agnostic rationalist (Huxley) and so on.
4.2. Without this classification some thinkers that in reality are very different will be placed in the same category.
4.2.1. And this is not useful at all.


5. I have explained this many times and you continue with your objections based in your dogmatic belief that your classification is the only one.
6. I’m sorry but the game is over.

PS: All your stubbornness depends of the false belief that only if you define "atheism" as "lack of belief" you can justify it. This is a false belief.
.

1. Moreover, I don't see any intent to justify the usefulness of your classification that not be circular.
2. Your unique criterion of justification is that your definitions fit with your own classification. Great!

 

[David Mo]

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

(...)

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?

1. When a theist says that he believes in a "god", we can suppose he is using the word "god" as the people usually use the word. (Supernatural entity, etc.). We know what it signifies.
1.1.For the usual meanings of the word "god", I have given some quotations.
2. If it is not the case, he ought to explain us what "god" means to him.
3. If the theist is minimally coherent he will use the word "god" in the usually sense of the word.
3.1. If he is incoherent let us him stay quiet. Discussing with fools that says "god" when they want to say "food" is not useful.

4. Your absent god has the same possibilities to exist that invisible zombies. I deny this kind of things exist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. You don’t understand what is a classification. When I define “agnostic” in a sense you cannot say “this is not an agnostic”.

When you define "tail" to mean "leg", a dog still only has four legs.

1.1. Excuse me, this is my definition. And my definition is different to yours.

Nobody can stop you from using your unique definitions. Nobody else has to agree with them, though.

1.2. You can argue that your definition is better than mine but not that your definition “is” the unique definition.

I'm very aware that other people misuse words so no surprise there.

2. People that lacks a belief about the existence of x is people that don’t affirm neither that x exists nor x doesn’t exist.

No, you've made an error there. Those who "believe not" fit in the category of "lacks belief in" also.

2.1. There is a clear difference between the three positions.

There is certainly a clear difference between agnostic/gnostic (knowledge) and atheist/theist (belief). And you've added a third dimension irrational/rational.

2.2. For example Saint Augustin, d’Holbach and Protagoras.
3. If you ask these people if they know or not what affirm all they say that they know. Even the fideist says that he knows with faith.

So would you call them agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists?

4. So we have to distinguish between those that justify their belief without rational reasons (irrationalists) and those that justify their belief rationally (rationalists).

Ah, you wish to measure two dimensions and ignore agnosticism/gnosticism? We can do that. We just need to define our terms, as Voltaire would have us do.

4.1. This way I can distinguish between an atheist irrationalist (Nietzsche) and an atheist rationalist (d’Holbach); an agnostic irrationalist (someone indifferent); an agnostic rationalist (Huxley) and so on.

You are certainly welcome to measure those two dimensions about anyone. Note that they have nothing to do with the third dimension that we've been discussing - agnostic/gnostic (knowledge).

4.2. Without this classification some thinkers that in reality are very different will be placed in the same category.
4.2.1. And this is not useful at all.

But what if I want to know if they say that it is possible to know if gods exist or not? Your third dimension is absolutely useless in that case and your re-definition of "agnostic" to mean "atheist" is redundant.

I have explained this many times and you continue with your objections based in your dogmatic belief that your classification is the only one.
6. I’m sorry but the game is over.

Let's see if your dogmatic belief in redefining words helps you in the next post.

PS: All your stubbornness depends of the false belief that only if you define "atheism" as "lack of belief" you can justify it. This is a false belief.
.

You seem emotionally focused on my posts to the exclusion of all the others who are trying to help you. It might help to take a short break before answering.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. When a theist says that he believes in a "god", we can suppose he is using the word "god" as the people usually use the word. (Supernatural entity, etc.). We know what it signifies.
1.1.For the usual meanings of the word "god", I have given some quotations.
2. If it is not the case, he ought to explain us what "god" means to him.
3. If the theist is minimally coherent he will use the word "god" in the usually sense of the word.

Is Thor a god? How about The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The god who I said created the universe out of itself via the big bang and was destroyed? Are those gods or not?

3.1. If he is incoherent let us him stay quiet. Discussing with fools that says "god" when they want to say "food" is not useful.

What do you think of people who say "agnostic" when they mean "atheist"?

4. Your absent god has the same possibilities to exist that invisible zombies. I deny this kind of things exist.

Ah, then you are an irrational atheist. You have no reasons for disbelieving that the universe was created by the god I told you about and yet you believe that it didn't exist. Sorry, all the evidence is on my side. Here we have a universe, evidence for a big bang and now, no god. Everything fits perfectly.

 

[barehl]

I haven't seen much in this thread that would be useful in a discussion. So, I'm going to start with this term:

Textism - The belief that a document contains magical or supernatural information. Such information can include the histories, descriptions, desires or actions of supernatural beings or objects. It can also include magical or supernatural spells, rituals, or traditions.

 

[barehl]

As someone who is non-dogmatic, I completely fit the broad category of the term "atheist." However, since I don't consider the physical existence or lack thereof of a deity to be particularly important to my mindset

There aren't too many times when negative definitions are useful.

For example, we could define {apple, orange, pear, and pineapple} as NOT{banana}.
We could define {New Years, 4th of July, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving} as NOT{Christmas}.
You could define {friends, family, and coworkers} as NOT{strangers}.

A term like atheist can only function if you assume that the baseline position is something like Christianity. Without that kind of assumption I don't see how the term can be logically defended. But some strive mightily to try nevertheless.

 

[David Mo]

So would you call them agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists?

Ah, you wish to measure two dimensions and ignore agnosticism/gnosticism? We can do that. We just need to define our terms, as Voltaire would have us do.

1. I can define your terms perfectly. But I find your alternative is not as useful as mine.
1.1. I find no sense in asking me about the categories of agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists. These are your categories. If the three thinkers I have mentioned fit one or other is your problem.
2. You don’t realize that I don’t accept your criteria of definition.
3. I don’t know why I ought to do it. Have you any kind of qualification to state what set of criteria is correct?
3.2. Have you any reason to think that your classification is the correct?

Is Thor a god? How about The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The god who I said created the universe out of itself via the big bang and was destroyed? Are those gods or not?

See my comment #56, please.

Thor and FSM fit the definition. I suppose that you are using “god” in the current sense of the word when you are speaking of the Big Bang god. Are you doing it?

What do you think of people who say "agnostic" when they mean "atheist"?

See above, please.

Ah, then you are an irrational atheist. You have no reasons for disbelieving that the universe was created by the god I told you about and yet you believe that it didn't exist. Sorry, all the evidence is on my side. Here we have a universe, evidence for a big bang and now, no god. Everything fits perfectly.

1. No. I am a rational atheist because I can justify my assertion/belief: “Gods don’t exist”. I can explain you my justifications, if you want. They are theoretical, factual and practical.
2. What evidence are you speaking about?
3. If there is “no god” in the Big Bang, this would be more confirmatory evidence in favour of my previous belief that gods don’t exist.
3.1. In reality, you cannot present any empirical evidence neither in favour nor against the existence of the particular Big Bang god that you have imagined.
3.2. But this doesn't affect my assertion that “gods don’t exist” because it is a universal sentence based on some present evidences.

4. An example of justification of the sentence “I believe that gods don’t exist”
4.1. More evidence about “x exist” increases the possibility of x actually exist. Where “x” is a universal.
4.2. More failures in finding evidence about “x exist” increases the possibility of x actually don’t exist.
4.3. “Gods exist” is a paradigmatic example of 4.2.
4.4. I justifiably believe that gods don’t exist.
5. This is the usual reasoning with zombies, fairies, giants, etc. And any supernatural entity you have in mind.
5.1. There are some particular conditions that reinforce 4.2. For example, Hume: extraordinary events require extraordinary proofs.

6. And what is your position about “Some zombies exist in Alt Ampurdà”?
6.1. You affirm they exist.
6.2. You affirm they don’t exist.
6.3. You affirm neither 4.1 nor 4.2. You refrain from any judgement.
7. Please, answer to this question.

 

[David Mo]

A term like atheist can only function if you assume that the baseline position is something like Christianity. Without that kind of assumption I don't see how the term can be logically defended. But some strive mightily to try nevertheless.

See my points #4 to #5 in my previous comment.

I agree that the atheism becomes stronger when faced to a western monotheist religion. But I find absurd to search some proof that a fabulous hero as Achilles ( withh supernatural powers as described in the Iliad) didn't actually exist. The possibility of his existence is null.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. I can define your terms perfectly. But I find your alternative is not as useful as mine.
1.1. I find no sense in asking me about the categories of agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists. These are your categories. If the three thinkers I have mentioned fit one or other is your problem.
2. You don’t realize that I don’t accept your criteria of definition.
3. I don’t know why I ought to do it. Have you any kind of qualification to state what set of criteria is correct?
3.2. Have you any reason to think that your classification is the correct?



See my comment #56, please.

Thor and FSM fit the definition. I suppose that you are using “god” in the current sense of the word when you are speaking of the Big Bang god. Are you doing it?




See above, please.




1. No. I am a rational atheist because I can justify my assertion/belief: “Gods don’t exist”. I can explain you my justifications, if you want. They are theoretical, factual and practical.
2. What evidence are you speaking about?
3. If there is “no god” in the Big Bang, this would be more confirmatory evidence in favour of my previous belief that gods don’t exist.
3.1. In reality, you cannot present any empirical evidence neither in favour nor against the existence of the particular Big Bang god that you have imagined.
3.2. But this doesn't affect my assertion that “gods don’t exist” because it is a universal sentence based on some present evidences.

4. An example of justification of the sentence “I believe that gods don’t exist”
4.1. More evidence about “x exist” increases the possibility of x actually exist. Where “x” is a universal.
4.2. More failures in finding evidence about “x exist” increases the possibility of x actually don’t exist.
4.3. “Gods exist” is a paradigmatic example of 4.2.
4.4. I justifiably believe that gods don’t exist.
5. This is the usual reasoning with zombies, fairies, giants, etc. And any supernatural entity you have in mind.
5.1. There are some particular conditions that reinforce 4.2. For example, Hume: extraordinary events require extraordinary proofs.

6. And what is your position about “Some zombies exist in Alt Ampurdà”?
6.1. You affirm they exist.
6.2. You affirm they don’t exist.
6.3. You affirm neither 4.1 nor 4.2. You refrain from any judgement.
7. Please, answer to this question.

Define "zombies", as Voltaire again reminds you.

You have no compelling arguments against the god I've described to you that created the universe out of itself via the big bang and yet you positively believe that it never existed. And you still believe that that's a rational position? No, using your own definitions, you are definitely an irrational atheist.

You never did answer the question - What are you extrapolating from to compare to it?

 

[David Mo]

Define "zombies", as Voltaire again reminds you.

Don't try to fool me, please. Buy a dictionary.

You have no compelling arguments against the god I've described to you that created the universe out of itself via the big bang and yet you positively believe that it never existed. And you still believe that that's a rational position? No, using your own definitions, you are definitely an irrational atheist.

Have you anything to say? This is only an empty declamation.

You never did answer the question - What are you extrapolating from to compare to it?

I have explained it several times.

The game is definitely over. Tell me when you decide playing fair.

 

[Pup]

A term like atheist can only function if you assume that the baseline position is something like Christianity. Without that kind of assumption I don't see how the term can be logically defended. But some strive mightily to try nevertheless.

Well there ya go. That's pretty much where its usefulness is. A member of the dominant power (Christianity) asks, "Are you Christian?" You say no. "Oh, so you're one of those Jews." You say no. "You don't look like a Muslim, but I guess that's what you are." You say no. He asks,"Then what are you?"

When there's a need, words spring up. When people no longer assume everyone is a member of some religion, I expect "atheism" will die out.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Don't try to fool me, please. Buy a dictionary.

No, you've redefined too many terms for me to trust that you're using dictionary definitions. Define "zombies".

Have you anything to say? This is only an empty declamation.

Have you any arguments to make that aren't based on emotion? You have simply declared yourself to be rational and I have shown that your position is irrational. Stamp your foot ever so mightily, you are an irrational atheist.

I have explained it several times.

No, you've actually studiously avoided answering it. What are you extrapolating from to have your positive belief that the god I described didn't exist?

The game is definitely over. Tell me when you decide playing fair.

Answer the questions.

 

[Mojo]

1. You don’t understand what is a classification. When I define “agnostic” in a sense you cannot say “this is not an agnostic”.
1.1. Excuse me, this is my definition. And my definition is different to yours.

It was your definitions I was talking about.

Your definition of atheist: "Atheists don’t believe in gods";

Your definition of agnostic: "agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exist (they neither believe nor disbelieve)."

An agnostic, by your definition, does not believe in gods. That puts them within your definition of atheists.

 

[barehl]

Well there ya go. That's pretty much where its usefulness is. A member of the dominant power (Christianity) asks, "Are you Christian?" You say no. "Oh, so you're one of those Jews." You say no. "You don't look like a Muslim, but I guess that's what you are." You say no. He asks,"Then what are you?"

Yes, omnivores are by far the dominant group in the US. So, by your analogy we must have labeled divisions within this group such as red-meat omnivore, fish omnivore, and those who were not omnivores would have a negative label such as anti-omnivore. That clarifies it.

 

[barehl]

I agree that the atheism becomes stronger when faced to a western monotheist religion. But I find absurd to search some proof that a fabulous hero as Achilles ( withh supernatural powers as described in the Iliad) didn't actually exist. The possibility of his existence is null.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The possibility that any god or other supernatural being (angels, demons, trolls, fairies, flying horses, ghosts, werewolves, etc.) exists is zero. These are all the same.

 

[Pup]

Yes, omnivores are by far the dominant group in the US. So, by your analogy we must have labeled divisions within this group such as red-meat omnivore, fish omnivore, and those who were not omnivores would have a negative label such as anti-omnivore. That clarifies it.

Omnivores as a group generally aren't against non-omnivores as a group. You can't stretch the analogy to every grouping. That was my point. It requires theists to dislike atheists as a group.

 

[David Mo]

It was your definitions I was talking about.

Your definition of atheist: "Atheists don’t believe in gods";

Your definition of agnostic: "agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exist (they neither believe nor disbelieve)."

An agnostic, by your definition, does not believe in gods. That puts them within your definition of atheists.

Agnostics and atheists agree that they don't believe in gods.
But they differ in that the atheist affirms that gods don't exist and the agnostic not (he refrain his judgement about the existence of gods).

 

[David Mo]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The possibility that any god or other supernatural being (angels, demons, trolls, fairies, flying horses, ghosts, werewolves, etc.) exists is zero. These are all the same.

1. The arguments against a particular religion are more reliable that against religions in general.
2. The mediterranean monotheisms are more vulnerable because they are more rationalized. They have centuries of theology and mental confusion. RAtionalizing makes less rational. This seems paradoxal, but it is not.
3. I don't feel comfortable in mixing beliefs and numbers. I don't know if the possibility of the existence of angels, demons, etc. is zero or practically zero. But I agree that the possibility of the existence of this kind of supernatural beings is similar to those of gods.
3.1. People usually believe in gods and not in trolls only for cultural reasons. Rationally speaking, they are the same stuff.

I hope this has cleared my position.