Arguments for Atheism

[Unveiled Artist]

Both terms can be applied to things that are from a god, or of a god, or reflect a god in some way.

Yes. Prepositions say from god, of god, and reflection (of) a god since god is considered something of worship and therefore divine. All deities are gods but not all gods (say Pantheism, Animism, etc) are deities. Deity is more specific to a divine entity or being (as per definition). Its related to a god but not by its nature as an entity/deity not, say, the sun or ancestors or a force or energy etc)

So, the earth is a god. Ancestors are gods. The king and queen can be considered gods as well as incarnations and avatars.

Take the physical earth. To a pantheist and some pagans, the earth is god. The earth is divine and an object of worship.

The earth is not a deity because it isnt an entity nor being nor spirit. Deities are more specific. God can be the earth but a deity cant be the earth but can be Zues or (abrahamic) God.

Yes, they have relation to each other. God is vague and deity is not. They relate to each other, but since there are soooo many gods, to say they are each other is denying that pantheism, animist, hindus, etc have gods totally different than their peers.

The definition speaks of the abrahamic god not god in general. Unlike mathematics, english words are not static.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That depends on your logic (or ill-logic). To suggest the possibility of a thing unknown (and/or unknowable) is to first assume its existence.

While I'm a fan of fiction, I rarely take seriously epistemological discussions that far.

Shrugs. It was never into my level of equation that anything existed in order to claim it doesnt exist. I was never a claimed atheist until I came on RF and learned about these different weird beliefs a lot of people hold very personally. I dont see it as illogical. There are logical justifications of their belief and criteria for it isnt like mathematics. However, its interesting the language and relationship used for their belief is interesting nonetheless.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Divine" = "godly"

Both terms can be applied to things that are from a god, or of a god, or reflect a god in some way.

Also, godly is used as an adjective. Deities can be godly but not all deities are gods.

The earth to a pantheist is god and is godly but not a deity because it is not an entity, being, or spirit.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The key is:

Gods have many definitions based on the person and religion. So, not all gods are divine nor godly as a result

Deities are, by nature, divine entities or beings (as per definition), but they dont apply to all definitions of gods above. Saying a deity is god is a huge generalization and putting all definitions of god into one box. Its better to say Zues is a deity and the earth is a god. Jesus christ is god but he is not a deity (like this father). A spirit can be a god and deity because it is both godly and an entity.

Its context.

 

[Willamena]

Shrugs. It was never into my level of equation that anything existed in order to claim it doesnt exist. I was never a claimed atheist until I came on RF and learned about these different weird beliefs a lot of people hold very personally. I dont see it as illogical. There are logical justifications of their belief and criteria for it isnt like mathematics. However, its interesting the language and relationship used for their belief is interesting nonetheless.

Well, look at it this way:

The first step to attributing anything to a (unverified) thing is to assume it: a convenient fiction. Things exist. If a thing is something, then it can exist (is possible). But this is because we are talking about things with some degree of truth. Purple polka-dotted bananas can exist because purple polka-dots exist and bananas exist. So logic has some basic formula for what is possible: if any part of the formula doesn't work, then the thing is not possible.

Fiction (apart from the entertainment variety) is things we made up. We might conceive them to fill a necessary gap (inference), or to extend circumstances into the future to foresee an outcome (prediction), or just to stretch possibility as far as we can (extrapolation). Inferences, predictions and extrapolations have some degree of truth. The formula doesn't work when we attribute fictional existence. For instance, we cannot attribute a real existence to the fictional tea cup orbiting Mars, because we also know for a fact that it was made up by Bertram Russel as an analogy solely to present a proof-of-burden argument. (If there is an actual tea cup orbiting Mars, it is accidental and, more importantly, incidental to the fictional item.) So, since it has no degree of truth, whatsoever, it also has no possibility. To then suggest that that fiction is possible is to attribute it with some degree of truth.

So, consider, should we be claiming the spaghetti monster could exist knowing that it was made up as deliberate satire? Not everything is possible.

 

[oldbadger]

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)

Reading the above, what's the difference between a philosopher's claim, and a non-philosopher's claim, especially when they are in agreement? Come to think of it, what's the difference between a philosopher and a non-philosopher?

......and, btw, I'm sure that some members would have enjoyed reading a description of the definitions claimed and proposed, rather than just their brief introductions?

 

[Willamena]

Reading the above, what's the difference between a philosopher's claim, and a non-philosopher's claim, especially when they are in agreement? Come to think of it, what's the difference between a philosopher and a non-philosopher?

......and, btw, I'm sure that some members would have enjoyed reading a description of the definitions claimed and proposed, rather than just their brief introductions?

I don't think they should have used the term "non-philosopher," but it may not survive the next editing of the article. We'll see.

 

[oldbadger]

Do deist believe in god(s).

Let's see about that...
God:- A Superhuman Being or Spirit, a Supreme Being.
Deity:- A Divine Being.
Divine:- Of, from or like a God....wonderful.

Well, I'm a Deist but I can only speak for myself, because Deism has no written Unifying Creed that I know of. I don't believe in a Superhuman God..... Absolutely not! I believe that the whole of all is one unified existence that is so vast, so far from just looking like a human that I couldn't even use the word 'God' as we tend to use it.

And so my feeling about all this has to select the nearest word that will serve, which is 'Deity', and which extends much further and deeper than the Oxford's 'Divine Being' although I would agree that it is truly wonderful.

And so I'm going to give a 'No' to your question, because my Deity is not a God like the theistic Gods, it is the vastness of all that we know about, and all that we do not know about..

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Well, since so many humans will do all that they can to be different, unique and so forth, it does appear as if I'm having some small success after all....!

In fact, could I invite all the Deists of the World to cuddle an atheist? Could we have a 'Cuddle an Atheist' day each year?

 

[Willamena]

@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.

Or, maybe, Deists are non-Theists, as are Atheists.

Consider:

A = theism
B = intervention/miracles
C = deism
D = atheism

If D rejects A, B and C, then D cannot be A or C.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I can see that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. Prepositions say from god, of god, and reflection (of) a god since god is considered something of worship and therefore divine. All deities are gods but not all gods (say Pantheism, Animism, etc) are deities. Deity is more specific to a divine entity or being (as per definition). Its related to a god but not by its nature as an entity/deity not, say, the sun or ancestors or a force or energy etc)

So, the earth is a god. Ancestors are gods. The king and queen can be considered gods as well as incarnations and avatars.

Take the physical earth. To a pantheist and some pagans, the earth is god. The earth is divine and an object of worship.

The earth is not a deity because it isnt an entity nor being nor spirit. Deities are more specific. God can be the earth but a deity cant be the earth but can be Zues or (abrahamic) God.

Yes, they have relation to each other. God is vague and deity is not. They relate to each other, but since there are soooo many gods, to say they are each other is denying that pantheism, animist, hindus, etc have gods totally different than their peers.

The definition speaks of the abrahamic god not god in general. Unlike mathematics, english words are not static.

I have no idea where you're getting any of this from. This thread is the first time I've even heard the suggestion that "deity" and "god" mean different things.

Listen to the contradictions in what you're saying "the Abrahamic god not god in general?" This would be incoherent if you were actually correct.

And it's not denying anything about pantheism or Hinduism to call their gods "gods" OR "deities."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have no idea where you're getting any of this from. This thread is the first time I've even heard the suggestion that "deity" and "god" mean different things.

Listen to the contradictions in what you're saying "the Abrahamic god not god in general?" This would be incoherent if you were actually correct.

And it's not denying anything about pantheism or Hinduism to call their gods "gods" OR "deities."

Shrugs. I'm picking hairs, that's all.

It highly depends on the person and religion.

Deities: godly entities and beings
I.e. Zues and jehovah

Gods: divine objects or persons of worship.
I.e. earth, force, spirit, ancestors

Some deities are considered gods (godly or divine). Not all gods (as above) are entities and beings such as the earth and force.

They can be interchangable since they are both divine. Gods are vague. Deities are specific to entities and beings. The nature of gods depends on the religion. The nature of deities are fixed.

Just pulling hairs. You can use then interchangeably. I don't because I don't believe in entities and beings. God, yes, as a spark of life and life itself. Divine as in worthy of reverence. Not an entity nor spirit therefore, not a deity.

It highly depends on the religion and person. Pantheistic don't go by the dictionary definition. Not all people and religions do.

 

[Willamena]

*raises hand* Just to muddy the waters further, deity is singular as well as plural. To use the word "deities" is a frivolous distinction.

 

[oldbadger]

But @oldbadger isn't just doing that; he's implying that definitions of "theism" that include deism are necessarily wrong.

I'm simply showing that Theism is totally different to Desism, so much so that Deists do have every reason to describe themselves as A-theists, if they wish to......

 

[oldbadger]

You don't have any logic. All you have is "I told you so". By simple logic you are wrong since for simple logic one would use the approach of analyzing etymology and when one does that it is obvious that sexism fits in the theism big tent.

What on earth are you writing about now?

You've been shown how Deism is totally different from Theism, it's A-theistic in nature. You've lost the plot..... it seems.

 

[oldbadger]

When you don't understand logic it is easy to abuse it. A, your premise, does not imply B. In fact both B and C are subsets of A. This is face palmingly bad on your part. It is only circular reasoning dressed up as logic.

That was a source!
You see? You think that your sources are reasonable, so long as they fit your agenda.
When they don't you 'throw all of your toys out of your pram', I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What on earth are you writing about now?

You've been shown how Deism is totally different from Theism, it's A-theistic in nature. You've lost the plot..... it seems.

No, you only demonstrated that you do not know how to use logic properly. Your entire argument was based upon an unwarranted assumption. Once again when you state that deism is spearate from theism you need more than a "because I said so".

But go ahead, you can believe anything you are like, just don't expect not to be corrected when you make your claims public.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was a source!
You see? You think that your sources are reasonable, so long as they fit your agenda.
When they don't you 'throw all of your toys out of your pram', I think.

I saw no source, no link. Did I miss it?

You are not a source. I am not a source. That is why I linked my sources and made them clear.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think they should have used the term "non-philosopher," but it may not survive the next editing of the article. We'll see.

Hi Willamena....
When I see stuff written like that, I turn the page or put down the book......