Curiosity - Atheist or Theist?

[TwilightSpectre]

I guess it comes down to different definitions. For me, an "atheist" is someone who has no belief (or an absence of belief) in the existence of deities; you seem to treat an "atheist" as someone who believes there are no deities. Does that sound right?

As a (related) fun factoid I learnt the other day: apparently Christians were pejoratively referred to as atheists in Roman times due to not believing in the pantheon. How language changes!

Anyway, I think I'll leave it here. Thanks for the thoughts, though.

[zapshe]

@TwilightSpectre We are atheists when it comes to Thor, Zeus, etc.. Thousands of Gods you're atheist to. The definition itself can be applied in several ways I think.

The reason atheist may be treated by us as someone believing in no deities is that there's really only a few now. You don't have to say you're atheist in terms of Zeus and such. Now, being atheist means you don't have a religion or deity because you're rejecting major religions and rejecting most outdated ones by default.

[z05DSL3A]

TwilightSpectre wrote:

I guess it comes down to different definitions. For me, an "atheist" is someone who has no belief (or an absence of belief) in the existence of deities; you seem to treat an "atheist" as someone who believes there are no deities. Does that sound right?

I fail to see the distinction between the two definitions...unless the first definition is in respect to a particular deity...but even then if you have the slightest acknowledgement that that deity could exist means that you have some sort of belief in respect to that deity, thus taking you out of being 'atheist'.

I see atheism as binary. I guess that theism could be seen as a sliding scale of agnostic <-> gnostic.

Define Atheist as Zero Belief in Deities.
Define Theist as Not Atheist.

[helios]

I fail to see the distinction between the two definitions.

To believe is to be convinced of something; that is, to have looked at whatever evidence was presented and to have accepted it as valid.
If you believe the statement "at least one god exists" then that makes you a theist. If you don't then that makes you an atheist. Now, [not believing the statement "at least one god exists"] and [believing the statement "no gods exist"] are not two equivalent conditions. The latter is a logically stronger condition (in the sense that it implies the former).

For example, if I tell you "North is that way" and you don't believe me, that doesn't mean you believe that North is exactly the opposite way I pointed. Maybe you do believe that, but it would be unfounded of me to jump to that conclusion if all you said was "I don't believe you".

[z05DSL3A]

So, taking believe to be 'accept that (something) is true, especially without proof' we would have:
1: An atheist is someone who has no acceptance of the existence of deities.
2: An atheist is someone who accepts their are no deities.
I suppose there could be a very subtle difference in to two but my view fits equally with the two definitions.

I guess, along the lines of the above, a definition of theist could be
3: A theist is someone who has some acceptance of the existence of deities.
4: A theist is someone who accepts their are 1 or more deities.
Now here I do see more of a distinction here but (4) does not fly with my definition current view of a theist.

For a long time I had the view of (2) and (4) with the grey area between filled if agnosticism but I now see it as if you are in the grey area then you have some form of acceptance in the existence of deities.

I don't necessarily see atheism and theism as opposite more like...I don't know, lets say life and death. Death is the absence of life, there is no degrees to it. Life on the other hand has plenty a variance to it.

(Sorry if that is a bit rambley, it's 3 in the morning here)

[helios]

I don't think that analogy is quite right. Maybe reformulate it like this?
1. "I believe there are no gods."
2. "I don't believe in gods."
3. "I don't believe there are no gods."
4. "I believe in some god(s)."

For #1 (gnostic atheist) n==0 exactly.
For #2 (agnostic atheist) n>=0, and will behave as if n==0 until presented with better evidence.
For #3 (agnostic theist) n>=0, and will behave as if n>0 until presented with better evidence.
For #4 (gnostic theist) n>0.

Yes, atheism isn't the opposite of theism in the same sense as above. That's not what I was trying to say with my example. Atheism in the broad sense is just the rejection of a claim. My point was that both "some gods exist" and "no gods exist" are two separate claims, and that to say that disbelieving one implies believing the other is like saying that if you don't believe in unicorns you must logically believe in leprechauns. I was just illustrating the logical independence of belief in separate claims.

[zapshe]

@helios You certainly don't have to share, but are you an atheist or theist helios?

[z05DSL3A]

helios, I don't think your rewording of the definitions is equivalent to the original but anyway I'm explaining my definition not wanting to getting into ' why I am wrong'.

Yes, atheism isn't the opposite of theism in the same sense as above. That's not what I was trying to say with my example.

I was only restating my position as to why I don't agree with the quadrature diagram and the idea of agnostic atheist etc.

My point was that both "some gods exist" and "no gods exist" are two separate claims, and that to say that disbelieving one implies believing the other is like saying that if you don't believe in unicorns you must logically believe in leprechauns.

You start with a generality and give specifics. The equivalent with unicorns would be "no mythical creatures exits" and "some mythical creatures exist". You can be in ether camp and say you don't believe in unicorns however you can't be in both camps if you think that there is any chance of there being leprechauns.

For now I'm going to leave it there, I'll answer questions if asked.

[toad]

"some gods exist" and "no gods exist" are two separate claims

... which, at least in classical logic, are opposite:

(declare-sort Entity)
(declare-fun god (Entity) Bool)

(define-fun someGodsExist () Bool
  (exists ((x Entity)) (god x)))
  
(define-fun noGodsExist () Bool
  (forall ((x Entity)) (not (god x))))

(assert
    (not (and
      (=
        someGodsExist
        (not noGodsExist))
      (=
        (not someGodsExist)
        noGodsExist)
    ))
)

(check-sat)

unsat

https://rise4fun.com/Z3/2WJA

Not sure what happens in other logics (e.g. intuitionistic or non-monotonic ones), but, in my view,
if you want to have a sound argument, you should also specify the logic you're working with here.

I've worked with programmers that observed salah, gathered for a minyan, went to all the Hindu festivals ...

I second that. I currently work at a place where we do R&D in (mainly) aerospace domain (my focus area is formal verification), and I can tell you that even in my local branch there are all kinds of people w.r.t. religious beliefs.

[helios]

... which, at least in classical logic, are opposite:

Yes, "x" and "!x" are logically opposite: exactly one of them must be true at any given time. However, theism is not about what's true, but about what someone believes to be true. "I believe 'x'" and "I believe '!x'" are not logically opposite; the third option "I believe neither 'x' nor '!x'" is logically valid.

[Cubbi]

helios wrote:

the third option "I believe neither 'x' nor '!x'" is logically valid.

that's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox

[Satan]

I forgot to say.. I religiously identify as an apache attack helicopter.

[SophiaCristina]

I'm Christian if you have curiosity... But my religious concept is not exactly the church institution standard.

[zapshe]

Thanks for the input everyone.

@SophiaCristina I hear that a lot! I had a friend tell me he was Christian, then by the end of the discussion about his faiths I asked him, "So where exactly does your belief have any standing in Christianity?" And basically he realized he wasn't Christian at all by the end of the conversation. Just a story I was reminded of.