Antitheism
I’m trying to understand the term Antitheism better. If Antitheism only concerns theistic claims about God’s existence, does that mean that non-theistic claims about God’s existence are at least plausible in the Antitheist’s eyes? If so, then that would mean followers of non-theistic religions would also be Antitheists as well, correct? So the following examples would all be true?
1. An Antitheist who is an Agnostic/Atheist regarding non-theistic religions.
2. A Deist who is also an Antitheist.
3. A Theist who is also an Atheist(?) regarding non-theistic religions.
4. An Agnostic regarding Theism who is an Atheist regarding non-theistic religions.
5. A Deist who is an Agnostic/Atheist regarding Theism.
1. An Antitheist who is an Agnostic/Atheist regarding non-theistic religions.
2. A Deist who is also an Antitheist.
3. A Theist who is also an Atheist(?) regarding non-theistic religions.
4. An Agnostic regarding Theism who is an Atheist regarding non-theistic religions.
5. A Deist who is an Agnostic/Atheist regarding Theism.
Comments (103)
What is a non-theistic religion?
...we should all drop the labels.
The labels are worthless, because they mean different things to different people
It is okay to describe one's position and then say, "This is primarily an atheistic (or agnostic or theistic) position. BUT DESCRIBE IT.
My position is primarily an agnostic position. Here is how I normally describe it:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
Zero evidence says nothing about whether gods can or cannot exist.
As for "zero possibility" ...why did you make that up?
That is an absurd, and failed, attempt at logic.
Where did I make a case based on a lack of evidence, Tim?
Did you just dream that up?
"Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism ."
https://www.learnreligions.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322
Quoting 180 Proof
My response to him:
Quoting Pinprick
His response to me:
Quoting 180 Proof
I take his response to imply that the “isms” he listed are not Theistic. Hence this thread :grin:
There is something very confusing about the way you are framing this. Baden gave you everything you need to answer your question, the terms you are asking about are clearly defined yet you treated it like a non-sequitor.
If a religion is not theistic, then atheism isnt a position one is able to have about that religion because atheism is a position on theism (namely, the absence of theism). If one is an anti-theist, then one is only anti-theistic religions although Im still not clear on what you have in mind for a “non-theistic” religion. Those “isms” you listed are types of theisms, and I do not see how a specific definition of god (the 1,2 and 3 traits) implies any of those “isms” are not theism.
A generic definition of theism was given by 180 Proof, the various “isms” are variations/sub categories of theism (and thus a variation on 180’s definition of theism) so it doesnt make sense to then reference those “isms” as being implied not theistic based on not exactly matching the generic definition. They won’t match the generic definition, they are more specific and further defined types of theism.
Speaking for myself as an anti-theist, I'm agnostic (and even ignostic) with respect to 'non-theistic concepts of divinity' because they're either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable (epoché).
I don't think so. Many Japanese Buddhists, for instance, also revere? (worship?) traditional Shinto 'deities'.
Yeah, I think that's right. I have Taoists in my family, and a couple of them would pray to deities like the "kitchen god," Guan Gong, Guan Yin, etc.. They would also do ancestor worship (bai sun). But most of them just thought of those deities as mythological characters. They would still do the ancestor veneration rituals (mainly for Chinese/Lunar New Year) but it wasn't to worship, rather to pay respect and continue the tradition. Some Taoists have a more pantheistic conception of God (with or without the minor deities). Others believe in a "Jade Emperor." And yet others still will say they don't believe in a god at all.
‘Born Shinto, marry Christian, die Buddhist’.
Pragmatic.
:rofl: :up: you can be born again if you do that and repeat the entire process. Always remember to die a Buddhist :grin:
It seems it's possible to be a theist and yet an antitheist for the latter is defined as an active opposition to god. An atheist being an antitheist is natural evolution doing its thing but a theist who is an antitheist is someone who must hold that god does more harm than good, something not too outlandish if one looks at all the atrocious acts being committed in his name.
I take Atheism to apply across the board, since it is the denial of any God’s existence. This would apply to Theistic conceptions of God or otherwise, but the word is misleading. I would agree with your last sentence, but I wasn’t sure, which is why I asked.
Quoting DingoJones
Because, wouldn’t a Theist be someone that agrees with the Theistic conception of God? If so, then anyone who disagrees with Theism’s conception of God could not be a Theist, they would be an Antitheist(?).
Quoting 180 Proof
That’s basically what I meant by “plausible;” Agnostic.
Quoting 180 Proof
Ok, but which conception of God would they believe to be true? Theistic, or non-theistic? Holding both beliefs would be contradictory, so holding one excludes you from being capable of holding the other, right (at least logically)?
You're mistaken. E.g. (JCI) monotheists are atheists with respect to "other gods" (e.g. Olympian Pantheon, Nordic Sagas, Hindu Vedas, Indigenous tribal totems, etc).
No. Holding 'simultaneously' that both theism and anti-theism are 'true' is contradictory. As Wolfman & Wayfarer point out (above), the 'apparent inconsistency' (of (e.g.) Daoist pandeism (or pantheism?) combined with worship of local deities + ancester veneration) is only apparent and quite pragmatic, or non-binary - different 'objects of hope' for addressing different 'modes of fear' - in terms of cultural (traditional) context.
In my humble opinion, yes.
Quoting 180 Proof
1. Four possible positions: Theism is different to Atheism is different to Agnosticism is different to Antitheism
2. There are only three possibilities re existence of god viz. Theist: god exists; Atheist: god doesn't exist and Agnostic: god may or may not exist
Ergo
3. Antitheism has nothing to do with existence of god (for there are no positions on the existence of god other than the three described in 2 above and antitheism is a fourth possibile position on god)
Ergo
4. (Antitheism & theism)/(antitheism & atheism)/(antitheism & agnosticism) are all consistent i.e. these are not contradictions.
[Antitheism is simply to consider religion/god harmful]
:chin:
:chin:
Match the following:
God beliefs:
1. god exists
2. god doesn't exist
3. god may/may not exist
Formal positions (all being different from each other)
a. Theism
b. Atheism
c. Agnosticism
d. Antitheism
1 to a, 2 to b, and 3 to c. Considering that a, b, c, and d are all different positions d (antitheism) can't be matched to 1 or 2 or 3, otherwise you'd be saying d (antitheism) is the same as a (theism) or b (atheism) or c (agnosticism) which is false. Ergo, antitheism, has nothing to do with the existence of god and so doesn't contradict theism or atheism or agnosticism.
:chin:
:roll: :monkey:
As I've previously pointed out here to you, Fool, mixing ontological apples with epistemological oranges loses the coherent plot: (my) anti-theism claims that theism's negation is true (i.e. that the specific claim about divinity called "theism" is not true) AND THEREFORE any theistic g/G's negation is true as well; thus, atheism (i.e. theistic g/Gs [TOKENS] are fictional) is entailed by anti-theism (i.e. theism [TYPE] is not true).
:grin: lost me completely
Let me ask you a question. What's the difference between antitheism and atheism? If there's no difference then why different words for the same idea? If there's a difference then antitheism can't be about the claim that god doesn't exist because that's atheism. :chin:
It's the difference between Type and Token, or set and member ... concept and referent ... epistemic "ANTI" and ontic "A". The latter belongs to the former; if the former is true, then the latter necessarily is true.
Anti-theism is a second order (meta) claim about theism and not a claim about g/G (which would be a first order (object) claim). Likewise, atheism is, as I conceive it, an ontic - existence - entailment of postive truth-value anti-theism, just as 'composite numbers are not members' is entailed by the set-membership rule 'only natural numbers greater than one that are not products of two smaller natural numbers' (re: prime numbers).
[quote=Robert Flint (1877)]It [antitheism] includes, therefore, atheism, :ok: but short of atheism, there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a deity; but it is anti-theistic :chin: since it denies that there is only one. Pantheism is not atheism, for it asserts that there is a god; but it is anti-theism, :chin: for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possessed of such attributes as wisdom, and holiness, and love.[/quote]
???
Not sure I agree with you here, one could be an anti-theist but not an atheist. One could believe in god and hate/resent god for his biblical acts and be an anti theist for that reason. I dont think your breakdown covers that angle.
This I agree with, the two words do not mean the same thing. Anti-theism is pretty clearly about religion and ideology surrounding god, not the existence of god per say. Atheism is a direct stance on the existence of god. I think you got yourself a good point for once (:wink: )
Neither polytheism nor pantheism, as I understand them, are anti-theistic; rather, they are thematic variations on theism. At most, they're anti-MONOtheistic; but monotheism is only one branch among many theistic branches that make up that old-time "burning bush", and very much, besides, an "almighty"-come-lately in the history of divine conceptions.
A believer who hates g/G can call herself "anti-theist" but that objection - rejection - isn't philosophical (i.e. critique as a result of reflective inquiry). "Hatred" of g/G by e.g. a JCI theist is merely indistinguishable from 'satanism' - just another 'faith' (i.e. subjective stance or avowal à la fideism).
Quoting 180 Proof
Well now I agree with you. Good point.
Well I still disagree with that other thing you said lol
:ok:
:grin:
I waa referencing my first post that disagreed an anti theist must be an atheist as well. Then you made a second post to Fool which I agreed with but those were to separate points. Sorry, I could have made that clearer.
I didnt see that, did you add it after the initial post to Fool? i didnt get an alert to that one.
Ok, so yes I disagree. First, anti-theism is not always hatred. It was just one example of an anti-theist (just to be clear). Second, even if hatred was definitive of anti-theism that hatred doesnt only take the form of satanism and therefore cannot be classified as “faith” (which Im not sure satanism even requires).
No sir, I think that one can have perfectly philosophical reasons for hatred and other negative feelings towards theism.
Also, even if I conceded your point above it still wouldn't refute what I originally said about an anti-theist not being an atheist. It would just be a separate point about the philosophical validity of hating something.
Right, we are discussing where we disagree. I directly addressed what you said and then pointed out how your rebuttals failed. If I got something wrong, then tell me how.
I dont know if we are talking past each other or what...lets start from the beginning.
Atheism is about whether or not god exists, anti-theism is about opposing religion or believers/theistic beliefs about god.
Do you accept that distinction?
Not quite: I use both terms conceptually (not colloquially) as second-order (meta) statements in which each, one general and the other specific, addresses - tests - first-order (object) statements about g/G (re: theism):
Anti-theism "opposes theistic beliefs" only insofar as it's demonstrated that theism is not true.
A-theism claims that (some or all) specific 'deity exists' claims of theism are not true.
(NB: "opposing religion" = irreligion)
My experience indicates that anyone and everyone who uses the word "atheist" to describe him/herself...REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS DEFINED IN SOME DICTIONARIES...either "believes" that there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
The notion that "atheism" is simply "the absence of belief" is an absurdity...a fraud atheists attempt to perpetrate on everyone else in an attempt to pretend their "atheism" is not the product of BELIEF.
Both religion and atheism have "belief" (guesses about the unknown) at their core.
Well those are idiosyncratic definitions of anti-theism and irreligion, but ok.
So “anti-theism” is only opposed to theistic beliefs when its “atheism”? That seems to be the consequence of your usage described above.
So what do you call someone who is not an atheist, but opposes religion?
Irreligious.
“irreligious” includes opposing religion, not knowing religion and not choosing a religion. Its not specific to opposing religion, the same way the word “human” isn't specific to what we call a human that practices medicine. That would be a doctor. If you want to be specific about a person opposing religion, anti-theist is the word youre looking for.
Yeah, I realize this. I should have said can apply across the board.
Quoting 180 Proof
I took their posts to just refer to behavior, which doesn’t necessarily correlate to belief. What concept(s) of God they worship, pray to, revere, etc. can be different than the one that they actually believe in. This is similar to Atheists celebrating Christmas. Either way, holding both beliefs “simultaneously” is what I meant.
But, a Polytheist or Pantheist could be an Antitheist if they disagreed with the Theistic conception of God and had some animosity towards Theism in general, right?
No, polytheist and pantheist are types of theism so that wouldnt make any sense. Im not sure, but I would guess there are words for animosity towards specific types of theism aimed from others theisms. Like, Anti-Christian or anti-pantheist.
Quoting TheMadFool
What does that have to do with what I said?
I get that, but so what? Whats the relevance of whether I agree with the first sentence in someone else's post? I actually think there are a lot off errors in that quote from Fool, but I would bring that up with him not you, right? I was disagreeing with the statement you made
Quoting Pinprick
Sorry, I should have used the quote feature in that post. I assumed it would be clear since it was the very next post made on the thread.
Well, if it "includes opposing religion, irreligious is good enough for me.
As for "not knowing religion", that's just ignorance (in a social context which contains religion/s). And "not choosing a religion" is nothing but natality - almost every human being, certaintly in the last 40-50 centuries, was born into a religion s/he didn't "choose a religion". I don't see irreligious, DJ, being so uselessly broad ...
Perhaps a more precise term, more explicitly ideological, such as Anarchic (or anarchistic) a motto of which being "No Gods, No Masters" referring to abolition - not just mere "separation" (thereby mystifying 'the inseparable duopoly' - of Church ("altar" / sacred hierarchy) & State ("throne" / sovereign force)? :smirk:
Well its a broad term that you are incorrectly using specifically. Like in my human/doctor analogy.
Anyway, you’ve jumped to the word irreligious now, and that bit at the end. What does any of that have to do with this? You lost me.
Because I’m making the same argument as him, only more specific. His post was in reference to Theism in general, whereas mine was referring to particular types of Theism (Polytheism and Pantheism).
Ok, but Im not going to argue with Fool with you as a proxy. I'm talking to you about what you said.
State your position without using a label. Then there is no ambiguity.
Rather than merely saying I am an Agnostic, I say, "Here is my position...which obviously is AN agnostic position":
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
Stop with the, "I am an atheist" or "I am an antitheist." State your actual position...and, if you feel like it, mention you consider it to be AN "atheistic" or "antitheistic" position. Mine will not be the ONLY agnostic position...and I seriously doubt yours will be the ONLY atheistic or AN antitheistic position either.
But if you state your position thoroughly, we at least know where you stand.
Lol, being wrong that many times in a row would make me sleepy too.
I claim (1) that divine predicates of
• Ultimate Mystery,
• All-Creator (of existence),
• & Providential Intervener (in the universe)
are not true, which entails (2) that any deity (e.g. Abrahamic, Greco-Roman Pantheonic, Hindu Vedic, etc) defined by these 'untrue divine predicates' are fictions.
Some have faith - suspend Disbelief, or 'make believe' - in g/G-fictions and some do not; in other words, some are 'godly' (i.e. Believers) and some are 'godless' (i.e. Disbelievers).
NB: These claims presuppose that 'divine predicates' can be falsified, or that their truth-values can be determined, and thereby known; therefore, asserting that 'g/G with these predicates' are "unknown" or "unknowable" is as unwarranted as asserting that 'g/G without any definite predicates' is "unknown" is incoherent (i.e. babytalk).
:roll: And some say they neither Believe nor Disbelieve; that's all well and good, as it is indistinguishable from, in effect, (passively) Disbelieving in practice - everyday 'godless' living.
:scream: :mask: :point:
re: "theism" "atheism" "non-theism" "anti-theism" & (theistic) "agnosticism"
How I understood it was that if I am agnostic, then I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god. I simply lack a belief one way or the other. And If I am atheist, then I lack a belief in the existence of god because of my belief that god does not exist.
Atheists and theists have convictions. Agnostics don't. At least that's how I understood it. And plenty of academic philosophers of religion have pressed this point: atheism is a belief that has reasons that must be justified and can be scrutinized, and it should not be taken to be the "default" position. The default is agnosticism, no-conviction, no-belief.
https://www.learnreligions.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040
As I see it, behind all of this confusing machinery lurks a different debate: naturalism. If someone is a naturalist, then it might make sense to say that atheism is a lack of belief. For a naturalist, everything is natural (unless shown otherwise). If there is no evidence for god, then god is taken to be unreal: not without argument, but because the argument just is the naturalist point of view. If we do not have any reason to think that god exists, but we do have reasons to think that everything real is natural, then we have reasons to think that god does not exist.
But we can step back and ask, is naturalism true?, in which case this "agnostic atheism" is found to be exactly what it was from the start: atheism. One lacks of a belief in god because they do not think such a being is compatible with a naturalistic universe (i.e. they don't believe god is possible, they don't believe god exists).
I do not see how the supposed dichotomy between knowledge and belief is helpful. To be frank, nobody really cares whether you think (i.e. believe) you know if god does/does not exist. All anyone should care about are the reasons for why you believe what you do. Perhaps this is related to the increasing need for people to apply labels to themselves as "identities", to differentiate themselves from others (to be individual/unique/special), while simultaneously belonging (to a clan/tribe/family); but that's just speculation on my part.
Does anyone know "for sure" if they will wake up tomorrow? Does anyone really care about "how sure" you are in your beliefs? To be clear: this is not about knowledge per se, it's about what someone believes about their knowledge, which is not relevant. I wanna know why you believe what you do, not how confident you are in your beliefs.
Yes. The following is fairly salient.
"No matter what their reasons or how they approach the question, agnostics and atheists are fundamentally different, but also non-exclusive. Many people who adopt the label of agnostic simultaneously reject the label of atheist, even if it technically applies to them."
Out of context quote. That's just one example of atheism.
"An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state it.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods.
The most precise definition may be that an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." This is not a proposition made by atheists. Being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist. All that is required is not "affirming" a proposition made by others."
>>@Frank Apisa
I have mentioned something on several occasions here in the forum...that I have mentioned in many other forums (fora) where I have participated...to which I have never have gotten a reasonable refutation. Let me try it with you directly...as it applies to you:
First the comment: Atheists claim that an atheist is simply someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods. I say an atheist is simply someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor. (Ultimately, that is what it is: Someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor.)
And I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
NEVER!
So I am saying that "believing" there are no gods or "believing" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...IS AN ESSENTIAL to using "atheist" as a descriptor.
I ask you, Baden (IF YOU USE "ATHEIST" AS A DESCRIPTOR)...do you either "believe" there are no gods...or do you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?
I'd like to discuss the implications of your answer if you answer NO to that last part.
Who you do or don't know and what they think is irrelevant as is which kind of atheist I am.
I'll write it for you again:
"Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods."
Are we there yet?
Nope. Not even close.
You still haven't answered the questions. NO ATHEIST ever does...because the answer is apparent. EVERY person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.
ATHEISM...is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM.
There is nothing wrong with "belief", Baden. But atheists want to pretend they do not do it. And to maintain that pretense, they have to insist that agnostics and new-born babies and infants and toddlers are all atheists...because they lack a "belief" in any gods.
It is an absurdity. You are an intelligent guy, Baden. You realize what I am saying makes sense...much more sense than "Atheism is only a lack of 'belief' in a god." Why do you not just acknowledge that?
Quoting Baden
In practice, for obvious reasons, people who call themselves atheists are generally aware of at least some gods and other religious concepts And therefore do have beliefs about them. But none of that is necessary to be an atheist. Intelligent extraterrestrials who had never visited this planet nor heard of our gods and had none of their own could accurately be described as atheists.
Following that logic, agnosticism is the belief that there's not enough evidence to justify a belief in gods or a disbelief in them. Agnostics are at least as likely to be aware of gods as atheists are, so their orientation towards them is also based on beliefs about the probability of their existence.
In fact, to be agnostic requires some beliefs concerning the probable existence of gods. Atheism doesn't.
"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Making it in a sense more ideologically loaded than atheism. Though neither is necessarily ideological.
[Quoted you from the other thread as it's more relevant here. Though still not very on-topic re anti-theism, so I might leave it soon.]
As I said (and which you dodged)...
...a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...
...is an essential to cause anyone to use "atheist" as a descriptor.
Handle THAT, Baden...and we can talk.
I cannot speak for every Agnostic, but for me...that is not so at all.
There are people who "believe" there is a GOD...at least one god. i am not one of them. I do not "believe" there is at least one god.
There also are people who "believe" there are no gods. I am not one of them. I do not "believe" there are no gods.
There also are people who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one....and others who "believe" it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none. I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE EITHER. I do NOT "believe" it is more likely in either direction.
Here is the way I say that (which I have posted many times:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that gods are needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
So your "logic" does not hold.
I cannot force you to stay, but I can ask as respectfully as possible that you do, Baden. Nothing being discussed between the two of us here...is so off-topic as to be proscribed in any way.
This is important stuff we are hashing.
I didn't dodge it. It's a false claim considering the definition of atheism is (for the very last time since I've said the same thing in different ways about five time already):
"Atheism for Beginners
Atheism is the Absence of Belief in Gods: The broad, simple definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; atheism is not the absence of beliefs generally. Normally called "weak atheism," this definition is attested to in most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries, and specialized references. Disbelief in gods is not the not the same as a belief or as the denial of gods. The lack of a belief isn't the same as having a belief and not believing something is true isn't the same as believing it is not true.
...
Atheists use this broad definition not simply because it's what we find in dictionaries, but because the broad definition is superior. The broad definition helps describe a broader range of possible positions among both atheists and theists. "
That's what the word means; it subsumes your definition and that's the way I'll continue to use it, your ideologically based aversion notwithstanding.
One...you did dodge it...and continue to do so.
Two...okay, we'll leave. The next time I bring it up with someone else, I will be able to make the same statement...no person using "atheist" as a descriptor will respond to the question.
So you say ... :roll:
Wrong. :lol:
Non sequitur. :shade:
Quoting Frank Apisa
Inductive fallacy (i.e. hasty generalization). [b]Proof:
... I don't.[/b] :scream:
Confusion of 2nd order meta-statement (re: concept of divinity - theism) with 1st order object-statement (re: deity - theistic g/G) compounded by incoherent conflation of 'belief THAT' & 'belief IN' epistemic stances.
:mask:
From my very first reply to you months ago, Frankie, I pointed out that it didn't matter what you or I call ourselves, only what our respective positions presuppose and entail. Your position - Luther-like auto-da-fé, or tantrum-like CRIS DE CŒUR :cry: - consists of fallacies such as argument from popularity (re: alleged "descriptors usage"), argument from ignorance (re: "guesses" that ignore evidentiary claims), & hasty generalizations (or ad hominem projections?) as well as incoherently insisting that you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED', conflating belief IN belief THAT & know THAT, & confusing 2nd order meta-statements with 1st order object-statements. :monkey: You were wrong then, Frankie, with the OP "About This Word, "Atheist" and you're still wrong, incorrigibly moreso, today as my plainly stated position (above) shows and most (@Baden, @DingoJones et al) who've engaged you on several threads can attest.
:death: :flower:
Yup, so I say.
No it is not wrong. I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Have you?
Okay...let's talk about that.
You are saying you "do not believe there are no gods"...and you are saying "the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist...yet you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.
Mention that to someone in the street...and they will laugh at you, because it is absurd.
Correct.
Right!
From a guy who claims he uses the word "atheist" to describe himself...but who does not "believe" there are no gods...and who says "the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist."
I must be terribly frustrating having to defend that...but I admire you attempting to do so.
So you also are saying that you use "atheist" as a descriptor, but you do NOT "believe" there are no gods...and you think that the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist.
Wow!
Okay...now I have met two people who are of that opinion.
:wink:
Lucky for you, Frankie, a pandemic's come along to quarantine "two" philosophically literate, thinking persons who happen to be bored enough to shed a little lumen naturale into your long unenlightened life. :razz:
Okay, Mr. Atheist...who does NOT "believe" there are no gods...and who thinks that the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist.
Thank you for shedding "a little lumen naturale" upon someone as unenlightened as I. You are very generous. And in return, please accept $100,000,000 in gratitude.
Yes yes, :100: , but that doesnt matter to Frank Apisa, and even if it did he lacks the comprehension to accept he is wrong on this. He is a fanatically religious believer...of agnosticism. A very confused person, with an incoherent position that he doesnt even know he holds.
I suspect mental illness of some kind, like Autism and Dunning-Kruager had a baby and it was raised by a lady named Aggressively Stupid. Also the baby spent its summers with Uncle Parrot, who taught the baby to repeat the same thing over and over without listening to the responses. The end result is Frank Apisa,
So basically a complete waste of time to engage with.
Still no answers to the questions. Just insults...as diversions...because you people know I am correct.
Sure...you use "ATHEIST" as a descriptor...but...
...you do not have a "belief" that there are no gods...
...and you do not have a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
You just use "ATHEIST' as a descriptor because they know it is a departure from the "I before e except after c." Or because the dictionary requires you to do so.
You actually have convinced yourselves that I am wrong...and you are telling the truth???
C'mon!
See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink:
Yup...you are both obsessed with me.
I get a kick out of it.
:lol:
Correct me if I am mistaken, but these do not seem to be equivalent. Not believing in god is not the same as believing that god does not exist. The latter entails the former, but not vice-versa.
I understand the colloquial term of atheism is nebulous and often just means "I doubt the existence of god." I live my life as if there were no god, because action requires decision, and also I just sort of feel like there is no god. I have a hunch, an inarticulate collection of considerations that influences how I view the world. Perhaps others have more than hunches, but I am not one of them.
When I participate in philosophy I try not to present my hunches. I try to be more precise and would call myself an agnostic, because while I can come up with reasons to doubt the existence of god, I can also present reasons to think god may exist. I do not think atheism is an appropriate term here, even though I do not have a belief in god.
Would you consider me an atheist?
Define the "god" you're refering to, then share both grounds for believing and not believing. (Be sure to avoid conflating 'belief that' with 'belief in'.)
I certainly would not...and would, in fact, argue that YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST.
Ultimately, an atheist is someone who designates himself an "atheist."
Internet atheists argue that they designate themselves "atheists" simply because they lack a belief in any gods.
But it is obvious more is at play. EVERY person I know or have known of who uses atheist as a descriptor**...either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
That is the real reason they use the descriptor.
I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. (I also lack a "belief" that no gods exist.)
**One guy here in the forum is trying to sell the idea that he designates himself to be an atheist...BUT he does not "believe" there are no gods...and he does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I suspect that is bullshit. But...he may actually be an exception to the rule. Not sure why he would want to be known as an atheist if he truly feels that way...but...
Precisely. This is why Atheism is not a belief that no no Gods exist. It isn’t a belief at all.
Sorry, P...but I disagree. STRONGLY.
Nobody uses the descriptor "atheist" unless the person has a "belief" that no gods exist...or the person has a "belief" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
"belief" is at the core of atheism.
You realize I am correct...right?
I agree with the thrust of what you are saying there, P...but here is the operative point I am trying to make...and it has ONLY to do with why people use the descriptor "atheist":
I have never known of ANY person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" that there are no gods...or who does not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I suggest that either of those "beliefs" (please substitute the word "guesses" or "supposes" or "thinks" if the word "believes" bothers you)...
...one of those "beliefs" IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for anyone who wants to use "atheist" as a descriptor.
Are you of the opinion that there are a significant number of people who call themselves "atheists" who...
1) Do not "believe" that there are no gods
2) And who "believe " it is just as likely (or more likely) that there is at least one god than that there are none?
That would mean...
...the person lacks a "belief" that there is a GOD (at least one god)
...the person lacks a "belief" that there are NO gods
...and the person HAS a "belief" or supposition that it IS JUST AS LIKELY (or even more likely) that a GOD exists as that no gods exist...
...yet still wants to identify as an atheist?
That just does not make any sense for that to be the case.
Okay - more or less.
No. 'Agnosticism' either denies that it's known whether or not there's 'fruit' or 'which is an apple' and 'which is an orange' or, asserts, categorically, that either (or both) of these distinctions are unknowable.
Okay - more or less.
No. 'Antitheism', as I understand it, claims that "fruit" is a concept which lacks a referent - it's an empty name or untrue claim - and, therefore, by implication, also claims that so-called "apples" and "oranges" are merely fictional fruits.
No. She'd believe that whatever he's holding is "not fruit; therefore, not an apple".