Atheism or atheisms?

[Ouroboros]

I don't think even my position is that they are polar opposites.

So then you think there is some modes in between that are neither atheist or theist?

That is a misleading way of thinking about it.

I think so too. I don't think atheism and theism are true opposites. There are opposing ideas in them, but they're not truly all opposite in everything.

It is the difference between holding a belief and not holding a belief.

And I don't think belief is discontinuous either. There are shades or different levels of belief. You can hold something for more or less likely, and maintain different levels of belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

First he starts out as a strong atheist (absence of belief in the existence of gods, presence of belief that gods don't exist). Then he becomes a weak atheist (absence of belief that gods exist, absence of belief that gods don't exist). Then he becomes a theist (presence of belief that gods exist.)

In other words, he was an atheist before he became a theist. So theism has its origins in atheists who created/invented/came-up-with the idea of theism. The conclusion still holds true.

 

[ArtieE]

In other words, he was an atheist before he became a theist. So theism has its origins in atheists who created/invented/came-up-with the idea of theism. The conclusion still holds true.

Yes so what's the point? Of course everybody were not theists before theism was invented. Is that a revelation to you?

 

[leibowde84]

So then you think there is some modes in between that are neither atheist or theist?


I think so too. I don't think atheism and theism are true opposites. There are opposing ideas in them, but they're not truly all opposite in everything.


And I don't think belief is discontinuous either. There are shades or different levels of belief. You can hold something for more or less likely, and maintain different levels of belief.

The levels don't matter with theism, and you can change your beliefs from day to day. Either you believe in the existence of God or gods or you don't. If you can't honestly make the claim that you "believe in the existence of God or gods", they you are an atheist.

If they were polar opposites, "atheism" would have to mean "the belief that God does not exist", which I do not agree with.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've got to say, this is nonsensical. As I've said repeatedly, "atheism", like "theism", has subcategories. There are plenty of atheists who actively believe that God does not or cannot exist. Never said otherwise. So, this is yet another straw-man. You are arguing against a claim not made by me. Further, this is a pretty unreasonable hypothetical, as there is a physical object that can't be denied. With belief in God, that is not the case.

So your definition of theism is actually quite strict. However, your definition of atheism has different and literally different meanings, ie, a ''lack of belief'', is wildly different from an assertion that deities don't exist period.

Anyways, is your definition of ''theism'', anything labeled a 'god'? You presented the notion that the object being called god in the hypothetical was unrealistic, this means that you do not have a 'broad' categorization of what theism means, aside from your claims that both theism and atheism are broad categories.

 

[ArtieE]

So your definition of theism is actually quite strict. However, your definition of atheism has different and literally different meanings, ie, a ''lack of belief'', is wildly different from an assertion that deities don't exist period.

(Weak) atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods and the absence of belief that gods don't exist. Strong atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods plus the active belief that gods don't exist. Since they are so different we call one weak and the other strong. Strong atheists are a subset of all atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

So your definition of theism is actually quite strict. However, your definition of atheism has different and literally different meanings, ie, a ''lack of belief'', is wildly different from an assertion that deities don't exist period.

Anyways, is your definition of ''theism'', anything labeled a 'god'? You presented the notion that the object being called god in the hypothetical was unrealistic, this means that you do not have a 'broad' categorization of what theism means, aside from your claims that both theism and atheism are broad categories.

You are, yet again, making false assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Please refrain from doing so.

"Theism" (as I've repeated numerous times) is the belief in the existence of God or gods (belief in ANY deity would satisfy this). Thus, "theism" is an EXTREMELY broad term. To prove this, these are all included under "theism" as they all include belief in the existence of God or gods:

Monotheism
Polytheism
Deism
Satanism
Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Hinduism
Paganism

and the list goes on ... How on earth could you argue that I am defining "theism" strictly when anyone who believes in any God or gods is considered a "theist" according to it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes so what's the point? Of course everybody were not theists before theism was invented. Is that a revelation to you?

It was in interesting point, yes. I felt it was worth exploring.

 

[Ouroboros]

The levels don't matter with theism, and you can change your beliefs from day to day. Either you believe in the existence of God or gods or you don't. If you can't honestly make the claim that you "believe in the existence of God or gods", they you are an atheist.

It depends on what we define as God. There's no one single definition.

If they were polar opposites, "atheism" would have to mean "the belief that God does not exist", which I do not agree with.

But they are opposites. Either you're an atheist or you're a theist, according to your own argument above. Are you suggesting that there are three kinds? 1) Atheist, 2) atheist that is not atheist, and 3) Theist?

I understand that there are different kinds and levels within atheism and theism, but still, the argument is that atheism (as an umbrella term) is the opposite of theism.

 

[leibowde84]

It depends on what we define as God. There's no one single definition.


But they are opposites. Either you're an atheist or you're a theist, according to your own argument above. Are you suggesting that there are three kinds? 1) Atheist, 2) atheist that is not atheist, and 3) Theist?

So, if there are only two options for something, they are necessarily opposites?

 

[ArtieE]

I understand that there are different kinds and levels within atheism and theism, but still, the argument is that atheism (as an umbrella term) is the opposite of theism.

No it isn't. The opposite of theism (belief that gods exist) is STRONG ATHEISM (the belief that gods don't exist). ATHEISM (the umbrella term) is the absence of belief that gods exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, if there are only two options for something, they are necessarily opposites?

So you're saying that you believe there are a middle ground between atheism and theism?

 

[Ouroboros]

No it isn't. The opposite of theism (belief that gods exist) is STRONG ATHEISM (the belief that gods don't exist). ATHEISM (the umbrella term) is the absence of belief that gods exist.

So what is the opposite to atheism (as an umbrella) if it's not theism? You are saying that atheism is the opposite to theism except when it's another form of atheism. So there's this atheism-not-atheism in between. Some form of atheism that is not in opposition to theism. Am I correct? Weak atheism is not non-theism but is something between atheism and theism. Not-non-theism is a double negative, so we can remove it, which means that weak atheism is a form of theism... uhm... or should the double negative stand?

Let's say atheism is the number 0 (zero). And theism is the number 1 (one). In between we have 0.5. Someone is strong atheist at 0. Weak atheist at 0.5. Theist at 1. Now, many theists don't hold their belief as 100%, but maybe 90%. So what is 0.9 in this case? Where do you draw the line? 0.500000001 is theist? Or 0.75?

 

[Desert Snake]

You are, yet again, making false assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Please refrain from doing so.

I'm not putting words into your mouth, it's that you don't seem to understand what your proposing as a definition for ''theism''.

"Theism" (as I've repeated numerous times) is the belief in the existence of God or gods (belief in ANY deity would satisfy this). Thus, "theism" is an EXTREMELY broad term. To prove this, these are all included under "theism" as they all include belief in the existence of God or gods:

Monotheism
Polytheism
Deism
Satanism
Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Hinduism
Paganism

and the list goes on ... How on earth could you argue that I am defining "theism" strictly when anyone who believes in any God or gods is considered a "theist" according to it?

''theism'', according to you, is highlighted in red. You then, in the next sentence, highlighted in blue, claim that your definition is ''broad''. Well, the definition you gave is broad, ie it doesn't mean anything unless you define 'gods or gods'; however, then when you use 'examples', of how theism is a ''broad' label, you list religions.

I'm going to let you figure out your error in reasoning, though, this isn't worth the effort.

 

[ArtieE]

So what is the opposite to atheism (as an umbrella) if it's not theism?

Maybe I can simplify for you:

1. Theism (Belief in the existence of god(s))
2. Atheism (Absence of belief in the existence of god(s))

1. Theism (Belief in the existence of god(s))
2. Weak atheism (Absence of belief in the existence of god(s), absence of belief that god(s) don't exist.)
3. Strong atheism. (Absence of belief in the existence of god(s), presence of belief that god(s) don't exist.)

Both are correct.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think atheism and theism are true opposites. There are opposing ideas in them, but they're not truly all opposite in everything... And I don't think belief is discontinuous either. There are shades or different levels of belief. You can hold something for more or less likely, and maintain different levels of belief.

Important points.

What happens to belief when it is a probability? "I'm going to flip a coin, do you believe it will be heads or tails?"

Or with an apophatic theologian 'Do you believe god exists?' 'I refuse to be drawn on the question of whether or not god exists as I don't consider existence a classification that can be applied to god'

In my OP I mentioned Meister Eckhart, who Fritz Mauthner considered a true atheist because he refused to accept that it could be stated that God existed (Mauthner's atheism was related to his critique of language) .

Eckhart stated: "Our salvation depends upon our knowing and recognizing the Chief Good which is God Himself. I have a capacity in my soul for taking in God entirely. I am as sure as I live that nothing is so near to me as God. God is nearer to me than I am to myself... Thus must the soul, which would know God, be rooted and grounded in Him so steadfastly, as to suffer no perturbation of fear or hope, or joy or sorrow, or love or hate, or anything which may disturb its peace... the soul should be remote from all earthly things alike so as not to be nearer to one than another. It should keep the same attitude of aloofness in love and hate, in possession and renouncement, that is, it should be simultaneously dead, resigned and lifted up." (Doctrines of Meister Eckhart - Wikipedia)

Now Eckhart was clearly a Christian who refused to make a comment about God that he disagreed with (God exists).

Does he fit neatly into an atheist/theist dichotomy though?

To have a word that fits both his and Richard Dawkins' beliefs means that it must be a very vague concept and one in which we must be prepared to view with a fair degree of nuance.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not putting words into your mouth, it's that you don't seem to understand what your proposing as a definition for ''theism''.

''theism'', according to you, is highlighted in red. You then, in the next sentence, highlighted in blue, claim that your definition is ''broad''. Well, the definition you gave is broad, ie it doesn't mean anything unless you define 'gods or gods'; however, then when you use 'examples', of how theism is a ''broad' label, you list religions.

I'm going to let you figure out your error in reasoning, though, this isn't worth the effort.

Systems of belief regarding God or gods, or "religions", are subcategories of "theism". They are varieties of belief in the existence of God or gods. Please enlighten me, as I'm not sure what error in reasoning you are referring to. Also, you failed to explain why my not providing the definition of "God or gods" makes my definition "strict". In actuality, it seemingly makes it more liberal.

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe I can simplify for you:

1. Theism (Belief in the existence of god(s))
2. Atheism (Absence of belief in the existence of god(s))

1. Theism (Belief in the existence of god(s))
2. Weak atheism (Absence of belief in the existence of god(s), absence of belief that god(s) don't exist.)
3. Strong atheism. (Absence of belief in the existence of god(s), presence of belief that god(s) don't exist.)

Both are correct.

Which means my conclusion was right.

Atheists came up with theism.

Nothing you've said so far is changing the premise that Theism (1 in the first set of yours) is in opposition to Atheism (2 in your first set). For the first theist to come about into existence, he/she must've been an atheist and must've gotten the idea from another atheist or invented/created him/herself. In other words, theism came from one or more atheists. That's the only observation I was curious about.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not putting words into your mouth, it's that you don't seem to understand what your proposing as a definition for ''theism''.

''theism'', according to you, is highlighted in red. You then, in the next sentence, highlighted in blue, claim that your definition is ''broad''. Well, the definition you gave is broad, ie it doesn't mean anything unless you define 'gods or gods'; however, then when you use 'examples', of how theism is a ''broad' label, you list religions.

I'm going to let you figure out your error in reasoning, though, this isn't worth the effort.

Are you claiming that adherents to the religions I named aren't "theists"? Because, that is the only way your criticism would make any sense. Either that, or you are creating another straw man. By the way, here is the definition of "deity" or "God" in this context. Hope this helps.

"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"

 

[Ouroboros]

Systems of belief regarding God or gods, or "religions", are subcategories of "theism". They are varieties of belief in the existence of God or gods. Please enlighten me, as I'm not sure what error in reasoning you are referring to. Also, you failed to explain why my not providing the definition of "God or gods" makes my definition "strict". In actuality, it seemingly makes it more liberal.

Where would you put ignosticism? Atheism?

And if someone provides their definition of God, but you reject that definition even if the object it references in actuality do exist, would you call them atheist or theist or just that they're playing with words and that we must follow some standard of what God is?

Eckhart, Spinoza, and many other philosophers attributed the term "God" to the underlying fabric/foundation for reality/nature/world. Even atheists can agree that something (like quantum mechanics, string theory, etc) is underlying the very fabric of our existence. So it exists. But the debate there is rather, do we call it God or not? Do the atheist reject such a definition or do they reject the existence of an underlying reality?