-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theism vs Atheism
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Um... Not necessarily?
I don't think it is a problem either way. I think that atheists might consider subjectivity as less relevant for truth while theists consider it more relevant for their lives.
Its not really a well thought out question, atheism is nothing more than the disbelief in god or gods.
Of course, as evidence stands there is no proof of gods thus making gods subjective.
However, other than that one point an atheist is just an everyday person who has subjective feelings.
And of course most theists are atheist for every god belief but their own.
Probably not. Why?
just wondering what the views might be. hopefully we get some chime ins from theists.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
As others have stated, this doesn't have much to do with atheism on the whole. However, I see what you are trying to get at.
I am an atheist, and not because of my atheism, but more due to my also being a skeptic, there are all kinds of things I recognize as being completely subjective. And I think the "problem" theists have with this notion is exactly that recognition. They want to claim objectivity, using completely subjective evidence. I refuse to recognize their evidence as pertaining to the objective, and they refuse to concede that (like a great many other things) their ideas are subjective. That's where my particular problem with theists tends to start.
I am an atheist, and not because of my atheism, but more due to my also being a skeptic, there are all kinds of things I recognize as being completely subjective. And I think the "problem" theists have with this notion is exactly that recognition. They want to claim objectivity, using completely subjective evidence. I refuse to recognize their evidence as pertaining to the objective, and they refuse to concede that (like a great many other things) their ideas are subjective. That's where my particular problem with theists tends to start.
Can you clarify what you mean by “problem with”?
Like, do you think atheism is combative towards the subjective? Or is it more like atheists have trouble appreciating or accepting the subjective?
I think you might have something here. But then I thought, I don’t think most theists would categorize their beliefs in god as subjective, but as an objective stance. So maybe their “problem with” the objective is that they don’t understand what is objective?
No. Theism and atheism mean next to nothing without context.
In the context of Western culture, which limits its view of what "god" means to classical monotheism? I don't know. That's not the place I speak from. But it would certainly be false to say that this polytheist/pantheist/animist has a problem with either subjectivity or objectivity. It'd be kind of hard to me to, when I've had one foot in the arts and one foot in the sciences all my life.
No, I think that is insulting to the better thinkers of both schools.
I try to differentiate between my subjective and objective experiences. Theists seem to have a harder time with this.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Hmmn. I'd say yes, except that I think that theists can be very objective when they are dealing with science and examining the universe as it is. They CAN be. Most of 'em, as it happens, handle objectivity just fine, unless it comes to religion.
Atheists have problems with subjectivity unless it comes to personal relationships and ethics, and sometimes not even then. I remember with some amusement a conversation I had with an atheist once who tried explaining why he knew that his wife loved him in strictly objective terms. He had to acknowledge that he couldn't do that, since all her actions towards him COULD have motives other than 'love,' but he still 'knew' that it was love that prompted them, as it was love that prompted his behavior towards her.
He got really frustrated. A fun sort of frustrated, but still.......
Nothing wrong with subjectivity in the right area. Nothing wrong with objectivity in the right area. Just don't try to use subjective evidence to determine whether water is boiling, or objective evidence to determine whether your child loves you, or just wants a cupcake. S/he loves you. Give him/her the cupcake anyway.
theist seem to follow feel vs atheist follow logical reasoning.
i'm not trying to single either atheists out, or theists. i'm hoping to find a middle ground in this discussion.
that is a good point.
we all have subjective issues that someone else might not be able to relate to. case in point: an adult survivor of abuse could relate to a military person with ptsd. we know some of the attributes of what ptsd are. but a military person and an adult survivor of abuse don't necessarily have the same triggers because of subjective causes/experiences.
I'm a theist and my views are completely subjective. I have no need to prove it to you. i think any discussion like this is more accurate if 'some' is placed in front of theist, and atheist. Both sides have ranges in how a person acts on it.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I don't like it when people speak in absolutes either, so I apologize that I came across that way.