Atheism vs Theism confusion

[GoldenBoy89]

Then what would be in between?I see your point, but i don't agree entirely.

I would say there is no in between if we are talking about belief. You either believe something or you don't. Agnosticism is besides what you believe or don't. It answers a different question than "What do you believe?"

 

[SteveB28]

I would say there is no in between if we are talking about belief. You either believe something or you don't. Agnosticism is besides what you believe or don't. It answers a different question than "What do you believe?"

Correct. One either has a belief that a god exists, or one doesn't. The first is a theist, the latter an atheist.

 

[devolved]

I would say there is no in between if we are talking about belief. You either believe something or you don't. Agnosticism is besides what you believe or don't. It answers a different question than "What do you believe?"

I think an easier way to explain:

If you know, then you don't have to believe. You know. Knowledge constitutes the highest degree of certainty possible. Knowledge by definition can't be false or wrong.

If you believe, that primarily because you don't know with certainty, thus it's an "educated guess" that can be wrong. Thus belief is a placeholder for knowledge, that exists to fill the gaps in knowledge.

Of course, there are some philosophical objections and exceptions to the above, but I think it covers the majority of cases when it comes to the knowledge/belief issue.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Quora has a couple of decent articles on what atheist and atheism mean:
What Everyone Should Know About Atheism
Atheism FAQ

It might be worth mentioning that, like atheist and atheism, agnostic and agnosticism are also used in two different ways - one meaning that the agnostic doesn't know whether a god or gods exist; the other meaning the agnostic believes that we (in general) don't or can't know whether a god or gods exist. The former meaning (weak, not having a belief) seems to be more commonly used colloquially, although the latter (strong, declaring a belief) is the prevalent dictionary definition.

Contrast with weak atheism (not having a belief in a god or gods) and strong atheism (believing no god or gods exist).

Wittgenstein would be proud

 

[Chriliman]

Ok, I admit that the title is a bit of a "click bate" for both ends, but here it goes.

Browsing through some popular threads here, it seems like there's a general confusion as to what Atheism really is, and how that label tends to take on a "form" that shouldn't be ascribed to Atheism.

First of all, it should be noted that labels like Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat tend to be more pragmatic than carry some full scope of ontology of reality that these labels supposed to describe. These are very different from a more precise labels like "human", etc.

Thus, it's very easy to get lost in arguments against your own perception of the label as to what that label means to a person who takes it on as a description. In such, I'm not sure whether such labels are useful as shortcuts, or these create problematic perception.

We generally use them, because we are either "lazy" to repeat a list of what we believe, or because we find solace in some form of "righteous identity".

But, in short time I've spent on this forum, I've already had to clarify several times that "Atheism" is not a charge that God doesn't exist, at least it's not necessarily the case. In scope of our human experience, it tends to be a default position of not knowing and not believing.

From there we can progress into:

1) Staying in the default - not knowing and not believing that a God exists
2) Not knowing and believing that God exists
3) Claiming to know and by extension believing that God exists
4) Claiming to know and by extension not believing that God exists

So, there are a variety of positions. Some refuse to believe without evidence. Some believe without evidence.

But generally, #1 is labeled as "Agnosticism" and not Atheism, and here where confusion lies. Agnosticism is merely a claim of lack of knowledge through some form of experience or evidence. Both Atheists and theists have an overlap of not knowing.

IMO, the more general form of Atheism is anyone's default position of #1 - not knowing and not believing by extension. There are people who attempt to convince people both successfully and unsuccessfully to shift to a position of believe, but if they do shift to theism based on claims alone... that would make them Agnostic Theists.

The reason why I'm writing this is primarily because a lot of Christians associate Atheism as being closed to possibility of God, and view atheists on this board as trolls. That can be the case, but generally not IMO. There are cynics on either side of the spectrum and it's not inherent to either Christians or theists. I think people like myself are interested following up with whatever innovative evidence there may be for existence of supernatural and God, and such evidence and line of reasoning can come from individuals.

I hope that all of us would be interested to know if we indeed mistaking. I hope that would be true for either side of this issue. But, I don't think it's helpful to assume what a person believes or doesn't solely based on a one word label.

Main question to consider:

Is atheism a truth claim?

If no, then there is no truth to be found in atheism.

If yes, then why is atheism true?

 

[jayem]

There are also naturalists, who believe the universe is all there is, all there has been (albeit concentrated in a point in nothingness to start with)

I am a naturalist, though I would describe it differently. Naturalism is the belief that everything is a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. And that nothing exists outside of the natural realm.

BTW, the universe may have started in a singularity, but that is not nothingness. I'm not a cosmologist, but I know there is a theory (espoused by Stephen Hawking) that space-time didn't necessarily begin in a single point, but is sort of curved back upon itself. The universe had no initial boundary. It's another possibility.

http://physwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Astronomy/Cosmology/The_Hartle-Hawking_"no_boundary"_proposal

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is atheism a truth claim?

If no, then there is no truth to be found in atheism.

Correct, but that doesn't mean that there isn't truth to be found in atheistic worldviews.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Correct, but that doesn't mean that there isn't truth to be found in atheistic worldviews.

Sure, but the truth one finds in an atheistic worldview did not come from atheism because there is no truth in atheism, since it's not a truth claim.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is to say atheism is a truth claim, but we know it's not.

 

[devolved]

Main question to consider:

Is atheism a truth claim?

If no, then there is no truth to be found in atheism.

If yes, then why is atheism true?

No, atheism isn't a claim. It's a default position. Default positions can be true or false, but we don't merely jump to conclusions. We generally ask for some evidence for extraordinary claims prior to making a decisions as to whether we believe these or not.

If theism was a default position, then atheism would be a truth claim.

 

[Chriliman]

No, atheism isn't a claim. It's a default position. Default positions can be true or false, but we don't merely jump to conclusions. We generally ask for some evidence for extraordinary claims prior to making a decisions as to whether we believe these or not.

In order for atheism to be default, you'd first have to know about theism. IOW, you can't be atheist if you don't know what theism is. Knowledge of theism must come before atheism, therefore atheism is not default.

Default position is always: I know I exist, but why?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure, but the truth one finds in an atheistic worldview did not come from atheism because there is no truth in atheism, since it's not a truth claim.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is to say atheism is a truth claim, but we know it's not.

Neither theism or atheism are truth claims in themselves, they're just differing positions on belief in a god or gods. Declarations or statements of theism or atheism are truth statements about belief in a god or gods. They are true or false to the extent that the individual does or does not believe as they claim.

 

[Chriliman]

Neither theism or atheism are truth claims in themselves, they're just differing positions on belief in a god or gods. Declarations or statements of theism or atheism are truth statements about belief in a god or gods.

Theism is the belief that God and or gods exist. It's a truth claim. We're claiming that it's true that God exists and that He is the greatest being in every way. Atheism is against that truth claim, meaning atheists either believe God does not exist or they actually don't know.

They are true or false to the extent that the individual does or does not believe as they claim.

So your belief is that there is no truth that can be known regarding the existence of God?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Theism is the belief that God and or gods exist. It's a truth claim. We're claiming that it's true that God exists and that He is the greatest being in every way. Atheism is against that truth claim, meaning atheists either believe God does not exist or they actually don't know.

Noooooo...

"I believe a god exists." or "I do not believe a god exists." are not truth claims about a god's existence. They are only true or false in the sense that the person speaking could be lying about their beliefs.

"A god exists." or "A god does not exist." are truth claims about a god's existence.

 

[Chriliman]

Noooooo...

"I believe a god exists." or "I do not believe a god exists." are not truth claims about a god's existence. They are only true or false in the sense that the person speaking could be lying about their beliefs.

Right, and atheists do not make either claim.

"A god exists." or "A god does not exist." are truth claims about a god's existence.

Right, and again, atheists do not make either claim.

This is why there is no truth in atheism.

Edited: One is still making a claim/statement when one says "I believe God exists" or "I do not believe God exists".

 

[devolved]

In order for atheism to be default, you'd first have to know about theism. IOW, you can't be atheist if you don't know what theism is. Knowledge of theism must come before atheism, therefore atheism is not default.

No. It's default in respect of our perception of reality. For example a-Zeusims is a default position in respect to belief about Zeus. I don't need to be aware of that particular religion in order to have a default lack of belief in it.

You have to understand the difference between non-belief and unbelief. A in Atheist stands for "non". Anti would signify opposite, and that's not what atheism is. Atheism is not opposite of theism.

I'll give you an example. We walk and find a gumball machine. You say "I believe that there are more red gumballs than green ones". I'd say, I don't really believe that, because I don't see any evidence for that claim, and I don't see how you can know that without taking the machine apart and counting.

Then you say "So, you believe there are more green ones then?". Again, NO. It's not a claim I'm going to make conclusively without some evidence pointing in either direction. Thus, I lack belief that you are correct, because you haven't demonstrated it. But it doesn't mean that I automatically believe the opposite of your claim.

 

[devolved]

This is why there is no truth in atheism.

Lol, nice try.

 

[Chriliman]

No. It's default in respect of our perception of reality. For example a-Zeusims is a default position in respect to belief about Zeus. I don't need to be aware of that particular religion in order to have a default lack of belief in it.

You have to understand the difference between non-belief and unbelief. A in Atheist stands for "non". Anti would signify opposite, and that's not what atheism is. Atheism is not opposite of theism.

I do understand the difference and I understand atheism is not a truth claim, which means there is no truth in atheism.

I'll give you an example. We walk and find a gumball machine. You say "I believe that there are more red gumballs than green ones". I'd say, I don't really believe that, because I don't see any evidence for that claim, and I don't see how you can know that without taking the machine apart and counting.

Then you say "So, you believe there are more green ones then?". Again, NO. It's not a claim I'm going to make conclusively without some evidence pointing in either direction. Thus, I lack belief that you are correct, because you haven't demonstrated it. But it doesn't mean that I automatically believe the opposite of your claim.

Sure, I could believe there are more red gumballs than green ones and tell you that's what I believe, but if we come to find out there are actually more green than red, then I'd better admit I was wrong and accept the truth.

However, it's not wise to believe something without reason. In this example, I would have reason to claim to believe there are more red than green because it appears that there actually is more red than green, otherwise I'd claim to not know for sure until I count them myself.

 

[Chriliman]

Lol, nice try.

Explain how I'm wrong.

Do atheist claim that atheism is true or not? If not, then how is there any truth in atheism?

If there's no truth in atheism and you actually value truth, then shouldn't you look elsewhere?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Theism is the belief that God and or gods exist. It's a truth claim. We're claiming that it's true that God exists and that He is the greatest being in every way. Atheism is against that truth claim, meaning atheists either believe God does not exist or they actually don't know.

No. And I'm not getting on this particular merry-go-round again.

So your belief is that there is no truth that can be known regarding the existence of God?

Huh? that's 'hard' agnosticism; what on Earth has that to do with me saying that statements of belief are true or false according to the actual belief of the individual??

It seems to the that either you have a fundamental problem grasping certain simple concepts, in which case philosophy probably isn't for you, or for some reason you're deliberately being obtuse. I'm not going to make a truth claim about which I believe to be true.

 

[devolved]

I do understand the difference and I understand atheism is not a truth claim, which means there is no truth in atheism.

Can you please define truth for me in your own words. I don't want you cutting and pasting dictionary definitions. I think you misunderstand what truth is as a concept.

Sure, I could believe there are more red gumballs than green ones and tell you that's what I believe, but if we come to find out there are actually more green than red, then I'd better admit I was wrong and accept the truth.

What if there's no way of finding out right there and then? How would you know and accept anything? On which bases would you claim such belief other than a random guess? The whole point of illustration was to show you that:

1) Without conclusive evidence the truth claims are useless
2) The opposite of believe is not non-belief.

Atheism is essentially a form of "decision pending" on a condition that better evidence arrives.

However, it's not wise to believe something without reason. In this example, I would have reason to claim to believe there are more red than green because it appears that there actually is more red than green, otherwise I'd claim to not know for sure until I count them myself.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it. In your case, your claim is based on a 100 year old leaflet that was written down as a story about gumball machines .