Is theism lacking?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Is theism lacking?

Post #1

Post by Tcg »

.
Theism has been defined as:
: belief in the existence of a god or gods

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism
Atheism then would be the absence or lack of this belief which theists possess.

Does theism require one to lack acceptance of this easily understood reality?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #11

Post by Miles »

Tcg wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:00 am
Miles wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:03 am
Tcg wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:42 am
Miles wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:38 am .


Just to be clear, when you ask "Does theism require one to lack acceptance of this easily understood reality?" just what reality are you talking about; the fact that atheists lack belief in a god?


.
Yes, that is the reality I am referring to.
Then I would say "No." A belief in a god does not require one to reject the fact that atheism exists.


.
I agree and yet for some it seems to be a major issue. Some even refer to Romans 1 and suggest that it affirms that atheists don't exist.
Interesting. Although, I suppose some Christian sect or even denomination could affirm such a thing, it sounds rather silly. Thing is, when I read Romans 1 it seems to be saying just the opposite; there are those who no longer believe in god and will suffer for their disbelief and rejection of him.


.




Of course, here I for one am so obviously we've found yet another fallacy with the Bible. I suspect I'm not the only atheist either.
[/quote]

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #12

Post by bjs1 »

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

I think that most theists can understand that some modern self-described atheists have moved away from classical atheism (the doctrine that there is no God) and closer align with classical agnosticism (a lack of belief about God).

This does not free modern atheists of the challenges that go along with that concept. To give just one example, saying that someone “lacks belief in God” tells us what that person does not think, but it does not tell us what that person does think. This has no practical value, especially when a person’s actions suggest a strong emotional attachment to their ideas about God. So calling oneself an atheist (in terms of lack of belief) is starting point, but the person would then need to find additional terms to describe the world view he does function under.

The “lack of belief” definition of atheism also leaves us with the linguistic challenge of not having a word to describe someone who believes that there is no God.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #13

Post by brunumb »

bjs1 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:47 am The “lack of belief” definition of atheism also leaves us with the linguistic challenge of not having a word to describe someone who believes that there is no God.
No it doesn't. The word is atheist. Theists are the people who believe in god(s) and all the rest are atheists. Both products simply come in different flavours.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #14

Post by Miles »

bjs1 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:47 am [Replying to Tcg in post #1]

I think that most theists can understand that some modern self-described atheists have moved away from classical atheism (the doctrine that there is no God) and closer align with classical agnosticism (a lack of belief about God).
"Agnosticism" is a derivative of "gnosis," which refers to knowing, and when prefaced with "a" implies not-knowing rather than not-believing. So agnosticism is better defined as a lack of knowledge or the ability to know of god's existence. AND does not imply god does not exists.

On the other hand, "atheism" derives from "theism," which refers to a belief in the existence of a god,

the·ism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

and when prefaced with "a" implies not-belief. So the typical atheist will describe herself as "lacking a belief in the existence of god," leaving open the possibility that god does exist. However, some atheists go a step further and will assert that "atheism" means that no god exists, which is an assertion of knowledge. (A claim I don't subscribe to.) Also, assertions of belief don't carry any burden of proof, whereas assertions of knowledge do. This is why in discussions of god's existence the burden of proof always falls on those theists asserting that god exists as well as those atheists asserting god does not exist----both implications of knowledge---rather than on the more thoughtful atheist who, in effect, is saying, "I don't believe you."

This does not free modern atheists of the challenges that go along with that concept. To give just one example, saying that someone “lacks belief in God” tells us what that person does not think, but it does not tell us what that person does think.
Wrong. It tells us she is thinking that assertions of god's existence have not met their burden of proof. Hence, she has no reason to believe god exists.

This has no practical value, especially when a person’s actions suggest a strong emotional attachment to their ideas about God.
What kind of practical value are you thinking of? And what actions are you talking about?

So calling oneself an atheist (in terms of lack of belief) is starting point, but the person would then need to find additional terms to describe the world view he does function under.
Why? What does describing one's world view have to do with a lack of belief in god's existence?

The “lack of belief” definition of atheism also leaves us with the linguistic challenge of not having a word to describe someone who believes that there is no God.
It's under "Atheist" in the dictionary. *sheesh!*


.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #15

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:33 pm
On the other hand, "atheism" derives from "theism," which refers to a belief in the existence of a god,

the·ism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

and when prefaced with "a" implies not-belief.
This is a commonly made argument on this forum, but is based on a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word atheism.

The word atheism was not coined by taking the word 'theism' and adding the prefix 'a'. We know this because (1) the word atheism actually existed before the word theism, and (2) the word 'theism' originally meant what today we call 'deism.'

Rather, the word atheism was coined by taking the word atheist (athée in French) and adding the suffix '-ism'. The 'a' here is therefore not a negation of 'theism' (belief in God) but rather the negation of 'theos' (God). Etymologically, atheism means the belief ('-ism') that there is no God.

The word was coined in the 16th Century at a time when people were coining all kinds of '-ism' words to describe various systems of belief and practice, and so was intended to describe the beliefs of atheists.

Now, words change in meaning over time, of course, based on how people use them. And so, more recently, the word atheist has taken on this new, very broad definition of "lacking belief in God," which is now attested in some (but not all) dictionaries. That's fine. But that new definition is not derived from the word's etymology, and in fact is running somewhat contrary to it.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #16

Post by Miles »

historia wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:35 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:33 pm
On the other hand, "atheism" derives from "theism," which refers to a belief in the existence of a god,

the·ism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary



and when prefaced with "a" implies not-belief.
This is a commonly made argument on this forum, but is based on a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word atheism.

The word atheism was not coined by taking the word 'theism' and adding the prefix 'a'. We know this because (1) the word atheism actually existed before the word theism, and (2) the word 'theism' originally meant what today we call 'deism.'

Rather, the word atheism was coined by taking the word atheist (athée in French) and adding the suffix '-ism'. The 'a' here is therefore not a negation of 'theism' (belief in God) but rather the negation of 'theos' (God). Etymologically, atheism means the belief ('-ism') that there is no God.

The word was coined in the 16th Century at a time when people were coining all kinds of '-ism' words to describe various systems of belief and practice, and so was intended to describe the beliefs of atheists.

Now, words change in meaning over time, of course, based on how people use them. And so, more recently, the word atheist has taken on this new, very broad definition of "lacking belief in God," which is now attested in some (but not all) dictionaries. That's fine. But that new definition is not derived from the word's etymology, and in fact is running somewhat contrary to it.

Speaking of the word "atheism."
"In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
source

"The denial of theism" being the sense in which "atheism" is used today.

.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #17

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Miles wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:32 pm
historia wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:35 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:33 pm
On the other hand, "atheism" derives from "theism," which refers to a belief in the existence of a god,

the·ism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun:
belief in the existence of a god or gods,
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary



and when prefaced with "a" implies not-belief.
This is a commonly made argument on this forum, but is based on a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word atheism.

The word atheism was not coined by taking the word 'theism' and adding the prefix 'a'. We know this because (1) the word atheism actually existed before the word theism, and (2) the word 'theism' originally meant what today we call 'deism.'

Rather, the word atheism was coined by taking the word atheist (athée in French) and adding the suffix '-ism'. The 'a' here is therefore not a negation of 'theism' (belief in God) but rather the negation of 'theos' (God). Etymologically, atheism means the belief ('-ism') that there is no God.

The word was coined in the 16th Century at a time when people were coining all kinds of '-ism' words to describe various systems of belief and practice, and so was intended to describe the beliefs of atheists.

Now, words change in meaning over time, of course, based on how people use them. And so, more recently, the word atheist has taken on this new, very broad definition of "lacking belief in God," which is now attested in some (but not all) dictionaries. That's fine. But that new definition is not derived from the word's etymology, and in fact is running somewhat contrary to it.

Speaking of the word "atheism."
"In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
source

"The denial of theism" being the sense in which "atheism" is used today.

.
A rather superseded definition, reflecting religious hostility towards atheism. I noted recently that Websters had brought their definition more in line with the present day definition of atheist and dropped the 'Denial of God' usage that they had inherited from 'That old time religion' and was pointed out to be in the 80's.

I have argued in the past that if atheism had ever been a positive assertion (belief) that no God or no other god exists, it could be pointed out that such a claim is logically untenable as nobody really knows (though in respect of Biblegod, one can confidently say 'That god -claim is so contradictory and incoherent that it can't be 'god' - if such a thing really exists) and atheism would have been obliged to change to the logically valid 'non -belief in what is not proven (read 'given sound evidential credibility' - which is what these debates are about). Which is the (simple) definition atheism uses.

I may mention that the 'classical' definition, strikes me as being the philosophical definition, just as philosophical materialism maintains that nothing but the material can exist, while practical materialism says 'nothing supernatural has been proven'(so the material hypothesis -option is the default one). Now these classical definitions may serve some purpose in the mind -games of philosophy, but they are logically invalid in the Real World and, in short, are not used to refer to actual reasoning and should not be used to beat atheism over the head.

Another philosophical/classical definition used (on a former board) was used in the arguments that 'evidentialism is dead (1)'. Apparently this was a 'classical' (philosophical) position about evidence. But it was perfectly plain that evidence (and the use of it) is absolutely valid today and 'evidentialism' (whatever that claimed) being now discredited has nothing to do with that.

(1) part of an attempt to discredit evidence to leave a gap for God.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #18

Post by Purple Knight »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:37 amAside from being about opposites (god exist/god doesn't exist) I don't see theism or atheism requiring anything of each other.
:confused2:
Some religious people don't even believe atheists exist. They're fine as far as still being theists, unless God is somehow an atheist by definition.
Tcg wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:00 amI agree and yet for some it seems to be a major issue. Some even refer to Romans 1 and suggest that it affirms that atheists don't exist. Of course, here I for one am so obviously we've found yet another fallacy with the Bible. I suspect I'm not the only atheist either.
Hopefully someone doesn't come along and prove you are God because that would break your seemingly iron-clad argument.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #19

Post by Tcg »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:23 pm
Hopefully someone doesn't come along and prove you are God because that would break your seemingly iron-clad argument.
If I were God, it'd be free popcorn for everyone. Given that not everyone has popcorn, I'm obviously not God. Oh, and free health care, I'd do that too. And cats for everybody.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Is theism lacking?

Post #20

Post by Purple Knight »

Tcg wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:56 am
Purple Knight wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:23 pm
Hopefully someone doesn't come along and prove you are God because that would break your seemingly iron-clad argument.
If I were God, it'd be free popcorn for everyone. Given that not everyone has popcorn, I'm obviously not God. Oh, and free health care, I'd do that too. And cats for everybody.
You couldn't do those things if you were God but didn't know it. If someone proved you were God that might not give you access to the powers of God, if it was you yourself who wished that they be taken away or put out of use for a certain period. It would depend on how omnipotence functions, and none of us know that.

Post Reply