Atheist = Closet theist

Status
Not open for further replies.
We seem to have two distinct species on the planet. Homo Athensis and H. Thensis. H. Athensis realizes that the only things that are real are things. H. Thensis thinks that things can be real with zero physical manifestations (Ideas are credited with the same level of "reality" as are a pair of shoes).

This is mighty strange.
 
Smithsonian said:
Superluminal,

What would be your definition of belief?
Here are some I like:

Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something:

Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance
of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without
immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or
testimony; partial or full assurance without positive
knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction;
confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our
senses.
 
Smithsonian said:
And how are those definitions contrary to religious faith?
They aren't. Should they be? I'm not arguing definitions. There are tons of things I believe in. I believe my wife loves me. Belief usually implies some modicum of a reason to believe. Whereas faith does not. Look at the definitions.
 
Smithsonian said:
Well, your definition of faith obviously implies some sort of contrast with belief (since it would end up tautological otherwise).

Perhaps I’m particularly tired at the moment, but could you highlight the portion within the proposed definitions of belief that implies or allows us to infer this “modicum of a reason to believe”.
Look, I'm not particularly interested in debating definitions. If the ones I've chosen don't clearly convey the essence of what we are debating, then we need some clarification. If you're going to try to cleverly prove that because I "believe" certain things that I therefore automatically am in contradiction, then don't waste your time. I also have faith that my wife would save me in an emergengy situation. A very subjective thing.

If we are discussing the validity of faith in the objective sense, fine. Otherwise, I agree that faith in god is a purely subjective thing and has as much or as little validity as you choose to give it. 'K?

I'm tired too.
 
Smithsonian said:
Faith would be closer to hope or more precisely hopeful wishing, then belief?

So that you believe that your wife loves you and hope or would like to believe that she would intervene on your behalf in crises.

Is this correct?
I think that's pretty close to my view of it. Sure.
 
superluminal:

"Wow! I apologise. But in fairness, that was one misleading post. After reading your response, I still have no fucking clue as to your position. What the fuck is an "atheistic pantheist"?"

Apology accepted.

And apparently it was a misleading post. For that I offer my own apologies. I had thought I was lambasting both sides of the coin, when you took me for charging only one side - the Atheist - with the anti-philosophical stance.

But as to a clarification on my position: I consider myself an Atheistic Pantheist on the foundation that I am convinced (on the grounds of philosophy) that many attributes of God as classicaly interpreted - omnipresence, eternity, infinity, immutability, omnipotence - are necessary for existence and, in fact, make up existence. That being said, other attributes - such as omnibenevolence, omniscience in the sense of actual knowledge, all-love, all-mercy, all-justice, sentience, sapience - are not to be found possibly in this God-like thing, for they are incoherent, and cannot be shown to be part of this thing. Or to put it otherwise: I accept and affirm the existence of God because of certain attributes that essentially make it such, but point to the fact that it is not a being, but is in fact simply existence. That is to say, I am a Pantheist because I affirm that God is everything, but I am an Atheist because this everything is not sapient and it is basically a reitteration of the term "existence", but called "God" so as to signify its key link back to certain attributes.

If you want more information on my reasons for the above, you can probably find them across my writings here on SciForums, specifically in the essay-esque threads I have started to propound certain beliefs.

"Wrong bub. A-Theism. The absence of theism. A neutral statement of lack. Agnostics refuse to make a position statement based on a percieved lack of evidence either way. As atheists, we have no more need of theism than we do for alien visitors. But no atheist will assert that god 100% certainly does not exist. Ask the atheists here if you don't trust that."

According to definition 1 the first entry at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheism , Atheism is:

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Etymologically speaking, theism stems from "theo", God, and of course "ism" is a suffix meaning "belief or creed", so that one can say the term means "the belief in God (deities)". The prefix "a" means "without", so that atheism translates as "the belief without God (the deities)", or "the belief in no God (the deities)". That is to say, the term implies one which affirms that God does not exist.

As Wikipedia notes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism :

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative α- + θεος 'god') meant 'without gods' or 'lack of belief in gods'. The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BC, expressing a total lack of relations with the gods; that is, 'denying the gods, godless, ungodly', with more active connotations than asebēs, or 'impious'.

Moreover, what you describe as atheism as "no more use for God than alien visitors", yet not explicitly denying God's existence, and even going as far as to say no Atheist could possibly deny God 100 percent (which is silly if we are dealing with a logically necessary being), is virtually indistinguishable from the very definition of agnosticism you gave. For if you do not deny explicitly, but say there is simply no proof that God exists, then you are not saying that either side has presented more compelling proof than one another, nor claiming a single thing, but that God to you is irrelevant. This indifference is indistinguishable from agnosticism's.

"Ok. But if you want any more responses from me, you'll need to stop with the philosophical theology in the august tradition of dealing with the issue of God separated from dogma including Pre-Socratic metaphysical/ontological arguments regarding omnibenevolence as the refutation of a concept. 'K?"

If you insist.

"First I signify that I be an Atheist, yar. As in a-tonal (lacking tonality). A-theist (lacking theistic beliefs)."

Okay.

"As to your faith question, invalid in what realm? The objective or the subjective? Here's a working definition:"

In both, really. Even subjectively one cannot affirm something by faith if it is to be considered invalid. But more specifically, is faith justified epistemologically, that is, does it offer us an objective foundation for anything?

"Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Fair enough definition.

"This definition squarely places faith in the realm of the subjective. In this realm, one of personal truths and ideas, the idea of validity or invalidity is clearly meaningless as the validity or lack thereof is also purely subjective."

Agreed. It most certainly forces a subjectivity on faith, on the foundation that it rests upon arbitrary beginnings.

"Now to the real debate - the validity of "faith" as it applies to the objective world. Given the above definition, unless something can be shown to exist by logical proof or material evidence, then it must be considered invalid in an objective sense."

Agreed.

I am pleased to see you have an argument that directly shows the invalidity - at least on an objective sphere - of faith. Good work.

"I would submit that there is certainly no convincing objective material evidence for a god. I would like to see the logical proof for the existence of gods. If it is convincing enough, I will capitulate."

I have some proof I think convincing of my conclusions, but if you wish to find them, just browse my various threads. Although this is somewhat irrelevant at the time being.
 
Me thinks you atheists 'doth protest too much' and thus have concluded you are closet theists.

Me thinks you "outofyourfreakingskull" :D

Most theist who hold great authorative powers: i.e. Popes, Presidents, political leaders, Big business executives, are "closet atheists"

No authorative figure such as these can believe in "fantasy" and continue their task of authoraty. Over a great mass of people. They use the influence of religious faith, in order to win the peoples approval of executive desicions.

click
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
what argument who is arguing? The whole point of being in a closet theist is you don't admit ever to being theist. I am not calling for an 'out session'.

If atheists admitted to being theists my theory would collapse as my theory hangs on them being and remaining in the closet.

It's win win for me.

In a vain attempt to make me look smart, I made up a completely ridiculous notion in which the necessity of it remaining unknown to anyone supports it.

Wheeeeeeeeee!
 
Godless said:
Me thinks you "outofyourfreakingskull" :D

Most theist who hold great authorative powers: i.e. Popes, Presidents, political leaders, Big business executives, are "closet atheists"

No authorative figure such as these can believe in "fantasy" and continue their task of authoraty. Over a great mass of people. They use the influence of religious faith, in order to win the peoples approval of executive desicions.

click
You mean like Hitler? ;)
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
Now this dude Antony Flew went from theist to atheist back to theist,

he was indoctrinated re theism as child, but then science education led him to atheism and FURTHER science education led him back to theism:

"Antony Flew, professor emeritus at Reading University, was a leading 20th-century intellectual and author of many books including “Atheistic Humanism.” Although as a youth Flew was a devoted Christian, during his teens he rejected Christianity because of his study of Darwinism. He concluded that evolution could fully account for the creation of all life – and that no need existed for a Creator who had been put out of work by science. Flew eventually became a leading defender of atheism for over half a century.

Flew kept reading and thinking about this topic, though, and eventually came back to the theism of his youth. His conversion was primarily because of his study of intelligent design. As he told The Associated Press, his views were now similar to the “American ‘Intelligent Design’ theorists who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.” Michael Behe’s and William Dembski’s books were especially influential. Flew added that an argument from design, “assures us that there is a God” and that DNA research has provided us with “a new and enormously powerful argument” for design. Flew stresses that the main reason for “believing in a First Cause God is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.” He states that his whole life has been guided by the principle of Socrates, “follow the evidence where it leads” and, in this case, it led him to theism. "

This guy in my mind was never an atheist, he merely felt compelled to rejest his early education as a child in favour of his scientific principles, thus when a door was opened to him to allow him back to theism, he took it.

It seems to me, upon reading about Anthony Flew on Wiki, that he was not a religious person, he just concluded that a force or intelligence that you might call God was responsible for the early building blocks of life. If anything he was probably a closet agnostic, right up to his death.
 
The cultural bias, established as a sort of collective indoctrination through various forces in society, of which you speak, that inclination toward belief being statistically obvious, in fact as a whole argues against you.

Consider McCarthy era America. No person of any success was allowed to be a communist. If they leaned in that direction, it would not have been apparent from any evidence issuing from themselves.

Religion, like politics, resting comfortably in that ambiguous, secretive area of personal opinion and altogether out of bounds in normal discourse is set to background. Rarely will you find atheists go declared and more commonly will you find them feign religion to ease their lives. Nobody is thus a closet theist. There are only closet atheists.

Saying closet theist is akin to saying "closet straight person." It is incongruous to reality, history, and common sense. If someone declares atheism you had better bet that they are of that persuasion. Who in their right mind would choose persecution?
 
Theoryofrelativity:

Why would anybody bother being a closet theist? What have they to gain from pretending to be an atheist? And what would they lose by admitting to their theism?
 
James R said:
Theoryofrelativity:

Why would anybody bother being a closet theist? What have they to gain from pretending to be an atheist? And what would they lose by admitting to their theism?

James I already know there are closet theists here at sci forums as they have admitted being such to me in pm, they are afraid to speak about their spiritual beliefs on this very forum for fear of ridicule and all that comes along with being honest about such things HERE, let alone else where. They are not the few on the entire planet, thus it is reasonable to assume there are more, not all of course. That is me being provacative.

This site has many aggressive, insulting, derogatory things to say to theists, even though those same theists are quite visibly intelligent beings. Yet they endure 'retard, dumbass stupid, dellusional' comments. Those here who wish to enjoy debate wiothout being reminded they are a woo woo when someone disagrees with their points on a non theist matter, will avoid revealing their true nature if it aids smoother communciations and avoids disrespect.

I myself was nervous and wary re admitting such a thing here. I am not unusual, not alone in the world, it would be stupid to say so. If myself and a few others feel afraid to 'come out' then it is reasonable to assume there are more.

It is not different to closet homosexuality, why do they hide it, why do you think?

This site has a bunch of bullies operating on it.
 
wsionynw said:
It seems to me, upon reading about Anthony Flew on Wiki, that he was not a religious person, he just concluded that a force or intelligence that you might call God was responsible for the early building blocks of life. If anything he was probably a closet agnostic, right up to his death.

you are in denial, something atheists do every time someone they respect turns out to be theist, why not just live and let live.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top