Vociferous:
Vociferous said:
Nothing cagey about merely being a theist, without any especially religious trappings. And I've been arguing a clear distinction between religion and theism for a while now. I believe that God exists, and I don't even restrict that to any one particular theistic view, as I think God simultaneously exists as mono-, poly-, pan-, deistic, etc. from different perspectives.
It sounds to me like your God is not very well defined. It sounds like it can be all things to all people. But that's not a topic we need to discuss in this thread.
But since your OP states that atheism is not a denial of theism (anti-theism), you seem to be using/seeking religious claims upon which to base such a denial. Now you can be anti-religious and atheist, but thinking the former can twist the latter into anti-theism sounds disingenuous.
Atheism is the idea that gods don't exist. How could that not be a denial of theism, being the idea that gods do exist? On the other hand, I tend to be a bit suspicious when theists use the word "denial" because in my experience it usually turns out that what they mean when they use that words is that they think that atheists secretly believe in their god(s) after all but reject the god(s) because they hate them, or something. "Denial" has connotations of calculated refusal to believe what ought to be an obvious truth. The existence of gods is not an obvious truth; it is a contested claim.
But, coming back to your point, when I refer to religious claims in a context like this one, it is usually to point out that I don't find those claims convincing enough for me to accept that the god(s) being described are real. If you want to argue that I am therefore using theist claims to support my "denial" of theism, then I have no real argument about that, I suppose. My "denial" of theism is supported every time theists fail to make a good case for god.
The term "anti-theism" suggests to me something other than merely finding theistic claims unconvincing. To me, it suggests arguing that theism is harmful for one reason or another. I see that as a separate argument to the one about whether the gods exist. Even if the gods don't exist, the theists' beliefs that surround their god belief could potentially be useful or harmful, or somewhere in between.
Vociferous said:
I'm not even sure I'd call my belief "spiritual". Your atheism, as you defined it in your OP, does ostensibly address my theism. It least if you're satisfied with the fact that it doesn't refute theism. Atheism, anti-theism, and anti-religion being different things.
I didn't set out to refute theism in my opening post. I set out to explain something about what atheism is. It's no wonder my opening post doesn't refute theism; that was not my aim there.
The refutation of theism is simple for me: there's no convincing evidence to support the existence of the alleged god(s), and the non-evidential arguments for the existence of a deity are similarly unconvincing. Bear in mind that here I'm simply telling you what I believe.
Vociferous said:
That seems to contradict your own OP. If "Atheism is the idea that gods do not exist", how does that differ from atheists believing
"that God doesn't exist"↑?
I thought I explained that in the opening post (?)
Your OP claimed that atheists "say that they don't believe that God exists", as opposed to believing "that God doesn't exist".
I thought by now it would be clear to you. I don't believe that God exists. That makes me an atheist. But my belief doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, any more that your belief proves that it does. I'm also open to the idea that your God exists, after all, and will be happy to join you in your theism/deism if and when convincing arguments for your God are put to me. Presenting some convincing evidence would be a good start if you want to try to change my mind on this.
So while your OP seems to make a clear distinction between atheism and anti-theism, you no longer seem to be. If you're making a positive judgement on the reality of God, you are making the precise determination your OP claims religious people erroneously assume atheists make.
But I'm not making a positive judgment on the reality of God. God might exist. It's just that I haven't seen anything that convinces me that God exists, yet. I have an open mind on this. I don't currently believe that God exists, and that makes me an atheist, by definition.
We could delve deeper and talk about my estimate of the probability that God exists (low, based on the attempts made to argue for God so far), but that's another topic.
It just seems like your "I merely don't believe gods exist" is just a hedge on "I believe gods do not exist". Seems you just don't like religious people asking you to support the latter belief. I don't know why either, as you're just as free to admit that your reasons are not compelling as any religious person. Such admissions seem intellectually honest on both side.
It may seem like a subtle distinction to you, but for me it's not just a hedge. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove beyond doubt that something
doesn't exist, at least in cases where that something is as vaguely defined as god(s). It seems to me that the onus of proof ought generally to be on those who make the
positive claim, not the negative one. The negative claim is the default, as far as I can see.
If you claim you've discovered cold fusion, I don't see why I should believe that cold fusion exists just on that basis. It ought to be up to you to show to my satisfaction that cold fusion is real. I don't see that I have any obligation to prove to you that cold fusion is impossible. You make the claim; you present the argument and evidence in support.
James R said:
You don't think God is supernatural?
Vociferous said:
Not necessarily. But that comes back to our discussion elsewhere, about the description of God perhaps not being extraordinary enough for atheists to entertain. It's also why I do not pray. Of all the possible perspectives of God, the most personal seems to be a higher-self, perhaps an analogue to the combined Christian role model of Jesus and conscience of the Holy Spirit
It seems to me that your deistic God, if that's what it is, is unfalsifiable. How would the world look different if your God did not exist? What experiment or observation allows us to tell the difference between a universe with your God in it and one without?
(If you feel like claiming that existence itself is contingent on God, that would be a prime example of non-falsifiability, wouldn't it?)
Vociferous said:
Refuting the Christian God is either anti-theism or anti-religion.
Sounds like you think to refute Christianity would be morally bad, or to be anti-religion would be a moral failure. Is that correct?
Vociferous said:
Perhaps you can see how some of your statements, in this one post, could seem inconsistent?
I can see how they may seem so to you. It was part of my motivation for posting this thread in the first place. I'm glad we're having this opportunity to talk it out.
Vociferous said:
Does your atheism entail your disbelief in the existence of any God or your belief "that gods do not exist"? The former is an accurate description of atheism, while the latter is what your OP chastised religious people for thinking atheism means.
I wrote the OP, so there's your hint.
Vociferous said:
Bad example, as Muslims and Christians share the same God, and even some of the same scripture. Where they differ is in their beliefs of Jesus and Mohamed. The incarnations of God and their messages, rather than God himself.
The question about which of God's messengers are significant seems like an important part of any religion to me. When it comes to Islam and Christianity, wouldn't you say that the argument over the divinity or otherwise of Jesus is rather a crucial matter? The answer has important implications for the nature of Yahweh and Allah. In fact, it's such an important question that I'd say those two deities are not really the same deity at all, despite protests to the contrary from followers of each religion.
Since Hinduism is polytheistic, it seems disagreement on monotheistic claims likewise doesn't touch on the existence of the God itself
Again, I'd say that monotheism vs polytheism is rather a crucial matter to decide if you're investigating which religion (if any) is correct.
Vociferous said:
Theism does not necessarily entail any belief in a person-like God. Deism is theistic without any such belief.
Again, you're merely pointing out schisms in religious thinking. Either God is personal or he isn't. Either he is a Trinity, or he isn't. Either he is one or he is many.
Doesn't the plethora of divergent views suggest to you that, just possibly,
none of the theists are right?
Of course, maybe you're one who tries to smoosh them all together, to argue that - somehow -
all of them are right, even thought they all make radically different claims.
