Atheism, theism and jelly beans

[Vociferous]

It sounds to me like your God is not very well defined. It sounds like it can be all things to all people. But that's not a topic we need to discuss in this thread.

It includes all the usual features of a God, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. just without any particular religious storytelling or mythology. Maybe that's disconcerting for you, to have no mythology to refute as a proxy to theism itself.

Atheism is the idea that gods don't exist.

And how does that differ from what your OP criticizes religious people for thinking?

Most atheists these days say that they don't believe that God exists. Religious people, however, are prone to assuming that this means the atheists believe that God doesn't exist.

In my experience, it is generally hard to get the religious to understand the distinction between not holding a belief and holding the "opposite" belief.

It seems you have trouble keeping it straight yourself. If you've since changed your mind, your whole OP seems irrelevant.

Your own OP argues that atheism is "not holding a belief" in the existence of any God, as opposed to the belief that gods don't exist, e.g. '"opposite" belief'.

How could that not be a denial of theism, being the idea that gods do exist? On the other hand, I tend to be a bit suspicious when theists use the word "denial" because in my experience it usually turns out that what they mean when they use that words is that they think that atheists secretly believe in their god(s) after all but reject the god(s) because they hate them, or something. "Denial" has connotations of calculated refusal to believe what ought to be an obvious truth. The existence of gods is not an obvious truth; it is a contested claim.

You seem to be conflating a-theism with anti-theism. The "a-" prefix denotes indifference (mere lack of belief), while the "anti-" prefix denotes direct opposition. If you're now claiming that atheism entails the latter, then your OP distinction is completely superfluous. Just an anti-religious way to criticize people. It's as if you read an article with the OP analogy but failed to understand the distinction it was making. Now maybe it's just that you are both atheist and anti-theist, but conflating the two runs counter to your own OP.

You seem to have some personal baggage that doesn't comport with any standard definitions. Maybe that's what tripping you up?

But, coming back to your point, when I refer to religious claims in a context like this one, it is usually to point out that I don't find those claims convincing enough for me to accept that the god(s) being described are real. If you want to argue that I am therefore using theist claims to support my "denial" of theism, then I have no real argument about that, I suppose. My "denial" of theism is supported every time theists fail to make a good case for god.

No, I'm saying that you are using religious claims to support your denial of theism. Why is it so hard to understand the distinction? You do understand what Deism is, right? Your "denial" of theism is supported every time religious fail to make a good case for god. Again, while most (not all) religious are theists, not all theists are religious. And you seem reticent to discuss theism without any religious trappings. Why is that? Are you afraid a good case could be made?

The term "anti-theism" suggests to me something other than merely finding theistic claims unconvincing. To me, it suggests arguing that theism is harmful for one reason or another. I see that as a separate argument to the one about whether the gods exist. Even if the gods don't exist, the theists' beliefs that surround their god belief could potentially be useful or harmful, or somewhere in between.

Again, you seem to have some personal baggage that doesn't comport with standard definitions. Anti-theism is the belief that gods definitely do not exist, nothing more. It's an affirmative claim, rather that the noncommittal claim of atheism. Personally, I think you have a stronger argument against the typical religious person if you stick with the noncommittal claim. It's harder for them to shift the burden onto someone making no affirmative claim.

We would have a more productive discussion if you weren't using so many idiosyncratic definitions.

I didn't set out to refute theism in my opening post. I set out to explain something about what atheism is. It's no wonder my opening post doesn't refute theism; that was not my aim there.

The refutation of theism is simple for me: there's no convincing evidence to support the existence of the alleged god(s), and the non-evidential arguments for the existence of a deity are similarly unconvincing. Bear in mind that here I'm simply telling you what I believe.

So you are both atheist and anti-theist. You definitely believe that no gods exist. In which case, any religious person is wholly justified in making the arguments, at least with you, that your OP criticizes them for. It really seems that you are then the one who has taken this thread off-topic from the OP.

Again, thinking you've refuted theism by finding no religious arguments convincing, while your prerogative, doesn't address theism in and of itself. If you really think it does, it's odd that you seem determined to avoid theism itself.



cont...

 

[Vociferous]

...cont

I thought by now it would be clear to you. I don't believe that God exists. That makes me an atheist. But my belief doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, any more that your belief proves that it does. I'm also open to the idea that your God exists, after all, and will be happy to join you in your theism/deism if and when convincing arguments for your God are put to me. Presenting some convincing evidence would be a good start if you want to try to change my mind on this.

You seem to vacillate between saying atheism is "not believing that God exists" and "believing that God doesn't exist". That's the exact distinction made in your own OP.

But I'm not making a positive judgment on the reality of God. God might exist. It's just that I haven't seen anything that convinces me that God exists, yet. I have an open mind on this. I don't currently believe that God exists, and that makes me an atheist, by definition.

We could delve deeper and talk about my estimate of the probability that God exists (low, based on the attempts made to argue for God so far), but that's another topic.

See, you're terribly inconsistent with how you express whatever it is you really mean. In this post alone, you've gone from saying "Atheism is the idea that gods don't exist" to "God might exist." See the trouble? That's why the clear distinction between atheism and anti-theism is useful.

It may seem like a subtle distinction to you, but for me it's not just a hedge. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove beyond doubt that something doesn't exist, at least in cases where that something is as vaguely defined as god(s). It seems to me that the onus of proof ought generally to be on those who make the positive claim, not the negative one. The negative claim is the default, as far as I can see.

If you claim you've discovered cold fusion, I don't see why I should believe that cold fusion exists just on that basis. It ought to be up to you to show to my satisfaction that cold fusion is real. I don't see that I have any obligation to prove to you that cold fusion is impossible. You make the claim; you present the argument and evidence in support.

I agree that no one can be expected to prove a negative. But it's generally easier to avoid affirmative negative claims than to explain to some people why. And the onus is always on the positive claim, as the null hypothesis is the default assumption. The question is whether atheism or anti-theism best entails the null hypothesis. Considering science does not bother with negative claims, like affirming pink unicorns don't exist, it seems the null hypothesis is best represented by disbelief (atheism) rather than negative belief (anti-theism).

Since I've seen you try to convince people that their erroneous ideas about science (flat earth, water spinning off the earth, rockets landing on moon, etc.) are incorrect, it seems a bit disingenuous to say you wouldn't do likewise with claims of cold fusion.

It seems to me that your deistic God, if that's what it is, is unfalsifiable. How would the world look different if your God did not exist? What experiment or observation allows us to tell the difference between a universe with your God in it and one without?

(If you feel like claiming that existence itself is contingent on God, that would be a prime example of non-falsifiability, wouldn't it?)

Only if you believe in the misguided notion of scientism would you believe that every question can be addressed/known by science. But it seems you would find some notions of God not extraordinary enough, perhaps because they would not offer extraordinary evidence. Again, insulated with incredulity.

Not specifically/solely deistic. If God didn't exist, why is there something rather than nothing, why the evidence of a beginning of the universe, why the ubiquitous belief arising independently in almost every culture throughout history? These are questions that science and even philosophy cannot compellingly answer. Now I'm sure you have plenty of reasons to believe none of those point to a God, but I assume you acknowledge that those same reasons do not compel your conclusion.

Sounds like you think to refute Christianity would be morally bad, or to be anti-religion would be a moral failure. Is that correct?

Nothing of the sort. What a person finds convincing is not an inherently moral question.

Does your atheism entail your disbelief in the existence of any God or your belief "that gods do not exist"? The former is an accurate description of atheism, while the latter is what your OP chastised religious people for thinking atheism means.

I wrote the OP, so there's your hint.

Yet you still seem to vacillate, even in this post.

The question about which of God's messengers are significant seems like an important part of any religion to me. When it comes to Islam and Christianity, wouldn't you say that the argument over the divinity or otherwise of Jesus is rather a crucial matter? The answer has important implications for the nature of Yahweh and Allah. In fact, it's such an important question that I'd say those two deities are not really the same deity at all, despite protests to the contrary from followers of each religion.

Important part of religion, sure, but not theism. Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet, and even among Christians, there's some variety of belief about the Trinity. From the outside, you really have no basis to doubt what the followers tell you about their own beliefs. That's just like them trying to tell you that you really do believe in God but are just in "denial".

Since both religions share the Old Testament, you seem to be saying that one God split into two. That's...um...unique.

Again, I'd say that monotheism vs polytheism is rather a crucial matter to decide if you're investigating which religion (if any) is correct.

Who's trying to decide which religion is correct? That seems like a preposterous idea from an atheist.

While mono-/polytheists would disagree on the number of Gods, they would agree on the central question of theism itself, that at least one God exists.

Theism does not necessarily entail any belief in a person-like God. Deism is theistic without any such belief.

Again, you're merely pointing out schisms in religious thinking. Either God is personal or he isn't. Either he is a Trinity, or he isn't. Either he is one or he is many.

And those schisms do not touch on the central tenet of theism, that at least one God exists. Again, theism is not religion.

Doesn't the plethora of divergent views suggest to you that, just possibly, none of the theists are right?

No, because, again, theism is not religion. Almost every religion agrees that at least one God exists.
And the plethora of views suggest to me that theism (the belief that at least one God exists) has such a strong impact that many diverse cultures have made it a fairly central element of its mythology and morality.

But is there anything else where the diversity of views suggests to you that none are true? Or is religion a special case?
And even if no religions are right, that does not imply that their shared theistic belief is also incorrect. It would be faulty reasoning to presume that differences in mythology somehow undermine the point of agreement.

Of course, maybe you're one who tries to smoosh them all together, to argue that - somehow - all of them are right, even thought they all make radically different claims.

What would give you that idea? While I think different flavors of theism are not mutually exclusive, different religions definitely make competing claims.

You repeatedly seem to be arguing some religious straw man. I wonder if you conflating religion and theism works to insulate you from addressing purely theistic arguments. Maybe religious arguments are just so much more like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[DaveC426913]

And it seems a bit naive to think you can discuss something that is defined solely as the opposite of something else without also discussing that something else.

It hasn't been that hard for me; I've done it here before when our resident theist Jan made a similar assumption.

When he asked how I can believe God doesn't exist without first defining what God I was taking about, my answer was simple:

"Is this God supernatural in nature? Yes? Then he probably doesn't exist, since I generally do not believe in supernatural things. A more detailed break down than that is superfluous."

 

[Vociferous]

And it seems a bit naive to think you can discuss something that is defined solely as the opposite of something else without also discussing that something else.

It hasn't been that hard for me; I've done it here before when our resident theist Jan made a similar assumption.

When he asked how I can believe God doesn't exist without first defining what God I was taking about, my answer was simple:

"Is this God supernatural in nature? Yes? Then he probably doesn't exist, since I generally do not believe in supernatural things. A more detailed break down than that is superfluous."

Except that you have to precede by immediately asking about the nature of God. Hence not talking about atheism without also addressing theism. Not sure how you think that contradicts what I said.

But more interesting...what if the answer is "no", God is not supernatural in nature? If the supernatural are things that contradict natural laws, I don't think a God would contradict its own creation.

 

[DaveC426913]

Except that you have to precede by immediately asking about the nature of God. Hence not talking about atheism without also addressing theism. Not sure how you think that contradicts what I said.

OK, if you consider 'Is it supernatural? Yes or no?' to be a discussion.

But more interesting...what if the answer is "no", God is not supernatural in nature?

Then you would be able to produce him so I may shake his hand.

If the supernatural are things that contradict natural laws,...

Well that's not what it means, so moot point.

I don't think a God would contradict its own creation.

That sounds like a problem for theists to work out.

Atheists already have a perfectly consistent solution to that paradox.

 

[Vociferous]

OK, if you consider 'Is it supernatural? Yes or no?' to be a discussion.

It's literally asking about the nature of God. No consideration involved, just reading the actual words written. But do tell, how do you ask about God without discussing God?

Then you would be able to produce him so I may shake his hand.

Can you produce the wind or dark matter so I may shake their hands?
You presume a lot about God to assume it is embodied with hands.

Well that's not what it means, so moot point.

su·per·nat·u·ral
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.​

So the noumenon, qualia, etc. are supernatural? Those are beyond scientific understanding.
And how would we know something is beyond the laws of nature if it never conflicts with those laws?

That sounds like a problem for theists to work out.

Atheists already have a perfectly consistent solution to that paradox.

So do I, a God that is not supernatural.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's literally asking about the nature of God. No consideration involved, just reading the actual words written. But do tell, how do you ask about God without discussing God?

Again, if you accept a single binary question as 'discussing' then OK.

But to be clear: we are discussing the concept of God. That is not the same thing as discussing the nature of God. And note, that that concept is simply the assertions and beliefs of individuals.

Think about, say, the magic of Harry Potter. I can certainly discuss it as a concept; but it doesn't require discussing anything about the details of it to conclude that is is fictional. If asked whether its real, I don't need to discuss any specifics.

We can discuss the thoughts and creative process of the writer(s). Much like with God. We can only discuss what various theists believe God to be. There's no objective description of God to discuss.

Can you produce the wind or dark matter so I may shake their hands?

OK, let me turn your pseudo-definition back on you then. Since you can't shake the hand of the wind or of DM, does that mean you consider them supernatural?

You presume a lot about God to assume it is embodied with hands.

I suppose I could use less interesting language if that would be easier for you to follow the logic. But I suspect you're smarter than that. I suspect this was just an evasion of the point - which you got. Agree?

Also, God can give himself hands, can't he?

su·per·nat·u·ral
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Yes. Beyond or above.
You'll agree I'm under no obligation to accept your substitution of word.

So the noumenon, qualia, etc. are supernatural? Those are beyond scientific understanding.

No they're not. Limited direct scientific scrutiny, sure. Certainly not beyond.

And how would we know something is beyond the laws of nature if it never conflicts with those laws?

Dunno. Your word. I'll stick with the definition.

So do I, a God that is not supernatural.

OK, that certainly puts you in an extremely small club.

But one possibly fruitful for exploration. It raises a whole bunch of intriguing questions.

Is it alive?
Conscious?
Where does it live?
Does it affect Earthly activity?
If so, by what mechanism??
Is it bound by natural physics?
Say, limited to the speed of light?
Thermodynamics? Does it do work? Emit heat?
Obey laws of conservation? If it cures me of illness, can I detect its machinations with the right instruments?
Did it come into existence some time since the Big Bang?

These questions by be difficult to get definitive answers, but if it is natural in origin, they are certainly scientifically explorable in principle.


And perhaps the biggest question: Is it not self-contradictory? By pretty much any theological definition (barring yours) God is supernatural. If it's natural, then it's just another (presumably very powerful) alien critter, is it not?

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

That is: The, "lack of belief in any gods", indcludes, "When an atheist says she doesn't believe in your God". Compared to the lack of belief in any gods, your distinction that, "that the atheist doesn't share your God belief - no more and no less", is a word game with a fallacious setup.

I apologise for the confusion this has apparently caused you. Perhaps you thought that an atheist needs to deny every theist's personal version of God, one after the other, rather than making the more general statement that the atheist doesn't currently accept that any gods exist. I think it's fine to make the general statement. If the theist has a good argument and evidence for his god, of course the atheist is willing to change his mind. But I thought that, by now, I'd have made this point abundantly clear in this thread.

Any other questions?

You're both playing word games.

I think you're playing word games, along with Vociferous. You're both looking for some "gotcha" moment where you hope to catch me out in an inconsistency. Since the only way to do that is focus on pedantic minutiae, that's what you're both trying to do.

I'll expand on this in my next reply to Vociferous.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

You might want to make up your mind. You literally asked me about what you're now suddenly claiming is somehow off-topic...in a thread title mentioning theism.

Err... no I didn't. I merely said that I would be interested to know what convinced you that a god exists. I was thinking we could discuss that in a different thread. Sorry for any confusion this has caused you. It sounds like you thought I wanted you to discuss your god in this thread.

And it seems a bit naive to think you can discuss something that is defined solely as the opposite of something else without also discussing that something else.

Point taken.

Okay, I'm willing to broaden the discussion if you feel like you want to discuss your god here. Flexibility is a virtue.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

It includes all the usual features of a God, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. just without any particular religious storytelling or mythology. Maybe that's disconcerting for you, to have no mythology to refute as a proxy to theism itself.

No, I'm fine with it, really.

Do you draw any conclusions about your God's possible role in the creation of the universe? What does this omnipotent God of yours do on a day-to-day basis? Do you have any knowledge about that?

Atheism is the idea that gods don't exist.

And how does that differ from what your OP criticizes religious people for thinking?

In the opening post, I was talking about what atheists tend to mean when they say that they don't believe that gods exist. I get that it's a subtle distinction, so I understand your struggle.

First, we have two competing concepts or ideas:
1. No gods exist.
2. At least one god exists.

Atheism is the first of these two ideas; theism is the second.

With that under our belts, we drill down into the details of the atheist belief. Possible varieties of atheism include:

1a. The belief that the existence of gods is ruled out by some kind of logical reasoning or a priori assumption.
1b. The belief that the existence of gods has not been convincingly and objectively established by those who claim belief 2, above.

My assertion is that atheists are generally more likely to hold the position 1b, rather than 1a. My own position is 1b, just to be clear. Additionally, I assert that many theists assume, incorrectly, that atheists generally hold position 1a. I also addressed another position: those theists who assume that, in fact, people who claim to be atheists actually, secretly, hold position 2 whilst asserting position 1, meaning that atheists are "in denial" because they are really closet theists.

It seems you have trouble keeping it straight yourself. If you've since changed your mind, your whole OP seems irrelevant.

I haven't changed my mind. It seems I have not succeeded in adequately explaining my position to you so that you can understand what it is, that's all. If you're still unclear after this post, I'm happy to answer further questions, but maybe the above will help you (?), along with the rest, below.

Your own OP argues that atheism is "not holding a belief" in the existence of any God, as opposed to the belief that gods don't exist, e.g. '"opposite" belief'.

Atheism involves holding a belief - namely belief 1a or 1b, above (and I leave it open to add 1c, 1d etc. if further positions come to my attention that are relevant to this discussion). Note, however, my holding belief 1b does not mean that I "believe there are no gods" or that I "believe that gods don't exist". I certainly entertain the idea or concept that there might, in fact, be no gods, but I do not assert that as a positive belief I have. The reason is simple: I don't believe I have sufficient evidence against the existence of gods in order to be able to draw the definite conclusion that there either cannot be any gods anywhere anytime or that there certainly is no god presently existing.

In other words, I don't believe that there are no gods. I don't know if there are gods or if there are no gods - just like I wouldn't know whether there was an even or odd number of jelly beans in the jar, in the terms of my opening post. Also in my opening post, I wrote:

When an atheist says she doesn't believe in your God, that usually doesn't mean she believes your God doesn't exist. Rather, it means exactly what it appears to mean on its face: that the atheist doesn't share your God belief - no more and no less.
​

Read this in the context of position 1b, expressed above. I do not share your belief in your deistic god. That doesn't mean I believe your deist god doesn't exist. It means I think you haven't given me any reason that I consider sufficient to justify my acceptance of your deist god.

You seem to be conflating a-theism with anti-theism.

It is anti-theistic to say that I find your god claims unconvincing? If so, then I guess I plead guilty. But, as I said in a previous post, to me the term "anti-theism" implies a bit more of an antagonistic approach than that.

You seem to have some personal baggage that doesn't comport with any standard definitions. Maybe that's what tripping you up?

Well, this is my thread. I have tried to be clear about my definitions. If you prefer some other definitions, its up to you to make that case, I guess. I'm not sure which "standard" of definitions you're appealing to, here, or if it's anything other than your own personal standards. You haven't cited any references other than your own authority, as far as I can see.

No, I'm saying that you are using religious claims to support your denial of theism.

You mean, the fact that religious people haven't made what I would consider a good case for God? I plead guilty as charged, if that's the case. The weakness of religious claims is certainly one explanation for my atheism.

You do understand what Deism is, right?

I think so. It's a belief in a non-personal God who basically does nothing in the world that is distinguishable from what we athists think natural processes can probably do. Right? If I understand you correctly, your argument is that your God is a "natural" part of the world that does not engage in the typical kinds of supernatural "miracles" that mainstream religions typically describe. So far, you've said nothing that clearly distinguishes your God from things like the universe as a whole or the "laws of nature" or whatever, other than a vague hand-wave towards notions of omniscience and omnipotence. Perhaps your God is a supernatural god who merely chooses never to use his supernatural powers in the universe. I'll wait for your further elaboration, if you wish to provide one.

Your "denial" of theism is supported every time religious fail to make a good case for god.

If you say so. It doesn't sound unreasonable for me to become more sceptical of specific religious claims when religious people fail to make a good case.

Again, while most (not all) religious are theists, not all theists are religious. And you seem reticent to discuss theism without any religious trappings. Why is that? Are you afraid a good case could be made?

Not at all. Bring it on!

Again, you seem to have some personal baggage that doesn't comport with standard definitions. Anti-theism is the belief that gods definitely do not exist, nothing more. It's an affirmative claim, rather that the noncommittal claim of atheism. Personally, I think you have a stronger argument against the typical religious person if you stick with the noncommittal claim. It's harder for them to shift the burden onto someone making no affirmative claim.

If that's how you want to define anti-theism now, then clearly I'm not an anti-theist. It sounds like we're on the same page on this, after all. But then again, other things you've said give me pause.

I'm not sure why you mention personal baggage. Was it something specific I wrote?

Are you free of personal baggage?

We would have a more productive discussion if you weren't using so many idiosyncratic definitions.

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to post the definitions you like to use. Then we can compare.

So you are both atheist and anti-theist.

I'm not sure about the anti-theist part. Maybe, maybe not. My definition of that term appears to differ from yours.

You definitely believe that no gods exist.

No. I don't current accept that any gods exist. See my opening post!

In which case, any religious person is wholly justified in making the arguments, at least with you, that your OP criticizes them for.

I would say that such a religious person has not understood my opening post.

Again, thinking you've refuted theism by finding no religious arguments convincing, while your prerogative, doesn't address theism in and of itself. If you really think it does, it's odd that you seem determined to avoid theism itself.

Woah! Hold up.

When did I ever claim to have "refuted theism"?

All along, I have talked about my personal beliefs, which are one thing. A disproof of theism is a separate matter, and one that I have not touched on in this thread as far as I can tell.

Just out of interest: do you think you've refuted atheism?

 

[James R]

(Continued...)

You seem to vacillate between saying atheism is "not believing that God exists" and "believing that God doesn't exist". That's the exact distinction made in your own OP.

I can't see any vacillation. I hope these couple of posts help to clarify my position.

See, you're terribly inconsistent with how you express whatever it is you really mean. In this post alone, you've gone from saying "Atheism is the idea that gods don't exist" to "God might exist." See the trouble? That's why the clear distinction between atheism and anti-theism is useful.

Having an idea that something could be the case is not the same as asserting that it is the case.

If I say "I think (believe) my train will arrive late this morning", that isn't the same as asserting that no other outcome is possible. If "a-punctualism" is the idea that my train will be late, my asserting a-punctualism is not the same as making the claim that it is a fact that my train will be late. At best, it's a statement about my current belief.

See the difference?

I agree that no one can be expected to prove a negative. But it's generally easier to avoid affirmative negative claims than to explain to some people why. And the onus is always on the positive claim, as the null hypothesis is the default assumption. The question is whether atheism or anti-theism best entails the null hypothesis. Considering science does not bother with negative claims, like affirming pink unicorns don't exist, it seems the null hypothesis is best represented by disbelief (atheism) rather than negative belief (anti-theism).

Again, it sounds like we're on the same page, there.

Since I've seen you try to convince people that their erroneous ideas about science (flat earth, water spinning off the earth, rockets landing on moon, etc.) are incorrect, it seems a bit disingenuous to say you wouldn't do likewise with claims of cold fusion.

I didn't say I wouldn't discuss why claims of cold fusion might be wrong, or why I'm not convinced that cold fusion exists. All I said was that the onus of proof of cold fusion is on those who claim it has been shown to exist.

When it comes to the flat earth and rockets landing on the moon, in recent discussions of those topics I did far more than simply express my doubt about the claims being made. I provided arguments that specifically refuted the claims that were being made. That is, I corrected actual errors in the claims being made, rather than simply saying that I was not personally convinced by the claims.

Only if you believe in the misguided notion of scientism would you believe that every question can be addressed/known by science. But it seems you would find some notions of God not extraordinary enough, perhaps because they would not offer extraordinary evidence. Again, insulated with incredulity.

I'm interested in what non-scientific evidence led you to your current belief in the deistic god. Care to expand?

Not specifically/solely deistic. If God didn't exist, why is there something rather than nothing, why the evidence of a beginning of the universe, why the ubiquitous belief arising independently in almost every culture throughout history? These are questions that science and even philosophy cannot compellingly answer.

God of the Gaps, then?

Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet, and even among Christians, there's some variety of belief about the Trinity. From the outside, you really have no basis to doubt what the followers tell you about their own beliefs. ....

Since both religions share the Old Testament, you seem to be saying that one God split into two. That's...um...unique.

You think so?

It seems to me that Allah and Yahweh, as described in the Qur'an and the bible are quite different in important ways, even though Islam is obviously derivative of Christianity. It also seems to me there's a general agreement among Muslims and Christians, as well as among scholars, that they follow different religious traditions.

I understand that some are motivated to claim that Yahweh and Allah are one and the same. For Islam, that assertion provides a useful notion of historical continuity, if nothing else.

I think that if you regard my view as a unique one on this, then you probably haven't read widely enough.

Who's trying to decide which religion is correct?

All the major religions, for starters, though to be fair they all already think they have the answer.

While mono-/polytheists would disagree on the number of Gods, they would agree on the central question of theism itself, that at least one God exists.

It sounds to me like you're bending over backwards to try to argue that all gods are One. It's reminiscent of Jan Ardena. To do that, you have to skim over the surface of the various religions, or else carefully pick and choose from each while ignoring huge slabs of inconvenient inconsistencies and blatant contradictions.

It is possible to mulch the god concept into something so vague that you can fit it to any religious idea you want, but then the god loses most of attributes that provide the reasons why believers worship the god(s) in the first place.

No, because, again, theism is not religion. Almost every religion agrees that at least one God exists.

Is it a case of lowest-common-denominator for you, then? Is that the extent of your own belief in God?

But is there anything else where the diversity of views suggests to you that none are true?

Sure. For instance, in science I have many questions about dark matter. It is possible that none of the current hypotheses about dark matter is correct.

Another example would be astrologers' predictions for significant world events that will occur in 2020, at least the ones that are specific enough to be confirmed or refuted at the end of the year. It is quite possible that none of the astrologers is right.

It wouldn't be hard for me to come up with lots of other examples.

And even if no religions are right, that does not imply that their shared theistic belief is also incorrect. It would be faulty reasoning to presume that differences in mythology somehow undermine the point of agreement.

That "point of agreement" you mention sounds to me like the mulched concept of a god that I mentioned above. All I can say is if that is the full extent of your belief in a god, then I have to wonder why you believe it at all, given that it's so ill-defined and apparently unevidenced.

You repeatedly seem to be arguing some religious straw man. I wonder if you conflating religion and theism works to insulate you from addressing purely theistic arguments. Maybe religious arguments are just so much more like shooting fish in a barrel.

It seems to me that it is you who is working overtime here to abstract out your god from the specifics of any religious claim that could be tested, whereas when I talk about refuting religion I try to engage with the actual beliefs that actual believers in the mainstream religious faiths say that they hold. Those go far beyond vague notions of omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[James R]

A thought: here's a simple test for whether you're an atheist or a theist.

Do you currently believe that at least one god exists?

If your answer is "yes" then you're a theist.
If your answer is "no" then you're an atheist.​

That's all there is to it!

Note that if your answer is "I don't know if at least one god exists", then you're not answering the question that I asked you. I didn't ask what you know; I asked what you believe.

Also, if your answer is "I'm an agnostic. I believe that the question of god's existence is unanswerable", or something along those lines, then once again you have not answered the question that was asked. You answered a different question about what you believe about what it is possible to know. You still need to answer the question as to what you currently believe about god(s). If you think that it's impossible to know if gods exist, but you choose to believe in one anyway, then you're a theist. If you think it's impossible to know if gods exist and you don't currently believe in a god, then you're an atheist. In the former case you might like to use the term "agnostic theist", and in the latter case "agnostic atheist".

 

[davewhite04]

Also, if your answer is "I'm an agnostic. I believe that the question of god's existence is unanswerable", or something along those lines, then once again you have not answered the question that was asked. You answered a different question about what you believe about what it is possible to know. You still need to answer the question as to what you currently believe about god(s).

Why does anyone need to answer this question?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why does anyone need to answer this question?

A question atheists have been asking since the dawn of time.
Yet theists seem obsessed - not only with their own beliefs - but with those of others.
If theists just kept their personal beliefs to themselves - or at least among those in their club - there would be no need to discuss it. That would make the rest of the world perfectly happy.

 

[Michael 345]

Yet theists seem obsessed - not only with their own beliefs - but with those of others

Because their brand of god is real and as Ricky Gervais puts it all the others are just silly superstitions

 

[James R]

Why does anyone need to answer this question?

To work out for yourself whether you're a theist or an atheist, if you're confused.
Also, so others can work out if you're a theist or atheist, if you can't adequately categorise your own beliefs.

I'm trying to help you here, davewhite04.

 

[gmilam]

Do you currently believe that at least one god exists?

I see no evidence to support the hypothesis.

I believe that puts me in the atheist column.

 

[davewhite04]

To work out for yourself whether you're a theist or an atheist, if you're confused.
Also, so others can work out if you're a theist or atheist, if you can't adequately categorise your own beliefs.

I'm trying to help you here, davewhite04.

Not knowing there is a God is not a weakness or a bout of confusion. It is a humble position.

What beliefs? It is one question, if you want to question it.

 

[James R]

davewhite04:

Not knowing there is a God is not a weakness or a bout of confusion. It is a humble position.

Okay, but what has that got to do with whether you believe in a god or not? I was careful to distinguish the question of what you believe from what you know, above.

What do you believe?

What beliefs? It is one question, if you want to question it.

Sorry, you've lost me. Perhaps try reading post #232 again.

 

[davewhite04]

davewhite04:


Okay, but what has that got to do with whether you believe in a god or not? I was careful to distinguish the question of what you believe from what you know, above.

What do you believe?

50/50 tonight. Obviously I'm different to you, I can switch sides at a moments notice. Nothing defines me.

Sorry, you've lost me. Perhaps try reading post #232 again.

Were you talking about evaluating someone to decide whether they are atheist/theist by what "beliefs" they held? You can't decide what someone is.