Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[idav]

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

Sorry, but I just don't see it.

For someone to not have the answers then the answer cannot be "no god".

 

[idav]

Uncertainty.

Would "neither denying nor affirming" fit?

Possibly. Agnostic? Even for agnostics, that is saying one doesn't know, but still atheism is the claim that "no god" did it. On one hand it is being said that we don't know but then at the same time that, even though we don't know it isn't god, which would be like telling theists, "well I don't know but I believe theists are wrong". Am I missing something here?

 

[nilsz]

I personally define gods strictly as anthropomorphic personalities of cosmological significance. This is the definition I use when I take the position that gods are so implausible that it is reasonable to assert that they do not exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

For someone to not have the answers then the answer cannot be "no god".

Actually it can.

In any case, not having the answers is not at all the same thing as having that specific answer even if it turns out to be true.

Not having the answers is, quite simply, not having the answers.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

For someone to not have the answers then the answer cannot be "no god".

One needn't have all the answers to recognize that a possible answer people have proposed is a bad one. That is the case here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Possibly. Agnostic? Even for agnostics, that is saying one doesn't know, but still atheism is the claim that "no god" did it.

Sorry, but that is just wrong. Atheism is not any kind of claim about the origin of existence, nor of Earth or of life.

On one hand it is being said that we don't know but then at the same time that, even though we don't know it isn't god, which would be like telling theists, "well I don't know but I believe theists are wrong". Am I missing something here?

It would seem that you are missing the possibility of people simply not knowing nor wanting to guess on some fairly esoterical questions.

 

[idav]

One needn't have all the answers to recognize that a possible answer people have proposed is a bad one. That is the case here.

How so? If the atheist doesn't have an explanation how is it correct to say the theist is wrong?

Sorry, but that is just wrong. Atheism is not any kind of claim about the origin of existence, nor of Earth or of life.

Yes I agree with this.

It would seem that you are missing the possibility of people simply not knowing nor wanting to guess on some fairly esoterical questions.

I can respect this but this sort would not fall under atheism. If your not guessing then it is left open in which case theism isn't necessarily false as atheists claim.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How so? If the atheist doesn't have an explanation how is it correct to say the theist is wrong?

Because the fundamental truth-claims of theism are incoherent; it could not be true, even in principle. But even were that not so, if the (pseudo) explanation theism offers doesn't square with the evidence, we needn't know what the correct explanation actually is to note that this explanation cannot be correct.

Consider a trivial case: there are muddy footprints on my kitchen floor, and someone says "hey, maybe so and so did it". But suppose I know that so-and-so is out of town; I can say that this explanation is false, without knowing what the correct explanation actually is.

In other words, the premise of this thread is entirely mistaken.

 

[idav]

I personally define gods strictly as anthropomorphic personalities of cosmological significance. This is the definition I use when I take the position that gods are so implausible that it is reasonable to assert that they do not exist.

Gods are hardly implausible when we can't even fathom existence coming about on its own. If your talking about some sort of contradictory god that can't possibly exist I can understand but that is the theist extreme, the atheist extreme would be that no gods exist as a counter to the extreme supernatural deity. To me saying supernatural deities don't exists should not be an automatically "therefore gods don't exist".

 

[idav]

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.

I am not saying everyone does that. I simply used evolution as an example as something I have seen. What I mean to say is that sometimes theists have doubts but for some reason some theists, once they find their faith headed towards doubt, rather than reconcile they just throw out the concept of god completely. I see that I think as often as theists choosing a different god concept.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Gods are hardly implausible when we can't even fathom existence coming about on its own.

That doesn't imply the existence of gods, for any number of reasons. Maybe we can't fathom it because existence coming about is nonsense to begin with? Besides, what exactly have we gained by positing something we can't comprehend (the ultimate mystery, i.e. theos) in order to explain something we can't comprehend?

If your talking about some sort of contradictory god that can't possibly exist I can understand but that is the theist extreme, the atheist extreme would be that no gods exist as a counter to the extreme supernatural deity.

You keep talking about atheism, as the rejection of theism, as an "extreme", despite failing to give this claim any significance: given that the proposition by which atheism is defined ("theism is false") is a proposition that is either true or false, there is no middle ground, and therefore there is no extreme.

To me saying supernatural deities don't exists should not be an automatically "therefore gods don't exist".

Since gods=deities, and "supernatural deity" is essentially redundant, that supernatural deities don't exist and that gods don't exist are equivalent.

 

[idav]

Because the fundamental truth-claims of theism are incoherent; it could not be true, even in principle. But even were that not so, if the (pseudo) explanation theism offers doesn't square with the evidence, we needn't know what the correct explanation actually is to note that this explanation cannot be correct.

Consider a trivial case: there are muddy footprints on my kitchen floor, and someone says "hey, maybe so and so did it". But suppose I know that so-and-so is out of town; I can say that this explanation is false, without knowing what the correct explanation actually is.

In other words, the premise of this thread is entirely mistaken.

Your simply arguing that because theism is incoherent it is ok to just assume god to be the wrong answer. I can't buy that. If instead an actual explanation was offered it would be something between the extreme of no god vs supernatural god. How can atheists know that it isn't some sort of god, not the incoherent type as put forward by supernatural deity believers?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your simply arguing that because theism is incoherent it is ok to just assume god to be the wrong answer.

It is, because theism is incoherent=theism is not true= theism is not the right answer=theism is the wrong answer.

If instead an actual explanation was offered it would be something between the extreme of no god vs supernatural god.

This is an exhaustive distinction. If something is not supernatural in the relevant sense, it is not a god.

How can atheists know that it isn't some sort of god, not the incoherent type as put forward by supernatural deity believers?

It isn't that some types of god are incoherent, it is that theism- the position that there are gods/deities at all- is incoherent, because its essential/distinguishing truth-claims (RE a cosmic intervener) are incoherent.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm extreme in my well-founded, rational, and educated conclusion that all human-invented religions and gods are sufficiently explained by vagaries of human psychology and sociology, and that all human-created gods can be safely categorized as fictional constructs. Whether there is something that exists that we would potentially describe as a god or gods, I have no idea. But there's no good reason to think that human beings' limited awareness and imagination would have accidentally stumbled upon a description that even remotely corresponds to the actual nature of such an entity.

 

[idav]

T
You keep talking about atheism, as the rejection of theism, as an "extreme", despite failing to give this claim any significance: given that the proposition by which atheism is defined ("theism is false") is a proposition that is either true or false, there is no middle ground, and therefore there is no extreme.

That is more extreme than what I proposed. Rejecting every and all theism is certainly extreme for not having an answer.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is more extreme than what I proposed. Rejecting every and all theism is certainly extreme for not having an answer.

You're using "extreme" in a curious sense then; it isn't that it has gone overboard, since there are only two options- either theism is true, or it is false, and neither option is "extreme" in that sense. Perhaps you mean it is "extreme" in the sense that it is unwarranted- that the atheist's conclusion goes beyond what the evidence or argument provides. This is false, as I would be willing to go over, but at least this is more meaningful than what you initially appeared to be saying.

 

[Boyd]

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".

Does it though? I can't speak for atheists, but on the other "extreme," being a theist, I know my go to answer isn't "G-d did it."

Most atheists don't argue that there is no G-d, or that it is an impossibility. They just lack a belief in G-d or gods. It's hardly an explanation for anything.

We can take the idea of evolution. G-d doesn't have to factor in either way. It's science; it is a different subject completely.

We can also look at the idea of origins. G-d, for many, doesn't factor in. When I think of the origin of life, or even the universe, G-d isn't needed. My personal belief is that G-d had something to do with it, but that is a personal belief, and not an actual explanation.

Theism and atheism are not extremes, nor do they give an explanation for anything. They just signify whether one has a belief in G-d or gods. It isn't an explanation.

 

[idav]

I
This is an exhaustive distinction. If something is not supernatural in the relevant sense, it is not a god.

I thought so, your rejecting theism as incoherent because of the supernatural aspect. My position is that a supernatural god is extreme and incoherent. I can't agree, just because something natural would have began everything we should still be able to refer to it as some sort of deity. I advocate a middle ground to avoid the supernatural mumbo jumbo. A great deal of theists reject supernatural aspects.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I thought so, your rejecting theism as incoherent because of the supernatural aspect.

Well, not exactly. By theism I understand the claim: at least one transcendent, providential cosmic intervener exists.

My position is that a supernatural god is extreme and incoherent.

I agree. I just fail to see how something that isn't "supernatural" could qualify as a god in the first place.

I can't agree, just because something natural would have began everything we should still be able to refer to it as some sort of deity.

Well, it would not be transcendent, which is arguably the sine qua non of theistic gods in general. It would also appear to not be able to perform the function so commonly attributed to God of creating the universe; for if God is just an ordinary object in the universe, then he has none of the special properties which (theologians claim) allowed him to create the universe in the first place.

I advocate a middle ground to avoid the supernatural mumbo jumbo. A great deal of theists reject supernatural aspects.

Tell me specifically, what such a natural god would look like then, because it sounds like a contradiction in terms.

 

[idav]

that the atheist's conclusion goes beyond what the evidence or argument provides.

Isn't that another way of saying going overboard? It is the same claim atheists make of theists regarding faith. It takes faith to claim "no god".