Why atheism entails the possibility of God

[Skwim]

The prefix a- means "not, without". A theist is a person who believes in the existence of at least one god, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. A person who is without belief in the existence of any gods.

But this would also include agnostics. So to make the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist one posits a more affirmative position: the denial of the existence of god(s).

Positions toward the existence of god

A. Those with a belief in the existence of a god

1. The theist:......There is a god

​

B. Those without a belief in the existence of a god

1. The agnostic: There may be a god

2. The atheist:....There is not a god.​

.

 

[ArtieE]

But this would also include agnostics.

An agnostic is a person who doesn't KNOW whether gods exist or not. Nothing to do with BELIEF.

So to make the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist

The distinction between an agnostic and an atheist is that an agnostic says he doesn't KNOW whether gods exist, an atheist says he doesn't BELIEVE gods exist.

1. The agnostic: There may be a god

The agnostic: I don't KNOW if there are gods.

2. The atheist:....There is not a god..

The atheist: I don't BELIEVE there are gods.

 

[David T]

Ha! I'm often embarrassed to say this, but I've known other people who have reasoned similarly. I have a friend who has (often) said something to effect: "I'm an atheist because I know the earth was not created 6,000 years ago." And she will say such even after we've had in-depth discussions of Advaita and various forms of Buddhism and philosophy, etc.

Exactly my point. Perceptions are a very interesting thing

 

[Curious George]

An agnostic is a person who doesn't KNOW whether gods exist or not. Nothing to do with BELIEF.

None of them know whether god exists or not. Knowledge is a belief albeit a justified true one.

 

[ArtieE]

None of them know whether god exists or not. Knowledge is a belief albeit a justified true one.

The whole point of having different words is that theist/atheist deals with belief gnostic/agnostic deals with knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

The whole point of having different words is that theist/atheist deals with belief gnostic/agnostic deals with knowledge.

I agree that the point of having different words is to differentiate.

 

[McBell]

I agree that the point of having different words is to differentiate.

Seems that having different words has not helped.
How many bogus definitions of "atheist" have you seen on the forum alone?
I have seen more than can readily be counted.

 

[siti]

Well, there's a lot of comment about incorrect definitions. Here's my understanding in a nutshell and these are the basic definitions underlying what I wrote:

theism = belief in the existence of a transcendent God who created the universe and continues to be involved
deism = belief in the existence of a transcendent God who created the universe but is not involved thereafter
atheism = the belief that the idea of a creator is not required to explain either the existence or the process of nature - i.e. rejection of both of the above

materialism = the belief that nature can be explained by recourse to purely naturalistic (matter/energy-based) processes

Whilst there are many reasons one might choose to be an atheist, the basic premise (of the idea of atheism) surely has to be that we don't need recourse to the concept of a "creator God" to explain the existence or evolution of the universe - n'est ce pas? Therefore, the idea we are subscribing to as an 'atheist' is based on a materialistic interpretation of reality.

My argument - that given that consciousness and creativity appear to have arisen from purely naturalistic materialistic processes of evolution, how can we know, that given sufficient time, the universe might not naturally give rise to an entity sufficiently creative to initiate a new 'universe' - another Big Bang - following which a new process of natural evolution begins? And if we can't rule that out, how do we know that it didn't happen before?

I did mention that we could certainly choose not to label this naturally emergent creative entity "God" - but that doesn't mean that its existence can be ruled out, that would just be playing the definition game - defining God into existence (as theists usually do if they bother to think about it all) or out of existence (as atheists usually do when they insist on 'proof' that a God with the usual definitive attributes exists). I am not defining God in this essay except as 'creator'.

Somebody raised the interesting question about whether we know that purpose and creativity really exist. Am I writing this 'on purpose' or as an inevitable and fundamentally 'unconscious' response of 'my' material reality. I think that was the most interesting objection of all and I have no answer to it. It might very well all - life, free will, consciousness, experience - be an ultimately meaningless illusion that merely arises from inevitable material reality. I prefer not to think of it that way, but I have no argument against it.

Thanks for all the comments so far.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

theism = belief in the existence of a transcendent God who created the universe and continues to be involved

I know that this isn't the purpose of the thread, but I want to point out that not all theists believe in creator gods.

 

[siti]

I know that this isn't the purpose of the thread, but I want to point out that not all theists believe in creator gods.

Yeah - OK - I think we need another thread just to straighten out the definitions. In this case, whilst the idea of a creator may not be characteristic of all theists, I perceive it is the main 'bone of contention' between theists and atheists and therefore the 'at-least-partially-correct-partial-definition' I chose to work with. Can you guys attack the ideas rather than the definitions 'cos I want to figure out where I might be wrong - not whether I have worded it with sufficient exactitude to please everyone's personal taste in definitions of their own particular worldviews.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yeah - OK - I think we need another thread just to straighten out the definitions. In this case, whilst the idea of a creator may not be characteristic of all theists, I perceive it is the main 'bone of contention' between theists and atheists and therefore the 'at-least-partially-correct-partial-definition' I chose to work with. Can you guys attack the ideas rather than the definitions 'cos I want to figure out where I might be wrong - not whether I have worded it with sufficient exactitude to please everyone's personal taste in definitions of their own particular worldviews.

Probably a main bone of contention in Western religious worldview discussions, sure. But Eastern ideas of theism is important to your discussion I think, as 'what is a god' will produce vastly different information than here in the West.
I personally as an atheist don't think creation factors into how I largely observe gods to be defined. But more like a non-physical source for matter and energy distinct from physical process. In which case no, I wouldn't call your sufficiently-technologically-advanved physical being a god.

 

[Augustus]

The prefix a- means "not, without". A theist is a person who believes in the existence of at least one god, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. A person who is without belief in the existence of any gods.

As has been pointed out many times, the etymology of the word is not a-theism, but athe-ism (the principle of being without gods).

Words mean whatever they are used to mean, so words often find additional meanings beyond the traditional ones. However, pointing to an incorrect etymology and arguing that this somehow 'proves' the meaning of the word is nonsensical.

 

[siti]

Probably a main bone of contention in Western religious worldview discussions, sure. But Eastern ideas of theism is important to your discussion I think, as 'what is a god' will produce vastly different information than here in the West.
I personally as an atheist don't think creation factors into how I largely observe gods to be defined. But more like a non-physical source for matter and energy distinct from physical process. In which case no, I wouldn't call your sufficiently-technologically-advanved physical being a god.

And that's absolutely fine. However, its not just about technological advancement - its about holistic emergence. And I accept that not all atheists are materialists - I was talking about the kind of atheism that is based on materialism. Clearly there is such a thing because there is an organization with at least a few thousand members and supporters that bases it definition of atheism on materialism.

 

[siti]

As you apparently know, a number of philosophers (and Process Theologians) have articulated versions of your panpsychist thesis here. I think this thesis is kind of hard to deny when one begins with the basic panpsychist assumption.

Thanks Nous. My main point really though is that panpsychism (I still prefer to us the less baggage-encumbered term 'panexperientialism') is hard to deny even if you don't start with the assumption (unless one is willing to invoke the miraculous). That really was the key point - the conclusion is the 'so what' that follows and gave me the reason for embedding the idea in the context of the 'paradox of materialistic atheism' (my term).

 

[ArtieE]

theism = belief in the existence of a transcendent God who created the universe and continues to be involved

No, theism is simply the belief that one or more gods exist. Nothing to do with being transcendent or having created the universe or being involved.

atheism = the belief that the idea of a creator is not required to explain either the existence or the process of nature - i.e. rejection of both of the above

Atheism is just absence of theism.

Whilst there are many reasons one might choose to be an atheist, the basic premise (of the idea of atheism) surely has to be that we don't need recourse to the concept of a "creator God" to explain the existence or evolution of the universe - n'est ce pas?

There is no actual idea of atheism. Atheists just don't believe gods exist. To an atheist the concept of a "creator God" as an explanation for the universe is a silly as if meteorologists should blame thunder on Thor or as silly as if seismologists should start blaming earthquakes on Poseidon. There are thousands of gods and up through the years no gods have ever been shown to exist much less been shown to be responsible for anything humans have blamed gods to be responsible for.

I did mention that we could certainly choose not to label this naturally emergent creative entity "God" - but that doesn't mean that its existence can be ruled out

Atheists don't rule gods out. They just have found no reason to rule them in.

 

[ArtieE]

As has been pointed out many times, the etymology of the word is not a-theism, but athe-ism (the principle of being without gods).

I said and I quote: "The prefix a- means "not, without". A theist is a person who believes in the existence of at least one god, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. A person who is without belief in the existence of any gods." Everybody notice that I didn't mention atheism at all.

 

[siti]

Well I think I am rapidly becoming an 'adefinitionist'!

No, theism is simply the belief that one or more gods exist. Nothing to do with being transcendent or having created the universe or being involved...theism is just absence of theism.There is no actual idea of atheism. Atheists just don't believe gods exist. To an atheist the concept of a "creator God" as an explanation for the universe is a silly as if meteorologists should blame thunder on Thor or as silly as if seismologists should start blaming earthquakes on Poseidon. There are thousands of gods and up through the years no gods have ever been shown to exist much less been shown to be responsible for anything humans have blamed gods to be responsible for...Atheists don't rule gods out. They just have found no reason to rule them in.

OK - I apologize for having troubled with you with concepts you prefer to leave undefined so you don't have to actually think about them. But I think you'll find - if you bother to look it up - that 'theism' (as a term in western language and thought) is actually opposed - terminologically - to 'atheism', 'deism' and 'polytheism' - i.e. it says that there is one God, who created and remains (supernaturally) involved in, the universe - it has been understood to mean that since the 18th century - when it became necessary to differentiate between these opposing 'ideas'. Atheism is not opposed - terminologically - to that (theism) only but to any other concept or notion of deity - which you (but not all atheists) might think are "silly". But to say that there is no "actual idea of atheism" is just as "silly" as suggesting Thor caused the thunder. Of course there is an idea - and the idea is that we do not need to resort to "God" or "gods" as an explanation for natural events - such as some of the things you mention, but also including 'creation'. How is that NOT "an idea"? And for many, if they bother to think about it beyond pronouncing "silly" "non-ideas" they obviously haven't grasped, that idea is underpinned by materialism - the idea (yes - another idea) that natural events can be fully explained by natural causes arising from the material (matter-energy) world.

My argument is that whilst at present this may (arguably) be the most sensible position (i.e. we do not currently - with our current level of understanding - need to resort to the idea of "God" or "gods") it may be that when our understanding becomes sufficiently circumspect and ecologically holistic, it might turn out that reality is much more "God-like" (purposively creative) than we thought.

 

[Augustus]

I said and I quote: "The prefix a- means "not, without". A theist is a person who believes in the existence of at least one god, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. A person who is without belief in the existence of any gods." Everybody notice that I didn't mention atheism at all.

It makes no difference, unless you are arguing that the word atheist is unconnected to the word atheism. Anyway, the terms predate theism/theist, and theism used to mean what deism now means.

You are simply retrofitting a justification for your preferred belief and presenting it as some kind of grammatical 'proof', even though it doesn't reflect the history of the words.

Your definition is among the valid ones, but your reasoning as to why it is the 'correct' definition is fallacious.

 

[ArtieE]

But I think you'll find - if you bother to look it up - that 'theism' (as a term in western language and thought)

But I don't limit myself to just "western language and thought". Theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods which applies universally.

is actually opposed - terminologically - to 'atheism', 'deism' and 'polytheism' - i.e. it says that there is one God, who created and remains (supernaturally) involved in, the universe

Belief in one god is called MONOtheism.

Of course there is an idea - and the idea is that we do not need to resort to "God" or "gods" as an explanation for natural events - such as some of the things you mention, but also including 'creation'. How is that NOT "an idea"?

The default is to look for natural reasons for earthquakes. Who would say "I have an idea! There are natural reasons for earthquakes!"? That is a given. That is the starting point of every scientific inquiry. But if another person says "I have an idea! Poseidon causes earthquakes!" the person would need an extraordinary amount of good evidence to convince me...

 

[ArtieE]

It makes no difference, unless you are arguing that the word atheist is unconnected to the word atheism. Anyway, the terms predate theism/theist, and theism used to mean what deism now means.

You are simply retrofitting a justification for your preferred belief and presenting it as some kind of grammatical 'proof', even though it doesn't reflect the history of the words.

Your definition is among the valid ones, but your reasoning as to why it is the 'correct' definition is fallacious.

We live in 2017. In 2017 a theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods. An atheist is a person who is not a theist. Replacing the suffix -ist with the suffix -ism and pretend that that makes a person who is simply not a theist into a person who adheres to a kind of belief system called atheism is just illogical.