Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[idav]

I see atheism and theism being extremes as to an explantion of origins. People even will jump one over to the other when faced with questions of evolution. When someone jumps from theism to atheism its called "throwing the baby out with the bath water". I consider myself in between but what is that supposed to mean. I was thinking of the word 'being' which i often use in the verb tense and as I thought about what is between "no being"and "super being" it should be a noun and verb at the same time, something that became something hat existed and started being at the same time. What is in between the extremes of no being vs super being?

 

[sandandfoam]

As I see it, any description of God cannot be God because description traps in language. If one could describe God then one would, in a sense, be superior to God.
God is a mystery. I believe that while one cannot describe the mystery one can experience it.
I don't think the atheist/theist distinction is important.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is in between the extremes of no being vs super being?

Uncertainty.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is atheism an explanation at all, let alone an extreme one?

 

[Alceste]

Whether or not anybody's gods exist is a completely separate question to whether or not evolution is true. Yes, people who are highly rational and disinclined to believe propositions with no evidence will usually arrive at the conclusion that gods are imaginary and evolution is true, but they don't stop believing in whatever gods they were raised with because they embraced evolution. They stop believing in gods (or don't start, in my case) because the proposition is irrational and there is no evidence it is true, and they accept evolution because it is rational and well evidenced. That's a personality type, not an "extreme".

That there are millions upon millions of theists who accept evolution should clue you in that the two questions are not related, except for theists who have turned the denial of evolution into a religion.

 

[crossfire]

What is in between the extremes of no being vs super being?

Would "neither denying nor affirming" fit?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What is in between the extremes of no being vs super being?

Regular being.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is atheism an explanation at all, let alone an extreme one?

If you treat the continuum of thought between atheism & belief in gods, atheism
is at one end, aka "extreme". It's not to say that atheism is extreme in & of itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough, but how is atheism an explanation?

A lack of one, even a denial for the need of one, that I can see. But that is still not an (alternate) explanation. At most it opens the way for one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough, but how is atheism an explanation?

Can't answer that one.
Atheism explains nothing to me.

 

[Boyd]

How is atheism an explanation at all, let alone an extreme one?

I second this.

At the same time, I don't think theism is necessarily an explanation either. One can go to an extreme in theism and simply refer all to G-d or gods did it. But many theists, such as myself, have no problem with evolution, or science in general.

I think there are extremes in both atheism and theism, but the two themselves are not extremes.

 

[ArtieE]

I see atheism and theism being extremes as to an explantion of origins.

The origins of what?

People even will jump one over to the other when faced with questions of evolution.

Hardly. For example 58% of Catholics in the US believe in evolution. Do only Atheists believe in Evolution?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I see atheism and theism being extremes as to an explantion of origins. People even will jump one over to the other when faced with questions of evolution. When someone jumps from theism to atheism its called "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

This is sort of misleading; atheism is not a position regarding "origins". Atheism is a meta-claim: the position that theism is false; since atheism proves that theism's fundamental truth-claims are incoherent, there is no baby to be thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[ArtieE]

This is sort of misleading; atheism is not a position regarding "origins". Atheism is a meta-claim: the position that theism is false;

Atheism (weak atheism) is "not theism", the lack of any position. Strong atheism is the position that theism is false.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Atheism (weak atheism) is "not theism", the lack of any position. Strong atheism is the position that theism is false.

I don't really care to turn this into YET ANOTHER thread arguing over ways of classifying various non-theistic views, but for the purposes of my statement, "weak" atheism is not atheism.

 

[idav]

How is atheism an explanation at all, let alone an extreme one?

When not offering an explanation but chalking it up to "not god" is extreme to me. So when an atheist decides to offer an explanation, to me it would neccisitate something that can bring existence about and "not god" is extreme in that respect. It goes even further extreme for those who claim existence spawned from "nothing".

 

[Revoltingest]

When not offering an explanation but chalking it up to "not god" is extreme to me. So when an atheist decides to offer an explanation, to me it would neccisitate something that can bring existence about and "not god" is extreme in that respect. It goes even further extreme for those who claim existence spawned from "nothing".

I don't even know that it was spawned by nothing. It's certainly possible that there was something, but just very different from what we observe now. Disbelief in gods is far from extreme, provided that one is aware that such a thing is not provable or disprovable. It's just an opinion based upon observing no gods or effects explainable only by gods. Atheism is rather ordinary.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

When not offering an explanation but chalking it up to "not god" is extreme to me. So when an atheist decides to offer an explanation, to me it would neccisitate something that can bring existence about and "not god" is extreme in that respect. It goes even further extreme for those who claim existence spawned from "nothing".

Once again, this isn't an accurate portrayal of atheism. Atheism is not an explanation, insofar as it concerns explanation, it is a rejection of theistic explanation. Atheism does not entail any claims about what "can bring existence about" (including that existence was ever "brought about" in the first place) except that, if something DID "bring existence about", it was not a deity.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

When not offering an explanation but chalking it up to "not god" is extreme to me. So when an atheist decides to offer an explanation, to me it would neccisitate something that can bring existence about and "not god" is extreme in that respect. It goes even further extreme for those who claim existence spawned from "nothing".

And again, this talk off "going to the extreme" doesn't make any sense given that what atheism is concerned with is a binary proposition: Theism, true or false?

 

[LuisDantas]

When not offering an explanation but chalking it up to "not god" is extreme to me. So when an atheist decides to offer an explanation, to me it would neccisitate something that can bring existence about and "not god" is extreme in that respect. It goes even further extreme for those who claim existence spawned from "nothing".

So it is extreme to simply not have all the answers?

Sorry, but I just don't see it.