Atheism vs Theism confusion

[Eudaimonist]

So how many Gods are there without God?
I think that's zero.
It's "without God - ism", not "without - theism".
Because it's "atheos - ism".
The "a" says something about "theos", not about the "ism".

Sure, the original meaning is something like "godless", and an example is those atheistic Christians who didn't believe in the gods of the Roman Empire. Those darn atheists! *shakes fist*

Athenagoras’ apology, addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, called the legatio pro Christianis “combats the three popular charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism.” In this work, divided into 33 books, he devotes 28 books on refuting the charge of atheism, as to illustrate the gravity. To comprehend the allegation of atheism, it needs to be understood that the Romans had a pragmatic approach to religion. Ferguson remarks that so too “atheism in the ancient world was practical, not theoretical.” In order to remain favourable to the Gods, the Romans merely had to perform religious practice correctly, regardless of any personal conviction. The people were free to hold any belief, on one condition. Nothing was demanded of new faiths except an occasional gesture of adoration to the gods and the head of state. An atheist was “someone who did not observe the traditional practice.” Not to partake in public worship, is not so much obstinacy to the virtue of obedience, but it could endanger the whole state and was seen as the equivalent of treason. Thomas Robbins pointed out that “one was converted to the intolerant faiths of Judaism and Christianity while one merely adhered to the cults of Isis, Orpheus, or Mithra.” Paying tribute to another god was no impediment for pagans who could effortlessly exchange allegiance between diverse gods, for worship was a mere adherence without any further going convictions other than a commitment towards a patron. Conversely it was more problematic for faiths without such a flexible pantheon, especially monotheists who were seen as intolerant for their repudiation to adhere to the gods of the empire. As a result monotheists were rated as atheists: “one’s own god counted for nothing if one denied everybody else’s.”

Sources:

• H. R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson 2007
• E. Ferguson, Church History, Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2005
• R. Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996
• R. MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1084ek/til_that_christians_were_originally_called/

If we want to rely on history, Christians were once atheists. That's hardly an acceptable -- even comprehensible -- view now. It's just not how people understand the issue of being a theist or not. It's not just about whether or not you go to church every Sunday or vote Republican.

Today, an atheist is someone who is godless in the sense of lacking any belief in a God or gods in their worldviews. Atheists are not-theists. Belief is the issue, and you can thank Christians for making such a big deal about belief.

It's as simple as that. Etymology isn't really a big help here. History isn't a big help here. We're talking about modern usage.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hieronymus]

Sure, the original meaning is something like "godless",

Just read the topic, the etymology is posted already.

 

[SkyWriting]

Keep it simple.
Someone who believes and is convinced God does not exist is an a-theist.

You can be sure that any and all such people have
debate going on internally, so they come here.

No atheist (or agnostic) ever comes here to vent that
they have no interest in God. If there were such
people, they'd go to other websites and enjoy the
endless clickbait out there.

Kardashian Click Bait: Why We Continually Engage

 

[Hieronymus]

You can be sure that any and all such people have
debate going on internally, so they come here.

You think?
I think they're just here to feel smart compared to those stupid Christians.
Gloating trolls basically.
Not all of them, but most of them.

 

[SkyWriting]

You think?
I think they're just here to feel smart compared to those stupid Christians.
Gloating trolls basically.
Not all of them, but most of them.

A general sense of insecurity in their "faith"
would be a different take on it?

I have found that "trolling" is a self-defense
mechanism that I use to avoid the time-wasters.
The ones who question the format of each sentence
trying to catch you is an grammatical corner they
think you can't squirm out of, just to watch you try.
Eventually I just wave them off to ignore land for a while.

 

[Hieronymus]

A general sense of insecurity in their "faith"
would be a different take on it?

Hmm..
More like self-overestimation i.m.o.
Inflated egos and fighting the fight against religion.
Because Dawkins told them to.

Many of them have stronger beliefs than Christians.
Even Christians are seduced to buy into naturalism.

Naturalism is the new mandatory religion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Naturalism is the new mandatory religion.

Mandatory? Nah. You are free to believe in myths if you wish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

Mandatory? Nah. You are free to believe in myths if you wish.
eudaimonia,
Mark

He's skeptible of all comments.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Hmm..
More like self-overestimation i.m.o.
Inflated egos and fighting the fight against religion.
Because Dawkins told them to.

Show one atheist here who's ever argued because Richard Dawkins told them to. You've already been told that Richard Dawkins isn't some sort of atheist leader.

But I guess telling the truth really isn't important to you, is it?

 

[klutedavid]

Agnosticism speaks to knowledge; as in, I don't know a god/s exists.

Atheism speaks to belief; as in, theists haven't met their burden of proof, therefore, I'm unconvinced a god/s exist.

It is within this context, that I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

Hello Hitchslap.

How do you know that a theist has not produced the burden of proof?

 

[Hieronymus]

Show one atheist here who's ever argued because Richard Dawkins told them to. You've already been told that Richard Dawkins isn't some sort of atheist leader.

But I guess telling the truth really isn't important to you, is it?

Very good, just deny everything.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Very good, just deny everything.

Show one atheist here who's ever argued because Richard Dawkins told them to. You've already been told that Richard Dawkins isn't some sort of atheist leader.

But I guess telling the truth really isn't important to you, is it?

 

[SteveB28]

Words have meanings, you see.
Rejecting theism is indeed atheism, because atheists believe God does not exists, as opposed to theists, so they reject theism.
The agnostic doesn't know.

And yes, we're all agnostic to a certain extent, because there are many things we don't know or are not convinced about.

Wrong. Rejecting theism simply means that we reject YOUR claims. It does not necessitate a claim of our own.

 

[SteveB28]

Bare with me:

I'd rather not, but I'm flattered......

 

[SteveB28]

An atheist has historically been someone who holds the belief that there is no God, and all this is just a poor attempt to redefine atheism as the default position in order to avoid shouldering the burden of proof. Holding any position other than the agnostic position of not knowing whether something is true requires evidence and thus shouldering burden of proof. Atheism is the negation of theism, so it is the equal and opposite position of theism, which is the belief that God exists, so it is the belief that God does not exist. It other words, the negation of 1 is -1, not 0, but you are trying to redefine atheism as the null position. When you redefine a position purely in terms of what it does not believe, then you quickly run to absurdities, such as babies and rocks, who also lack a belief, or with redefining aatheism as a lack of a lack of a belief in the existence of God, thus also escaping shouldering the burden of proof. The things that I know and the things that I believe are both based off of evidence, so redefining terms to make it about your confidence level rather than the actual positive position that you hold is a slight of hand that is entirely unhelpful and only muddles the waters. Every position other than agnosticism requires evidence, otherwise you would have no way of moving from agnosticism, so if you hold a position about whether or not God exists, then you should be willing to to provide evidence for it regardless of your confidence level, and if you don't know, then you don't have to provide evidence, but don't get into any of this nonsense about holding a position on something with having any evidence that it is true.

Instead of TELLING people what they must be believing, why don't you ASK?

A polite person would.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hello Hitchslap.

How do you know that a theist has not produced the burden of proof?

Because Willy Craig said so.

 

[devolved]

The rub, as I see it, is the great and opposing difference between the two worlds.

Scott, we've already discussed this on a different thread. You've accepted that you can't offer any evidence for your claimed "other world", except for encouragement to seek the answers until my views align with yours. Of course .... until I find the answers and my views align with yours... we'll be at disagreement that your world should be believable by anyone who simply doesn't see it.

"Evidence" for instance, is not defined the same - nor should it, or could it be. They are two different worlds, after all. If we could come together on that one fact alone...it would be huge, a leap of progress.

Sure, in order for us to communicate, we should define words with consistency, but in a scope of an established framework for knowledge you can't begin redefining things as how you see fit in order to convince people via re-defentions of your terms.

Evidence can't rest in the claim itself... do you agree or disagree?

A story about God can't be evidence for existence of God. We can make any story up about anything and anyone.

So, we need to include the misdefined use of the word "evidence" in your list of labels. Example: Have Christians not been clear that in order to have access to the proofs or evidences of our witness - that you must literally be born again first? Indeed, we have been clear.

It's problematic, because evidence needed FOR BELIEF to be reasonable. If you already believe... then of course you will interpret everything you see, read and observe against that belief . It's an intellectually dishonest claim. It's essentially boils down to saying "If you believe... then you will believe"... OF COURSE . I'm asking you WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE BASED ON CLAIMS ALONE?

Defining evidence as the claim itself is wouldn't allow us to determine what's true or false. We'd merely be left guessing.

And so, what is left is just talk, which is not acceptable, because, understandably, it's not evidence.

Yes, of course a claim can't be evidence. Do you understand why a claim can't be evidence?

So, then, where does the shortcoming fall - to those who extend their hand, or to those who refuse it?

Again, it's intellectually dishonest analogy here. You don't shake the belief claim of everyone who claims some unobservant experiences. Does the fault lie with you?

Come one Scott, you are better than that. Just admit that the fundamental difference is that your preset simply doesn't work with people who wouldn't just take your word for it. It requires them to either wait until God "Pulls them out and shows them", or until you have something better to show than a story. There's absolutely nothing wrong for a Christian to admit that... and I wouldn't have problem with such statement.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Better still:
theist -- agnostic theist -- agnostic -- agnostic atheist -- atheist.

I bolded where you make your mistake. Agnostic is not some midway point between atheist and theist. Atheist being full on non believer in God and theist being a full on believer in God. The fact that agnostic can apply to both theists and atheists, regardless of how hard they believe, suggests it answers a slightly different question than belief.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Is it really that difficult to just look up the word...

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I already did that brah.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Hieronymus]

I bolded where you make your mistake. Agnostic is not some midway point between atheist and theist. Atheist being full on non believer in God and theist being a full on believer in God.

Then what would be in between?

Between knowing God exists andThe fact that agnostic can apply to both theists and atheists, regardless of how hard they believe, suggests it answers a slightly different question than belief.

I see your point, but i don't agree entirely.