Are atheists theists?

[Inquirer]

A recent discussion of a definition of "atheism" in this thread, brings up the view that to define atheism this way seems to lead to the fact that an atheist must also be a theist.

The definition borrows from the popular Flewsian definition, by use of the concept of an "absence of belief" that some proposition is true, as the sole criteria for one being an atheist.

Here is Tcg's proposed definition (the proposition part is red for clarity)

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists."

But if we are prepared to accept such a definition then we can define theism as:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Now the Flewsian atheist is not a traditional atheist, the traditional atheist asserts, believes, that there is no God.

The Flewsian atheist does not assert that, which means that they fit the definition of theist given above.

Therefore a (Flewsian) atheist is also a theist.

The only way to escape this is to argue that "absence of belief that God exists" is insufficient to define atheism (this contradiction vanishes when we use the traditional, established definition).

So are atheists also theists? if not, why not?

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #10]

Atheism: The lack of belief in the existence of god

Understandable enough.

(although some atheism outright deny the existence of god)

Thus the - understandable enough - confusion theists have with atheists definitions of Atheism(s)

[historia]

Anthony Flew argued in The Presumption of Atheism, that the term needed to be interpreted as "someone who is simply not a theist". In essence he wanted the atheist to have no case to answer, that being an atheist was a natural default state of mind until one has seen evidence to the contrary.

But this definition ultimately - IMHO - leads to epistemological problems and furthermore demands that not being a theist must be the correct position for everyone until some decision is made to become a "believer".

A default position of "God exists" is very natural, was very natural for thousands of years, the majority of people who contributed to the scientific revolution were theists, creationists. The universe exists, minds exist, beauty exists and therefore God exists is a rational way to reason, of course it isn't "proof" in the sense of objective proof but so what?

By my analysis the statement "I do not hold a belief in God" describes a conscious decision has been made, that despite evidence for God a person has chosen to not interpret that evidence as evidence for God. They are free to do so too, they might conceivably be correct but it is a subjective interpretation just as is the theists.

Why would atheists not declare "I do not hold a belief that God exists nor do I hold a belief that God does not exist"? On what grounds could they object to such a definition?

I'm not sure what epistemological issues you see with Flew's broad definition of atheism. But I don't disagree with the rest of what you've written here. I have myself previously challenged the notion that atheists on this message board hold a neutral position on God's existence.

[Inquirer]

Anthony Flew argued in The Presumption of Atheism, that the term needed to be interpreted as "someone who is simply not a theist". In essence he wanted the atheist to have no case to answer, that being an atheist was a natural default state of mind until one has seen evidence to the contrary.

But this definition ultimately - IMHO - leads to epistemological problems and furthermore demands that not being a theist must be the correct position for everyone until some decision is made to become a "believer".

A default position of "God exists" is very natural, was very natural for thousands of years, the majority of people who contributed to the scientific revolution were theists, creationists. The universe exists, minds exist, beauty exists and therefore God exists is a rational way to reason, of course it isn't "proof" in the sense of objective proof but so what?

By my analysis the statement "I do not hold a belief in God" describes a conscious decision has been made, that despite evidence for God a person has chosen to not interpret that evidence as evidence for God. They are free to do so too, they might conceivably be correct but it is a subjective interpretation just as is the theists.

Why would atheists not declare "I do not hold a belief that God exists nor do I hold a belief that God does not exist"? On what grounds could they object to such a definition?

I'm not sure what epistemological issues you see with Flew's broad definition of atheism. But I don't disagree with the rest of what you've written here. I have myself previously challenged the notion that atheists on this message board hold a neutral position on God's existence.

This is my objection to Flew:

Atheism could mean either of two things:

1. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the lack of belief that gods don't exist.
2. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the presence of belief that gods don't exist.

It is an ambiguous definition, it could refer to either of the two positions and they are epistemologically not equivalent.

To use a definition like Flew's or Tcg's could mean one doesn't have a clue if God exists or not OR one is firm that there is no God - these are hardly the same position.

If one believes God does not exist then why not come out of the closet and just admit that?

If one has no idea whether God exists or not then why not come out of the closet and just admit that?

This is why I regard it as intellectually vacuous, the Emperor's new clothes, much ado about nothing.

[Bust Nak]

Atheism could mean either of two things:

1. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the lack of belief that gods don't exist.
2. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the presence of belief that gods don't exist.

It is an ambiguous definition, it could refer to either of the two positions and they are epistemologically not equivalent.

Or you can just stick strictly to what Flew's definition actually say, atheism refers precisely to this one and only position - a lack of belief that gods exist. Atheism does not mean either of these things, instead it covers both things. I mean, you wouldn't call the definition of "theist" flawed because it covers Christians, Muslims, as well as Hindus, would you? There is a difference between an umbrella term and an ambiguous one.

To use a definition like Flew's or Tcg's could mean one doesn't have a clue if God exists or not OR one is firm that there is no God - these are hardly the same position...

If you want to know exactly which kind of theists I am referring to, you can just ask me. We already have qualifiers to specify the type of atheism we fall under, weak and strong atheism are well understood terms. Use those qualifier if it matter which of these positions an atheist falls under.

...why not come out of the closet and just admit that?

We are not in the closet, ask me specifically and I will happily tell you I am a weak atheist. It's just typically not relevant to the discussion, so it's left unsaid. Why would it matter if I was a 1 or a 2, different as they are epistemologically, when debating say, the problem of evil? Knowing I am a "Flewsian" atheist is enough for background context.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #13]

If one believes God does not exist then why not come out of the closet and just admit that?

If one has no idea whether God exists or not then why not come out of the closet and just admit that?

The shortfall is that there are even more positions on The Question of GODs, than those options cover.

Some extra covering can be added by adding the small 's' to the large God, but to cover as many bases as possible, Make the large God into an even larger GOD, maintain the small 's' for good measure, and that ort doit.

The question could then look like this;



If one has no idea whether GODs exist or not then one cannot admit that until one has crossed the line of ignorance into the world of knowledge.

If we accept that the fundamental condition of Atheism is having no knowledge of GODs and any atheistic divergence from that default are simply acts of atheists which are best not confused with the default position of Atheism, the waters should clear.

Moves with knowledge but has insufficient data in which to make a theist or non-theist belief-based choice.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #1]

Are hamburgers which don't contain cheese cheeseburgers?


Tcg

[William]

[Tcg]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #1]

'Do you want a pizza without anchovies?'

"Is that the same as one with anchovies?"

'Well, no... no it's not.'

"What's the difference?"

'Not having anchovies.'

"Got any pepperoni pies?"

'Yes.'

"Do they have pepperoni?"

'Why, yes they do.'

"Are they the same as those which don't have pepperoni?"

'No, they aren't.'

"What's the difference?"

'The pepperonis.'

"Can I get an extra cheese without extra cheese?"

'Sure.'

"Does it have extra cheese?"

'No.'


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

But if we are prepared to accept such a definition then we can define theism as:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Now the Flewsian atheist is not a traditional atheist, the traditional atheist asserts, believes, that there is no God.

The Flewsian atheist does not assert that, which means that they fit the definition of theist given above.

Therefore a (Flewsian) atheist is also a theist.

The only way to escape this is to argue that "absence of belief that God exists" is insufficient to define atheism (this contradiction vanishes when we use the traditional, established definition).

So are atheists also theists? if not, why not?

Sure, if theists do exactly what atheists have been doing and claim a position of non-assertion. And I see no reason why they shouldn't.

What this really illustrates is how silly it is for everyone to pull their category - the one they are in - back to a position of total non-assertion and claim the high ground on the basis that a negative is better than a positive. It's like hiding in a foxhole the whole fight and claiming you're a great hero because you didn't die. You lost no ground, true, you lost nothing, because you fought for nothing. You didn't have a battle the same way the Flewsian atheist - let's call him what he is: A retreat atheist - isn't having a debate. He's burying himself at the bottom of a foxhole and happy he's got no bullets in him. He's thrown away his sword and put on layer upon layer of armour, and now he can't move, but according to him, he's won because you can't scratch him.

Maybe that's what you're going for. Good. I've pointed this out before, just not eloquently and simply enough for people to be convinced of anything. See?

I routinely question many of the so-called rules of logic. I don't believe a negative is inherently logically superior to a positive, even in a void. I can give you an example of me doing this.

I won't go as far as saying that Trump would've found enough fraud to overturn the election had he been successful with getting both manual recounts with added oversight, but the main point is had there been fraud, then it would've likely been caught under those conditions (recounts w/ added oversight). But as it stands, that wasn't done, and therefore I can't claim that this election had no fraud nor errors, and without knowing that, I can't claim that elections are "fair".

This is a perfect example of why I tend to reject the atheist mantra that negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones.

"The election was fair." Well, that certainly seems like a positive claim, ne?

"There was some sort of fraud or cheating." Oh. Well. This seems like a positive claim, too.

Yet these are logically contradictory premises. One must be true and the other must be false.

Which claim is positive and which claim is negative is often a matter of phraseology and there's not a clear, logical answer.

So yes, I question this supposed rule that a negative is automatically better than a positive.

The retreat atheist thinks he's won. And if he's convinced everyone he can win this way, I see no reason for theists not to become retreat theists.


But I would prefer to be more like these fellows and actually strike some blows.


Do you see me using those twin tower shields? Nope. I don't think God exists. Sue me.

[Kylie]

A recent discussion of a definition of "atheism" in this thread, brings up the view that to define atheism this way seems to lead to the fact that an atheist must also be a theist.

The definition borrows from the popular Flewsian definition, by use of the concept of an "absence of belief" that some proposition is true, as the sole criteria for one being an atheist.

Here is Tcg's proposed definition (the proposition part is red for clarity)

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists."

But if we are prepared to accept such a definition then we can define theism as:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Now the Flewsian atheist is not a traditional atheist, the traditional atheist asserts, believes, that there is no God.

The Flewsian atheist does not assert that, which means that they fit the definition of theist given above.

Therefore a (Flewsian) atheist is also a theist.

The only way to escape this is to argue that "absence of belief that God exists" is insufficient to define atheism (this contradiction vanishes when we use the traditional, established definition).

So are atheists also theists? if not, why not?

I consider myself an atheist, yet I would not claim that I believe that there is no God. I simply lack a belief in God. And there's a big difference between lacking belief in God and believing that there is no God.

That said, my position is that I think God is so unlikely that I'm 99% of the way to believing that there is no god. But of course, I can't claim to know FOR SURE, and I am willing to entertain the possibility that I am wrong.