It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Blurred Line Between Theism and Atheism

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
When I look intently at the apparent contrast between Atheism and Theism, the supposed lines begin to blur. It becomes difficult, if not impossible to see much difference between the conduct of these tribes. Some troubling syllogisms to illustrate.

Some people identify themselves as Atheist or Theist,
Both Theists and Atheists require having knowledge and opinions on what deities are or aren’t.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists identify themselves as having knowledge and opinions on what deities are or aren’t.


Theists like to talk about religion.
Atheists like to talk about religion.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists like to talk about religion.


Theists source bibles for their knowledge on deities.
Atheists source bibles for their knowledge on deities.
Therefore, both Theists and Atheists source bibles for their knowledge on dieties.


Both Theists and Atheists source bibles.
To source bibles, one must read bibles.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists read bibles.


Atheists promote their opinion on deities.
Theists promote their opinion on deities.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists promote their opinion on deities.


Theists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.
Atheists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.
Therefore, Theists and Atheists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.


Theists, by definition, require belief in deities in order to define themselves as Theists.
Atheists, by definition, require lack of belief in deities in order to define themselves as Atheists.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists require dieites to define themselves.

Theists claim to know God is a deity.
Atheists claim to know God isn’t a deity.
Therefore, Theists and Atheists claim to know God.

Theists claim to know in what state God is or isn’t.
Atheists claim to know in what state God is or isn’t.
Both Atheists and Theists claim to know the states of God.

Atheists and Theists have opinions about the subject of God,
Without the subject of God there would be no opinions on the subject of God.
Both Theists and Atheists require the subject of God to have their opinions.

Theists put up billboards promoting how one should regard deities.
Atheists put up billboards promoting how one should regard deities.
Both Atheists and Theists put up billboards how one should regard deities.

All definitions of what a deity is or isn’t is an opinion on what a deity is or isn’t.
What a deity is or isn’t is an opinion on deities.
Therefore, deities are opinions on what a deity is or isn’t.

Deities are opinions on what a deity is or isn’t.
Atheists and Theists have opinions on what a deity is or isn’t.
Therefore, Atheists and Theists have deities.

Intolerance begins when one cannot tolerate another's opinions and beliefs.
Atheists and Theists do cannot tolerate each other's opinions and beliefs.
Atheists and Theists are intolerant.







posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
People need to understand their own beliefs, are just that, their own.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Both Theists and Atheists require having knowledge and opinions on what deities are or aren’t.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists identify themselves as having knowledge and opinions on what deities are or aren’t.


Your wrong. I have almost zero knowledge of such things, and require none. I simply choose not to believe in supernatural beings.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 





Your wrong. I have almost zero knowledge of such things, and require none. I simply choose not to believe in supernatural beings.


Yes, you can disagree with a premise and disregard the entire syllogism.

1 out of 14 cannot topple my entire argument however.
edit on 11-8-2013 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
When I look intently at the apparent contrast between Atheism and Theism, the supposed lines begin to blur. It becomes difficult, if not impossible to see much difference between the conduct of these tribes. Some troubling syllogisms to illustrate.

Some people identify themselves as Atheist or Theist,
Both Theists and Atheists require having knowledge and opinions on what deities are or aren’t.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists identify themselves as having knowledge and opinions on what deities are or aren’t.
I've answered that one.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Theists like to talk about religion.
Atheists like to talk about religion.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists like to talk about religion.
Nope, I dont like talking about it! I do try to defend myself though when people claim that I DO like to talk about it.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Theists source bibles for their knowledge on deities.
Atheists source bibles for their knowledge on deities.
Therefore, both Theists and Atheists source bibles for their knowledge on dieties.
Never ever owned a bible in my life.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Both Theists and Atheists source bibles.
To source bibles, one must read bibles.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists read bibles.
Never ever tried to source a bible.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Atheists promote their opinion on deities.
Theists promote their opinion on deities.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists promote their opinion on deities.
I dont promote my opinions on false gods.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Theists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.
Atheists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.
Therefore, Theists and Atheists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.
See above


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Theists, by definition, require belief in deities in order to define themselves as Theists.
Atheists, by definition, require lack of belief in deities in order to define themselves as Atheists.
Therefore, both Atheists and Theists require dieites to define themselves.
Wrong, I dont require to define myself at all.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Theists claim to know God is a deity.
Atheists claim to know God isn’t a deity.
Therefore, Theists and Atheists claim to know God.
Absurd.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Theists claim to know in what state God is or isn’t.
Atheists claim to know in what state God is or isn’t.
Both Atheists and Theists claim to know the states of God.
I dont believe in a god so how can I claim to know what state a non existent entity is in?


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Atheists and Theists have opinions about the subject of God,
Without the subject of God there would be no opinions on the subject of God.
Both Theists and Atheists require the subject of God to have their opinions.
I have no opinion other than you dont seem to understand what a NON belief is!


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Theists put up billboards promoting how one should regard deities.
Atheists put up billboards promoting how one should regard deities.
Both Atheists and Theists put up billboards how one should regard deities.
I dont put up bill boards!


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
All definitions of what a deity is or isn’t is an opinion on what a deity is or isn’t.
What a deity is or isn’t is an opinion on deities.
Therefore, deities are opinions on what a deity is or isn’t.
See above.


Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Deities are opinions on what a deity is or isn’t.
Atheists and Theists have opinions on what a deity is or isn’t.
Therefore, Atheists and Theists have deities.

Intolerance begins when one cannot tolerate another's opinions and beliefs.
Atheists and Theists do cannot tolerate each other's opinions and beliefs.
Atheists and Theists are intolerant.


I dont think you understand what a TRUE atheist is. Apart from when someone makes a thread like this claiming to know what I am, I give zero consideration to deities, in my world they do not exist, therefore everything you have written above, is for me, nonsense.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Its a very interesting read and well written.
Sadly though, you may have it wrong.
I have noted not all atheists are fundamental and dogmatic

The overall theme does describe the atheist and Christian belief, they do mirror



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 




Atheists like to talk about religion.


Its not that atheists like to talk about religion, we are forced to by the countless religion based ideas and memes shoved in our face every day. Atheists see a mind set that they find silly and insane, so they attempt to counter the silly using logic and reason. The more logic and reason does not work, the more silly and insane religion appears.



Atheists source bibles for their knowledge on deities.


Athiests source bibles for knowledge on dieties, sure. Simply because that is the ONLY source for said knowledge and it make logical sense to use it as a tool to show people it doesnt make a lick of sense.



To source bibles, one must read bibles.


This is partially incorrect. One doesnt have to actively read the bible, they just have to have read the bible, or the parts they are sourcing. There is no requirement to actively read and study the bible to use it as a tool to show the inconsistancies and the foolishness of believing such a book as fact.



Theists promote their opinion on deities.


Sure, there is no way to prove that any given deity does not exist. Just like there is no way to prove that leprechauns do not exist. I will concede this one if you can admit that using the same logic that aleprechaunists promote their "opinion" that leprechauns do not exists and that believing in leprechauns is equally as valid as believing in a deity.



Atheists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.


Which definition of dogmatic are go using here? Considering established opinion as if it were fact, or are you trying to say that atheism is a religion? If its the first they yeah, lack of evidence to support something means that something does not exist. If you are claiming atheism is a religion they i wholeheartedly disagree.



Atheists, by definition, require lack of belief in deities in order to define themselves as Atheists.


No arguments here



Atheists claim to know God isn’t a deity.


False, lack of belief does not equal absolute knowledge. Im going to assume here that when you say "God isn't a deity" you mean that God does not exist. To say 100% that there are no deities requires the same about of "faith" that saying 100% that there is a deity, or deities. Sure there will be some atheists who will claim to "know", but they are being intellectually dishonest and you will find a vast majority of atheists do not claim to "know" anything. All we can do is make a judgement based off of the evidence available and as of right now the complete lack of any evidence to support a deity leads to the conclusion that said deity does not exist.



Atheists claim to know in what state God is or isn’t.


Again this is false, with zero evidence to support God even exists how do you suppose atheists would have any way of knowing what state he is in?



Without the subject of God there would be no opinions on the subject of God.


I agree with this completely, but i also feel that this quote sums this up nicely.

“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.” - Penn Jillette




Deities are opinions on what a deity is or isn’t.


Your logic here is faulty. How can a deity be what a deity is? Cows are opinions on what cows are. God is opinions on what God is or isnt. Nope, still not making sense.



Intolerance begins when one cannot tolerate another's opinions and beliefs.
Atheists and Theists do cannot tolerate each other's opinions and beliefs.
Atheists and Theists are intolerant.


Everybody is intolerant of many things. I personally am intolerant of murders. I am also intolerant of clowns and bugs, especially spiders. Yes i am intolerant when it comes to people who would indoctrinate their children to avoid logic and reason and focus instead on blindly believing what your superiors tell you, regardless of how silly it seems. I am also intolerant of people who worship a being who would torture a person for eternity for not loving him strong enough. I am intolerant of any being that has ever asked for a blood sacrifice, or has mass murdered countless people in fits of rage.

So no, i do not think there is a blurred line, i think its a well defined and very wide line. Either you believe in one or more of the 1200+ deities that have existed over the history of the human race, or you dont.

DC
edit on 8/11/2013 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Some people identify themselves as Nonbelievers in Santa Claus, or believers.
Both believers and Nonbelievers in Santa Claus require having knowledge and opinions on what Santa Claus is or isn't.
Therefore, both believers and nonbelievers in Santa Claus identify themselves as having knowledge and opinions on what Santa Claus is or isn't.

Sooner or later nonbelievers in Santa Claus have to tell the believers that there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

Even before the believers grow up they come to understand and accept that there is no Santa, and become nonbelievers themselves.

Therefore, eight year old believers in Santa Claus are smarter than adult believers in gods.

edit on 8/11/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 






I've answered that one.


No. You said it was false without arguing why.




Nope, I dont like talking about it! I do try to defend myself though when people claim that I DO like to talk about it.


Yet you do talk about it. why such a glutton for punishment?





Never ever owned a bible in my life.


Never said you did.





Never ever tried to source a bible.


Point taken




I dont promote my opinions on false gods.


Calling gods “false gods” is an opinion. I am, however, not saying I disagree.





See above


See above




Wrong, I dont require to define myself at all.


If you don't define yourself, why are you answering these questions? This is for those who define themselves as atheist or theist.




Absurd.


Poor argument.




I dont believe in a god so how can I claim to know what state a non existent entity is in?


non-existence is a state.




I have no opinion other than you dont seem to understand what a NON belief is!


Then why do you NON believe in deities?




I dont put up bill boards!

I have never said you were all atheists. If this doesn't apply, it doesn't apply.




See above.

See above.



I dont think you understand what a TRUE atheist is. Apart from when someone makes a thread like this claiming to know what I am, I give zero consideration to deities, in my world they do not exist, therefore everything you have written above, is for me, nonsense.


I’m sure every atheist considers himself a true atheist. maybe you can show me an example of an untrue atheist?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by xDeadcowx
 


I won't refute all your arguments. You made good points. But I wanted to talk about this one:




Cows are opinions on what cows are. God is opinions on what God is or isnt. Nope, still not making sense.


The syllogism was indeed a slight stretch.

Cows can be known to exist with some concrete surety, giving us corroborative evidence between cow and definition of cow. However there is no concrete surety without the existence of a deity to corroborate between actual deity and definition of deity. Because of this, people's definitions of deities are what they see as deities.

Maybe a little too philosophic.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Some people identify themselves as Nonbelievers in Santa Claus, or believers.
Both believers and Nonbelievers in Santa Claus require having knowledge and opinions on what Santa Claus is or isn't.
Therefore, both believers and nonbelievers in Santa Claus identify themselves as having knowledge and opinions on what Santa Claus is or isn't.

Sooner or later nonbelievers in Santa Claus have to tell the believers that there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

Even before the believers grow up they come to understand and accept that there is no Santa, and become nonbelievers themselves.

Therefore, eight year old believers in Santa Claus are smarter than adult believers in gods.


People know what puts presents underneath trees. People don't know what started the universe.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 





People don't know what started the universe.


Exactly! And, I doubt we will ever know. One thing is for sure though, it wasn't some desert god that condemns gay people to hell, kills everyone in a flood, kills all of the firstborn of Egypt, turns a woman into a pillar of salt for turning around, or blames the daughters of Lot for raping them when he was drunk.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   


Both Theists and Atheists require having knowledge and opinions on what deities are or aren’t.


Belief/ non-belief is not the same thing as knowledge.





Therefore, both Theists and Atheists source bibles for their knowledge on dieties.Therefore, both Atheists and Theists read bibles


In a predominantly Christian nation, yes. But other books/religious texts are sourced as well.
Not every theist and atheist has done so.




Therefore, both Atheists and Theists promote their opinion on deities.


So.. basically what you are saying is almost everyone promotes their opinion on deities.. fair enough





Atheists are dogmatic about their opinions on deities.


Some are dogmatic about their opinions, others are not.
However atheism itself has none.




Atheists, by definition, require lack of belief in deities in order to define themselves as Atheists.


An NOT playing tennis is a sport, too.




Theists claim to know God is a deity. Atheists claim to know God isn’t a deity. Therefore, Theists and Atheists claim to know God.


Actually, those who claim to have knowledge of a deity are called gnostic. Those who don't claim to have knowledge of a deity are called agnostics.
Atheists and theists can be either gnostic or agnostic, but your definition is completely wrong.





Atheists and Theists have opinions about the subject of God,


Most generalized statement I have seen all day
Pretty much everyone has an opinion on the subject of a deity.
And, like you mentioned earlier, has an opinion on it.
You're right.





Intolerance begins when one cannot tolerate another's opinions and beliefs. Atheists and Theists do cannot tolerate each other's opinions and beliefs. Atheists and Theists are intolerant.


If that was true, we would all be dead by now, let's face it. We actually co-exist very well with one another in person and on a face to face basis because we are inherently selfish. Online is usually worse than real life, not that there are not fully intolerant people. Just saying if we didn't tolerate each other, we would be killing off everyone who disagrees with us.


I'm not sure what you are doing this for... are you trying to say that we are all more alike than we are different as a species and should be more forgiving..

or are you just trying to elude to the fact that you are better than those who identify with a word that describes their beliefs/non-beliefs because you are a rare minority neither theist or atheist? (Even though you undoubtedly are by someones definition.)

Or some other reason? Trying to sound enlightened?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by smilesmcgee
 



Belief/ non-belief is not the same thing as knowledge.


If one looks up “deity” in the dictionary, he will have knowledge on what the concept of a deity is. This knowledge is required to have any opinion on whether they exist or not. Do you disagree?


In a predominantly Christian nation, yes. But other books/religious texts are sourced as well.
Not every theist and atheist has done so.

If you'll notice, I used the term "bibles". That could mean the Bible, or it could mean The God Delusion

• ( bible ) informal any authoritative book: “Larousse Gastronomique,” the bible of French cooking.


Also, I was being general.



So.. basically what you are saying is almost everyone promotes their opinion on deities.. fair enough


No, I was saying atheists and theists do.




Some are dogmatic about their opinions, others are not.
However atheism itself has none.


Atheism isn’t a person and is therefore without opinion. Atheists, however, are people.


“Atheists, by definition, require lack of belief in deities in order to define themselves as Atheists. “

An NOT playing tennis is a sport, too.


I don’t think I understand your argument. Yes, not playing tennis requires a lack of playing tennis, if that’s what you mean. However, arguing about tennis and declaring intellectual authority and being dogmatic about tennis doesn’t require any tennis experience.


Actually, those who claim to have knowledge of a deity are called gnostic. Those who don't claim to have knowledge of a deity are called agnostics.
Atheists and theists can be either gnostic or agnostic, but your definition is completely wrong.


theism |ˈTHēˌizəm|
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism.
Oxford English Dictionary


Definition of THEISM

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
— the·ist noun or adjective
— the·is·tic also the·is·ti·cal adjective
— the·is·ti·cal·ly adverb

Merriam Webster's Dictionary


gnostic |ˈnästik|
adjective
of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.
• ( Gnostic )of or relating to Gnosticism.
noun( Gnostic )
an adherent of Gnosticism.
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (as a noun): via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek gnōstikos, from gnōstos ‘known’ (related to gignōskein ‘know’).

Oxford English Dictionary



atheism |ˈāTHēˌizəm|
noun
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Oxford English dictionary



Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity
 See atheism defined for kids »

Merriam Webster’s dictionary.


I already mentioned, in order to have belief or disbelief, one must have knowledge. One cannot be ignorant on the subject, yet affirm or deny its existence



"Atheists and Theists have opinions about the subject of God, "


Most generalized statement I have seen all day  Pretty much everyone has an opinion on the subject of a deity.
And, like you mentioned earlier, has an opinion on it.
You're right.


I’m glad you agree. Then since one is born without opinions, one cannot be born atheist.




Intolerance begins when one cannot tolerate another's opinions and beliefs. Atheists and Theists do cannot tolerate each other's opinions and beliefs. Atheists and Theists are intolerant.


If that was true, we would all be dead by now, let's face it. We actually co-exist very well with one another in person and on a face to face basis because we are inherently selfish. Online is usually worse than real life, not that there are not fully intolerant people. Just saying if we didn't tolerate each other, we would be killing off everyone who disagrees with us.


I don't think you understand the definition of intolerance. I didn’t imply atheists and theists were murderers.


intolerance |inˈtälərəns|
noun
unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own: a struggle against religious intolerance. an intolerance of dissent.
• an inability to eat a food or take a drug without adverse effects: young children with lactose intolerance. he may have a food intolerance to dairy products.





I'm not sure what you are doing this for... are you trying to say that we are all more alike than we are different as a species and should be more forgiving..

or are you just trying to elude to the fact that you are better than those who identify with a word that describes their beliefs/non-beliefs because you are a rare minority neither theist or atheist? (Even though you undoubtedly are by someones definition.)

Or some other reason? Trying to sound enlightened?


I am criticizing religion.
edit on 12-8-2013 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join