Arguments for Atheism

[oldbadger]

And one article specifically on Deism:

Deism

And the killer quote from the article:

"II. Deism vs. Theism
Deism is a form of theism, or belief in a God."

Ha ha! And what fool wrote that?
And who would cling to such nonsense?

www.philosophy terms....... look at this:-

There are a variety of Deists and some believe in an intervening god and others do not.

.....such idiocy...,...... if a 'deist' would believe in an intervening god, then they wouldn't be a deist!!! .......... and you grasped for it.
This begins to look as if you believe in every piece of junk that's written, if it helps your own ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha! And what fool wrote that?
And who would cling to such nonsense?

www.philosophy terms....... look at this:-


.....such idiocy...,...... if a 'deist' would believe in an intervening god, then they wouldn't be a deist!!! .......... and you grasped for it.
This begins to look as if you believe in every piece of junk that's written, if it helps your own ideas.

Oh my, sad denialism at its finest.

I found what you asked for. Now please, find a better source that says that deism is not theism. And not just a site that agrees with you. "Because I said so" always loses to sources.

 

[oldbadger]

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. https://www.google.com/search
By definition a deist cannot be an atheist because a deist believes that God exists.
You can claim to be a non-theist though.

Ah..... yes....... but a non-theist is an ...... ATHEIST!

I'm rather enjoying all this........ it does seem to have excited one particular atheist, I notice.

 

[oldbadger]

Oh my, sad denialism at its finest.

I found what you asked for. Now please, find a better source that says that deism is not theism. And not just a site that agrees with you. "Because I said so" always loses to sources.

That was your choice of site!
that came out of www.philosophy. .....

And simple logic and reason will always win over just any 'sources'....... you should know that, believing in sound method and such....

I think you're just a bit worried about your chosen title being invaded, somewhat....

 

[oldbadger]

@Trailblazer & @Subduction Zone

This simple 'equation' came from a quora debate...... quite nice:-

A = theism
B = intervention/miracles
C = deism

If A accepts B, but C rejects B, then C can’t be A.


And......... in that case, Deists are non-Theists, = Atheists.

Ergo, Quad Erat Demonstrandum, Deism is no part of Theism, and Deism is anti-theistic = Atheistic

Thankyou..... thankyou..... *oldbadger humbly bowing to left and right*

 

[Curious George]

@Trailblazer & @Subduction Zone

This simple 'equation' came from a quora debate...... quite nice:-

A = theism
B = intervention/miracles
C = deism

If A accepts B, but C rejects B, then C can’t be A.


And......... in that case, Deists are non-Theists, = Atheists.

Ergo, Quad Erat Demonstrandum, Deism is no part of Theism, and Deism is anti-theistic = Atheistic

Thankyou..... thankyou..... *oldbadger humbly bowing to left and right*

Don't worry. The others are not talking about philosophical atheism, they are talking about a mental state of being.

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.​

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Simply lacking a belief in something doesn't qualify. If I lack a belief in a good Fast and Furious movie doesn't qualify me as an aVinDieselist, it just means I never seen one. Lacking is a state being deficient, which atheist are not because they have a obvious opinions about the gods, if they totally lacked belief they would also lack their opinions about the gods because any belief about the gods would be deficient and therefore unknowns. If you have absolutely no beliefs in or of or about the gods then the gods wouldn't even cross your mind or be part of the equation.

Lacking morals is amoral
To be called not normal is abnormal
Opposite of a theist, atheist

If John believes in Fast and Furious, he is called (I.e.) Jas

Since you lack belief in the movie, your position is ajas.

So, by context, you are an atheist. But atheist involves deities not movies.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Trailblazer & @Subduction Zone

This simple 'equation' came from a quora debate...... quite nice:-

A = theism
B = intervention/miracles
C = deism

If A accepts B, but C rejects B, then C can’t be A.


And......... in that case, Deists are non-Theists, = Atheists.

Ergo, Quad Erat Demonstrandum, Deism is no part of Theism, and Deism is anti-theistic = Atheistic

Thankyou..... thankyou..... *oldbadger humbly bowing to left and right*

Do deist believe in god(s).

 

[Rival]

Do deist believe in god(s).

They believe in a God that does not intervene in the world.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They believe in a God that does not intervene in the world.

So wouldn't that make them a theist?

 

[Rival]

So wouldn't that make them a theist?

No, a theist believes that God intervenes in the world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Says you!

Well you got that wrong, according to my google dictionary:-
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
So, NO... to that! My Deity is quite detached from all of that.

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
See? Now you cannot be suggesting that a Deist is a Theist are you? Where is the logic in that?
I am an Atheist because I am a Deist.

Wanna hold hands? .

Theism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods
THEISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Atheist:
someone who does not believein any God or gods

ATHEIST | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Your belief in a god disqualifies you from the one criterion that atheism has.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, a theist believes that God intervenes in the world.

"Theist" refers to anyone who believes in a god or gods. Deism is a form of theism.

 

[Rival]

"Theist" refers to anyone who believes in a god or gods. Deism is a form of theism.

I suppose this may be a definition, but many people do use the definitions to be:

Deist - a believer in a non-interventionist God
Theist - a believer in an interventionist God.

This is what was taught in my Philosophy classes as well.

So if you're thinking 'But this means there is no generic word for "person who believes in a God"', that's right. One must be specific according to these definitions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, a theist believes that God intervenes in the world.

Theist just means belief in the existence of god(s). The details depend on the person and religion.

 

[Rival]

Theist just means belief in the existence of god(s). The details depend on the person and religion.

Yes, see above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose this may be a definition, but many people do use the definitions to be:

Deist - a believer in a non-interventionist God
Theist - a believer in an interventionist God.

This is what was taught in my Philosophy classes as well.

So if you're thinking 'But this means there is no generic word for "person who believes in a God"', that's right. One must be specific according to these definitions.

Belief in an interventionist god is the most common form of theism, so "theism" is often used without qualifiers to describe it.

But the more critical point for this thread is that nobody - except @oldbadger , apparently - considers deists to be atheists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, see above.

It doesn't matter if someone intervenes or not. Its just the existence of god. I dont know what the opposite of a deist is since there is no a- it sounds like a subsection of theism. Like some Pagans are theists. I would say pantheist, but theist has to do with deities rather than god-concepts.

I meant what I said.

EDIT

Actually, since pantheism has theism, I guess theist has to do with all god-concepts.

 

[Rival]

It doesn't matter if someone intervenes or not.

The thing that to some individuals it does, because it may include concepts like prayer or the soul. If your god doesn't intervene then prayer is useless, but if your god intervenes then it's maybe not so useless.

But we are off track

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The thing that to some individuals it does, because it may include concepts like prayer or the soul. If your god doesn't intervene then prayer is useless, but if your god intervenes then it's maybe not so useless.

But we are off track

Shrugs. Outside of strict definitions, gods can be a pencil for all we know. I like using deities rather than gods since deities suggest actual entities where as god has so many definitions anything can be called gods.