The logic of Atheism vs. Theism.

Author: Fallaneze ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 12
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    [1] Decipher the most basic difference between theism and atheism.

    [2] Define the word "God" in a way that would satisfy the minimally required difference between theism and atheism so that if one were true, the other would be false.

    [3] Establish whether the atheist :

    (A) neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God or

    (B) whether the atheist disbelieves in God, as they cannot hold both positions simultaneously.

    If the atheist is in group (A), then they don't have a stance on the issue that would require any rational justification as to whether God does or does not exist. If they had a rational justification for believing that God does not exist, then this would warrant disbelief and the atheist would not be in group (A) because in order to be in group (A) the atheist must *not disbelieve* in the existence of God. If the atheist has rationally justified grounds for believing that God does not exist, but has no rationally justified grounds for believing God DOES exist, and the atheist still considers themselves to be in group (A), then they are irrational. It is irrational to have evidence supporting disbelief and no evidence supporting belief while still neither believing nor disbelieving the in the existence of God since the most rational approach is to base your beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence.

    Since the atheist in group (A) has no evidence against God's existence, any amount of evidence indicative of God's existence would rationally justify belief that theism is true and consequently, that atheism is false. In this instance, any amount of evidence would rationally justify belief in God's existence because the evidence would be net positive. 

    If the atheist is in group (B), they have a burden of proof to show why disbelief in God is rationally warranted. They must provide evidence against the existence of God. If the evidence against God is greater than the evidence in support of God, disbelief is rationally warranted. 

    [4] the theist must provide the evidence that supports their view, and, if the atheist is in group (B), they must also provide the evidence that supports their view too.

    [5] depending on the preponderance of evidence provided in the previous step, this will determime whether believing the claim is rationally warranted or not, or, depending on whether the atheist in group (B) provides counter-evidence, whether disbelief is rationally warranted.








  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    The only atheists that use the same definition of God are the most hardcore of nihilists who deny Truth itself.


    Otherwise, atheism that denies God, The Ultimate Reality can only prop itself up by constructing a straw man God that is certainly not in line with orthodoxy.

    Atheism other than nihilism is contingent on making God anything other than The Ultimate Reality, and for that reason they are simply pretending to talk about the same thing.

    I say other than nihilism, because the truest most extreme form of nihilism denies ultimate reality all together, which completes nihilism in that it destroys everything including itself.


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    [1] Theism is the believe that God exists. Atheism is lack of belief in the existence of God.

    [2] God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality

    [3] 

    (A) The so called "agnostic" atheist, that is, the one who isn't sure whether or not God exists either does not know what God means or is entertaining a self defeating position.

    (B) The atheist believes that God doesn't exist holds a position that is self defeating.

    [4] God or, The Utimate Reality must exist or it doesn't fulfill the definition. It is part of the essence of God that God exists. If it doesn't exist, it is not God.

    As God by definition must exist, it is neither justifiable to deny or be uncertain about God's existence.


    [5] If there is no God, there can be no reality as nothing is real. As experience scientifically demonstrates, there is clearly some form of existence. Whether this existence is illusory or not, it still exists as an illusion. There is some reality to it. If there is reality at all, it can only be real by The Ultimate Reality, which gives all existences their reality.

    To say, "There is no God" is to say "It is the truth that there is no truth!". Obviously, this is a self defeating statement because it cannot be true.

    As the position of denying Godnis irrational, it is not rational to even entertain it, therefore agnosticism concerning God is just as irrational as outright denying God.


    Atheism is a position fundamentally founded on ignorance.


    It is not written in vain, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.", because anyone who knowingly denies the existence of God is both evil and a fool.





  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,668
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    [1] Decipher the most basic difference between theism and atheism. 
    Atheists do not maintain a belief in any god or gods. Theists maintain a belief in some god(s) this is not only the most basic difference it is litteraly the only universal difference. Both terms are prescriptive. 
    [2] Define the word "God" in a way that would satisfy the minimally required difference between theism and atheism so that if one were true, the other would be false.
    Atheism does not necessitate any positive claims. At the minimum it is the rejection of particular classification of claim. I do not propose any definition of god over any other but for theism to be confirmed as true the definition must include independently scientifically verified and that is not a thing any god ever proposed to me can be.
    [3] Establish whether the atheist :

    (A) neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God
    No atheists believe in gods. Not all claim to know no god exists. Belief and knowledgecl are separate things. One does not strictly speaking need a reason not to believe if there is no particular reason to believe. If you would like to reword the rest of your post to reflect the difference between these terms I will be happy to answer again.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @secularmerlin
    I do not propose any definition of god over any other
    What this demonstrates is an illogical aversion to the word itself, as you cannot even say what you don't believe.


    But you do not simply deny gods, you also lump God in with these gods. If you say you don't believe in the existence of God, you are saying that you don't believe that there is ultimate reality.


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Theism is theism and atheism is atheism. That are both conditioned states of mind.

    As such there is no real opposition. Just two different brains containing two differing sets of information.

    All that we do is respond relative to the information we hold within our brain.

    Religions or not, has no real external significance. Everything we do relies wholly upon internal data processing.

    Belief is nothing more than assimilated data. 

    I think that it is fair to say, that as things stand; there is no real evidence to support any claim that one particular set of data is an accurate representation of universal reality.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,406
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    [1] Decipher the most basic difference between theism and atheism. 
    Theism (as opposed to DEISM) supposes there is a specific god or gods who demand human acknowledgement.

    Atheism supposes that (EITHER) such a god is imaginary (OR) logically incoherent (depending on the specific claim, POE for example) (OR) the merits of any such specific claim are indistinguishable from the opposing claims of thousands of religions and or denominations (OR) any god that demands its creations follow some ancient rule-book is not worthy of consideration (OR) they're simply not compelled by any known arguments in favor of such god(s).

    [2] Define the word "God" in a way that would satisfy the minimally required difference between theism and atheism so that if one were true, the other would be false.
    Theistic god(s) (ultimate reality, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creator of all, O3C) require human acknowledgement and obedience.

    Deistic god(s) have no interest in humans or their behavior.

    Atheists believe that all described (describable) gods are indistinguishable from pure imagination (purely ontological gymnastics).

    [3] Establish whether the atheist :
    (A) neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God or 
    (B) whether the atheist disbelieves in God, as they cannot hold both positions simultaneously.
    Atheists believe that all described (describable) gods are indistinguishable from pure imagination (purely ontological gymnastics).

    If the atheist is in group (A), then they don't have a stance on the issue that would require any rational justification as to whether God does or does not exist.
    If the a-bigfootlochnessspacealiensist is in group (A), then they don't have a stance on the issue that would require any rational justification as to whether bigfootlochnessspacealien does or does not exist.

    If they had a rational justification for believing that God does not exist, then this would warrant disbelief and the atheist would not be in group (A) because in order to be in group (A) the atheist must *not disbelieve* in the existence of God.
    This is naked hair-splitting, a distinction without a difference. 

    Do you personally strongly *not disbelieve* that bigfootlochnessspacealien exists?

    Do you personally strongly believe that bigfootlochnessspacealien is logically "impossible"?

    If not, do you consider yourself a bigfootlochnessspacealien "agnostic"?

    If you are a bigfootlochnessspacealien "agnostic" does that mean you would be inclined to follow the teachings of someone who claimed to have an ancient rule-book written by bigfootlochnessspacealien and that you will surely suffer eternal torture if you don't heed their dire warnings?

    I mean, surely, even if you think, as a bigfootlochnessspacealien "agnostic", that bigfootlochnessspacealien may possibly exist, you are going to require some rigorous-standards-of-evidence before you change your lifestyle to conform to the guidelines of any particular rule-book.  I mean, since you can't possibly follow ALL the rule-books at the same time, it would seem kind of pointless to just roll-the-dice when it seems plausible that NONE OF THEM ARE TRUE.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,406
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    If the atheist has rationally justified grounds for believing that God does not exist, but has no rationally justified grounds for believing God DOES exist, and the atheist still considers themselves to be in group (A), then they are irrational. It is irrational to have evidence supporting disbelief and no evidence supporting belief while still neither believing nor disbelieving the in the existence of God since the most rational approach is to base your beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence.
    Hogwash.

    Since the atheist in group (A) has no evidence against God's existence, any amount of evidence indicative of God's existence would rationally justify belief that theism is true and consequently, that atheism is false. In this instance, any amount of evidence would rationally justify belief in God's existence because the evidence would be net positive. 
    Even if an atheist believes that some Theistic god(s) are likely, that still gives them ZERO REASON to pick a rule-book out of a hat.

    The problem isn't, as you like to frame it "god(s) or no god(s)", the more salient question is "which rule-book, if any is the correct one and is changing my entire life worth the effort on a pure gamble"?

    If the atheist is in group (B), they have a burden of proof to show why disbelief in God is rationally warranted.
    (IFF) your god is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenevolent and the creator of all things (O3C) (THEN) nothing can contradict god's will (AND) everything is made of god-stuff (AND) nothing can ever or will ever contradict the will of such a god (AND) ipso facto god intentionally caused and is solely responsible for all horrifying atrocities (and all the good stuff and neutral stuff too of course).

    This syllogistic statement renders all possible theistic rule-books self-contradictory.

    They must provide evidence against the existence of God. If the evidence against God is greater than the evidence in support of God, disbelief is rationally warranted. 
    You must provide evidence against the existence of bigfootlochnessspacealien.  If the evidence against bigfootlochnessspacealien is greater than the evidence in support of bigfootlochnessspacealien, disbelief is rationally warranted.

    [4] the theist must provide the evidence that supports their view, and, if the atheist is in group (B), they must also provide the evidence that supports their view too.
    The bigfootlochnessspacealienist must provide the evidence that supports their view, and, if the "agnostic" is in the group (B), they must also provide the evidence that supports their view too (that bigfootlochnessspacealien has ZERO discernible impact on their worldview).

    [5] depending on the preponderance of evidence provided in the previous step, this will determime whether believing the claim is rationally warranted or not, or, depending on whether the atheist in group (B) provides counter-evidence, whether disbelief is rationally warranted.
    The bigfootlochnessspacealienist must convince the bigfootlochnessspacealien skeptic that they MUST take these claims seriously and not simply dismiss them as a figment of a deranged human imagination.  fOR example, [LINK]


19 days later

  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @3RU7AL
    The problem isn't, as you like to frame it "god(s) or no god(s)", the more salient question is "which rule-book, if any is the correct one and is changing my entire life worth the effort on a pure gamble"?
    1} Eternally eixstent, ergo inviolate, finite set of cosmic rules/laws/principles. Try as we may, we cannot violate them. Fuller states that that may be why God { Universe } created humans, to see if a mind accessing creatures could violate the ihherent integrity of our finite Universe.

    2} the list of rule books is related to the number of humans on Earth since each one has their own set of rules, that they follow and break, as circumstances allow them to adapt/change their behavior.

    3} ?



  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,406
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @mustardness
    2} the list of rule books is related to the number of humans on Earth since each one has their own set of rules, that they follow and break, as circumstances allow them to adapt/change their behavior.
    Although there does seem to be some regional and contemporaneous consensus.
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @3RU7AL
    Although there does seem to be some regional and contemporaneous consensus.Golden Rule Variatio
    "Some" is the key word there.

    The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them doonto you---- has
    a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there
    were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

    Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with
    compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of
    humanity or its distinct tribes. "

    Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God is instantaneous, forgiveness
    by humans takes time.

    Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and toothe for a tooth. [im not sure if
    any animals other than humans practice this concept]

    Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have
    them share with you."

    Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all
    humans, does not neccessitate chaos."

    Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is rendition of Ram Dass’sBe Here Now

21 days later

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,406
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    [5] depending on the preponderance of evidence provided in the previous step, this will determime whether believing the claim is rationally warranted or not, or, depending on whether the atheist in group (B) provides counter-evidence, whether disbelief is rationally warranted.
    The bigfootlochnessspacealienist must convince the bigfootlochnessspacealien skeptic that they MUST take these claims seriously and not simply dismiss them as a figment of a deranged human imagination.  fOR example, [LINK]