British Theism And Atheism

[Stranger]

Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance.

No, the default position is lack of belief until one is given a good reason to take something seriously. That's the same for any sort of proposition (a scientific hypothesis, a myth, a superstition, or a religion, anything).

A proposition is only as believable as the reasons you have to take it seriously.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

It's non-belief, and yes you can. If your reasons for believing something are false, then I have no good reason to treat your beliefs seriously.

Which you can't reasonably do being ignorant of them. You believe my beliefs are false. That isn't non-belief. Non belief is agnostic. 

What those beliefs happen to be is for this purpose neither here nor there.

Agreed.

A bad argument for god and for leprechauns is still bad argument. Think of it as the difference between content and (justifying) method if that helps.     

No it doesn't. Here's the definition of god: anything or anyone attributed might that is greater than the might of the one attributing it or that is venerated. There are millions of gods. Atheism by definition is patently absurd. The term is sensible, the paradigm is sensible, the conclusion is sensible but the definition is nonsensical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance,…

You’re not listening. No it isn’t. It’s the default position from a state of knowledge about about reasoning. At most it’s also indifference to whatever the content of the truth claims happen to be. Think of the Emperor’s New Clothes story.   

…but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.

An atheist makes a choice based on reason – specifically, the conclusion that the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs are false.   

For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth. Or adeism. Whatever. It makes me ignorant of deism. If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement that would require, ideally, at least a cursory knowledge of it.

No. You may or may not find the arguments attempted to justify deism to be convincing. If you find them to be not convincing though, then you’re an a-deist no matter that you don't know what colour hat the deist claims his deity to wear. Moreover, you also don’t believe in all manner of things you’ve never heard of because you’ve been given no sound reason to do otherwise. A-theism and a-unicornism alike are just absences of belief, nothing more.       

[Gordon]

If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance, but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.

For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth. Or adeism. Whatever. It makes me ignorant of deism. If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement that would require, ideally, at least a cursory knowledge of it.

I suspect your falling into the trap of taking theism far too seriously.

I think you'll find some atheists, such as this one, have listened to the arguments proposed for 'God', have concluded that these alleged arguments are no more than meaningless, fallacy-ridden white noise that, as such, requires no further serious consideration - which is why I'm also an a-fairyist.

[Stranger]

If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance, but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.

You are talking as if there is only two choices. Humans have and do believe in thousands of different gods, most of which I know next to nothing about. Since I have been given no reason to take any of them seriously, I'm an atheist. Being an atheist is not specific to any one (or some) of them.

For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth.

If you know nothing about it, then you cannot have a belief in it, so you are an adeist.

If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement...

Why would you need a counterargument? Perhaps you need to look up the philosophical burden of proof?

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Which you can't reasonably do being ignorant of them. You believe my beliefs are false.

No. I "believe" your reasons for thinking them to be correct are false. What your beliefs happen to be is nether here nor there.   

That isn't non-belief. Non belief is agnostic.

No it isn't. Non-belief is the absence of belief. Agnosticism concerns whether something is knowable at all.   
 
I have no belief in your claims of fact because either:

1. I have examined your justifying arguments for them and found them to be false; or

2. I don’t know what your justifying arguments for your beliefs are, and so have no reason to accept them as true.

Agreed.

Good – so we can move the conversation to justifying arguments then, not to the content of the claims themselves. You do realise though that that’s most of theology dispensed with right? 

No it doesn't. Here's the definition of god: anything or anyone attributed might that is greater than the might of the one attributing it or that is venerated. There are millions of gods. Atheism

? You’ll need to re-phrase that into something comprehensible I’m afraid.

[SusanDoris]

Atheism isn't the antithesis of theism, let alone one particular type of theism (which is what you implied).

Yes.

If I were to make up some fantastical story about something or other (let's call it X) but gave you no reason at all to take it seriously, then (if you were being rational) you'd be an a-Xist until and unless I gave you some such reason.

I think it can be said that atheism exists and would have existed at the start of the human species since all babies are born with a tota lack of belief in any 'god .

[ekim]

? You’ll need to re-phrase that into something comprehensible I’m afraid.

I think what he is doing is using the word origin of 'God' as 'that which is invoked'  If you wish to invoke or have more of 'love', 'good fortune', 'power' then you create a god of love or luck or power.  There can be many Gods.  When there is one God it usually possesses multiple attributes.  I believe in Islam, Allah is said to have a hundred names.  These names are attributes rather than different gods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

These names are attributes rather than different gods.

But what about when the various claims about one god contradict each other? A god about whom everything can be said is also a god about whom nothing can be said. Moreover by the way the Christian god at least seems to think there are other gods. Why else would "He" make his first commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me"? 

[Nearly Sane]

I think it can be said that atheism exists and would have existed at the start of the human species since all babies are born with a tota lack of belief in any 'god .

I think babies are a really bad example. They don't really have the facility for lack of belief. In that sense they have a lack of belief in cars. And also tables are atheist.

[ekim]

ekim,

But what about when the various claims about one god contradict each other? A god about whom everything can be said is also a god about whom nothing can be said. Moreover by the way the Christian god at least seems to think there are other gods. Why else would "He" make his first commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me"?

Well, I would suggest that arises from  those who seek to exercise control and power over others e.g. the High Priest or politician who usurps the role of High Priest.  Doctrine is changed to correspond to the new seat of power and with it the indoctrination of the masses.  An example would be 'many gods' are replaced by the One True God.  Another is sectarian division based upon alternative interpretations of religious scripture.

[ippy]

Atheist, the well known reference to being a non stamp collector is a good enough example of why people in general are not over keen on the use of the word atheist.

Disbeliever, why would anyone disbelieve in something/anything when there's no evidence that would or could support whatever the idea in the first place, particularly ideas such as god, gods or higher powers?

Where can any viable evidence be found that would support the god, gods or some form of higher power ideas that might convince people of these things, if there were any?

Some of the bible stories might be true, but who knows which ones?

That Jesus bloke may have existed but the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of that book, more than likely, will be confined to a shelf in the fiction section of the library for some time, unless of course?

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

As Canadian Jordan Peterson said of atheists like Harris and Dawkins ...

Interesting that people when attacking atheist so often say this, noting that it is always 'atheists like Harris and Dawkins' implying that they could have picked any number of atheists when in reality it is alway the same tiny number of atheists selected following 'atheists like ...'. So when anti-atheists say 'atheists like Harris and Dawkins' they actually mean Harris and Dawkins.

The point being that the anti-atheists struggle to get beyond their three or four bogey men, who aren't extreme, nor militant, nor fundamentalist in the manner that we might apply to religious extremists. They tend simply to be academics who specialise in debate and discourse just as academics from all sorts of fields do without being tarnished with the terms extreme, militant, or fundamentalist. Any number of mild mannered academic theologians are as extreme, militant, or fundamentalist as Dawkins or Harris.

But there is a further point - largely that atheists by and large tend to keep their lack of belief to themselves. In the UK about 1 in 4 people are atheist - so that's very fourth person on the train, every fourth person you work with etc etc. Yet I imagine most people would seriously struggle to pick those people out because it is unlikely they will tell you. Compare that to approx 1 in 20 people in the UK who are active christians - I bet we all know who those people are because they darn well make sure you know, sure as night follows day.

[Nearly Sane]

...Compare that to approx 1 in 20 people in the UK who are active christians - I bet we all know who those people are because they darn well make sure you know, sure as night follows day.

Evidence?

[ProfessorDavey]

Evidence?

Well firstly experience, but I'm sure you know me better than just to base my views on anecdote so I've looked into this.

Just read a paper which clearly demonstrates that religious people, and in particular christians, are far more likely to self-disclose their religious (or non religious) identity on public forums, such as social media than non religious people (including atheists) are to reveal theirs. And this is on standard social media platforms which have nothing to do with religion.

Moreover religious people had a far greater propensity to consider religion to be a public matter rather than a private matter, partially explaining their greater propensity for self disclosure.

[Nearly Sane]

That isn't really an answer to your claim

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I suspect your falling into the trap of taking theism far too seriously.

How so? Because I find that very difficult to believe.

I think you'll find some atheists, such as this one, have listened to the arguments proposed for 'God', have concluded that these alleged arguments are no more than meaningless, fallacy-ridden white noise that, as such, requires no further serious consideration - which is why I'm also an a-fairyist.

I hope I haven't responded to this. Excuse me if I have. I have a lot of posts to respond to. We're not arguing for or against the existence of God. We are arguing the definition of atheism. If atheism was defined as the disbelief or lack of belief in God I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the or gods tacked on the end of the definition of atheism I find nonsensical. 

For a variety of reasons. Among them, a god doesn't have to exist to be a god. A god can be a mortal man. A god can be anything or anyone.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You are talking as if there is only two choices. Humans have and do believe in thousands of different gods, most of which I know next to nothing about. Since I have been given no reason to take any of them seriously, I'm an atheist. Being an atheist is not specific to any one (or some) of them.

Take them seriously? Okay, but what does that have to do with atheism? I don't take most of the gods of theism seriously but I'm still a theist.

If you know nothing about it, then you cannot have a belief in it, so you are an adeist.

Hmm. Well, that's interesting. Theism is a general application to various concepts of specific gods. A Christian, a Jewish, a Hinduist.

Why would you need a counterargument? Perhaps you need to look up the philosophical burden of proof?

I've held to that burden by providing proof of, not only the existence of gods but also the erroneous definition of gods by the definition of atheism.

It's real easy . . . watch.

Here: Gods

and . . .

Here: Atheism

[SusanDoris]

Well firstly experience, but I'm sure you know me better than just to base my views on anecdote so I've looked into this.

Just read a paper which clearly demonstrates that religious people, and in particular christians, are far more likely to self-disclose their religious (or non religious) identity on public forums, such as social media than non religious people (including atheists) are to reveal theirs. And this is on standard social media platforms which have nothing to do with religion.

Moreover religious people had a far greater propensity to consider religion to be a public matter rather than a private matter, partially explaining their greater propensity for self disclosure.

Good points - I agree with the fact that people, well, the ones I hear on radio for example, do add this  'I am a Christian' to what they say and, in my opinion, with a tone of self-righteousness; perhaps to give them a sort of free pass to an acceptance that what they are saying must be right. 

[Nearly Sane]

Well firstly experience, but I'm sure you know me better than just to base my views on anecdote so I've looked into this.

Just read a paper which clearly demonstrates that religious people, and in particular christians, are far more likely to self-disclose their religious (or non religious) identity on public forums, such as social media than non religious people (including atheists) are to reveal theirs. And this is on standard social media platforms which have nothing to do with religion.

Moreover religious people had a far greater propensity to consider religion to be a public matter rather than a private matter, partially explaining their greater propensity for self disclosure.

Isn't this just the same thing about vegans? If you think  something is important then you might well state it but that doesn't mean that anyone who does not state their belief does not have a belief. It also adds all apathetics to atheism.

[Nearly Sane]

Good points - I agree with the fact that people, well, the ones I hear on radio for example, do add this  'I am a Christian' to what they say and, in my opinion, with a tone of self-righteousness; perhaps to give them a sort of free pass to an acceptance that what they are saying must be right.

Anecdote is not data. Making up shite about people's motivation is only that. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I think what he is doing is using the word origin of 'God' as 'that which is invoked'

No, but that is an interesting interjection.   

If you wish to invoke or have more of 'love', 'good fortune', 'power' then you create a god of love or luck or power.  There can be many Gods.  When there is one God it usually possesses multiple attributes.  I believe in Islam, Allah is said to have a hundred names.  These names are attributes rather than different gods.

I'm trying to explain the concept of god, deity. Translations such as Sanskrit, Proto-Germanic, Latin etc. may incorporate descriptive applications without explaining what the thing is. All examples of any god in any language incorporates the simple attribution of might and/or veneration. So in linguistic variations you might have to ask, why is the word God from pour, or invoke, or gleam, shining, or voice, etc. It all comes back to might / veneration.

The Japanese word kami, plural kami, is an object of worship in Shintō and other indigenous religions of Japan. The term kami is often translated as “god,” “lord,” or “deity,” but it also includes other forces of nature, both good and evil, which, because of their superiority or divinity, become objects of reverence and respect.

The word is, in my opinion, more accurately translated as spirit. The spirit's of ones dead ancestors inhabit object like mirrors, swords, mountains etc.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I think babies are a really bad example. They don't really have the facility for lack of belief. In that sense they have a lack of belief in cars. And also tables are atheist.

Thank you so much, but aren't you one who subscribes to the notion that atheism is the default position?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

But what about when the various claims about one god contradict each other? A god about whom everything can be said is also a god about whom nothing can be said.

What? A god is like a man. There are gods and there are men. All gods don't have to be the same in any way other than might and veneration.   

Moreover by the way the Christian god at least seems to think there are other gods. Why else would "He" make his first commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me"?

Exactly.

This is kind of weird. It almost seems that you are all are beginning to get it. I stand corrected. Maybe atheists can comprehend the simple meaning of gods.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Well, I would suggest that arises from  those who seek to exercise control and power over others e.g. the High Priest or politician who usurps the role of High Priest.  Doctrine is changed to correspond to the new seat of power and with it the indoctrination of the masses.  An example would be 'many gods' are replaced by the One True God.  Another is sectarian division based upon alternative interpretations of religious scripture.

All of that is certainly plausible, but the early Jews and early Christians were henotheistic. Do not have any gods before me means no gods above or foremost in importance, one true god means the God most mighty, above all others. Jesus was a mighty god (ʼEl Gib·bohr′) but not equal to God almighty (ʼEl Shad·dai′ ). (Isaiah 6:9; Genesis 17:1)