Theli

I'm moving the discussion (atleast tries) from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000294&p=" target="_blank">Are Humans Rational</a> over to a new thread. Is it ok?

I would like to start by throwing my own opinion in ring, I find that neither theism nor atheism are actuall worldviews.

There was some discussion about if atheism should be considered a belif or not, I would say it's not.

This is the description of atheism wich I tend to lean on.

"Lack of god belief"

An atheist doesn't necessarily say that god doesn't exist, just that he/she lacks god-belief. Just as theism doesn't necessarily say that god does exist. Just that the theist believe a(or several) god(s) exist.
Here's why...
Neither theism nor atheism applies any attributes to the word "god", and therefore cannot claim that "god" exist or not. The word isn't given any meaning beside the one provided by religion, or by the personal worldview.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Hans

I would add that a theist has seen what he believes is evidence for the existance of a god. And an atheist has not. In my opinion there is no choice in the matter as to whether one is atheistic or theistic. It all comes down to information.

Theli

Hans...
Not by default.
As I said before, a theist doesn't necessarily say that god exists or that he has any evidence to back it up.
Although most theists are more or less religious and will claim they have evidence.

That is so true. (A)Theism isn't a base for information, rather a product of information (or missinformation )

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

I'd like to add that there's a great missinterpretation of the atheism that usually occur.
Do atheists
(1) believe there is no gods?
(2) don't believe there are any gods?

I would say 2. And the difference is important.

WhiteKnight

Clarification is needed to avoid the implication that all atheists are such simply because they have not seen the theist's "evidence".

Admittedly, some atheists may be so because they have not observed the "evidence" which convinces theists. Plenty of others have observed the same "evidence" and found it unconvincing.

Hans

WhiteKnight

I concur. I would simply add what you wrote to what I wrote:

A theist has seen what he believes is evidence for the existance of a god. And an atheist either has not seen any evidence or has seen the same evidence as theists and found it unconvincing.

Theli

If I reword my statement further I wonder if I can satisfy your objection:

A theist has either discovered information or been exposed to information that leads him to believe a god or gods exist; or has acquired the belief irrationally. And an atheist has not discovered or has not been exposed to information that leads him to believe a god or gods exist; or has irrationally dismissed information that would lead to the belief.

In the scenario above neither the theist or atheist asserts that a god or gods do or do not exist, only their belief on the subject. Also, it is possible for both the theist and atheist to share simular information. Information that leads the theist to believe that a god or gods exist and an atheist to find incredible, inaccurate, or irrational.

To the question of whether atheism and/or theism is a worldview I would answer no to both. By definition a worldview is a collection of beliefs about the world. Therefore, no one belief can be construed as a worldview.

Theli

Hans...
Yes, that's what I was getting at.
But some christians are certain that atheism is "just another religion".
Wich is ofcourse false. Noone calls theism a religion, so why should atheism be one.

liquid

Noticing some confusion about this, I would like to point you in the direction of an excellent book which neatly summarises the current thinking on philosophy and atheism. It is called "An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism" and is by Daniel Harbour. The title is a bit provocative, probably to sell, but the content is concise and readable.

The argument the book puts forward is grounded on the importance of worldviews - the framework through which we interpret our information about the world. It argues that proofs for and against God are only half the story, and the fundamental difference is the worldview of theists and atheists. Atheism and theism are only manifestations of the more fundamental worldviews.

The two competing worldviews are the spartan meritocratic, which makes the minimum number of starting assumptions, and leaves them open to revision, and the baroque monarchic, which makes many starting assumption which are not open to revision.

The former is 'correct' and leads to rational enquiry, science, atheism. The latter is 'wrong' and is typified by religion.

I really can't describe it all in detail, but I do urge you to read it.

jlowder

We need a definition of "worldview" to answer your question. I discuss this matter in my <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/noebel.html" target="_blank">commentary on David Noebel's book</a>. I argue that atheism, even the 'strong' variety, isn't a worldview.

jlowder

rainbow walking

rw: Hi Theli,
I would argue that both theism and atheism are presuppositions upon which worldviews are built, but as stand-alone positions they cannot accurately be described as world views. Both positions require more meat and substance to qualify as full blown worldviews. When debating these positions it is generally all that meat and substance that one has to wade through to actually get at the presupposition. If you've noticed, most debates focus on the substance of those presupps in an effort to invalidate or affirm the foundational position. Focusing on definitions of the position, while a good place to begin a debate, hardly ever address the wider substance of the respective worldviews.

In a side by side comparison of substance, (just substance mind you, not the truth value of the substance), theism has compiled much more substance upon its basic presuppositional position than atheism...but atheism is gaining ground in this area.

An interesting aside in all this discussion and challenging of each other's positions is that the more complicated the challenges become the more complicated the substances become such that both sides of the issue are constantly "beefing-up" both their rebuttals and their counter-arguments.

As one who has spent years in these forums on the side of theism and now on the side of atheism I can see both positions in a different light. I spent a few hours yesterday reading over old debates I've had, (I always archive my responses in any worthwhile discussion), and I've concluded that I submitted much more challenging rebuttals as a theist than I have as an atheist. I suppose this is why several atheists here expressed dissappointment when I deconverted.

As a theist I always felt that I was standing in the shadow of God as his advocate defending him rather than myself. This illusion had its advantages. I think people will try harder to defend someone else than they will themselves. There's a certain deontological quality to theism in relation to apologetics. From this position I found that my greatest asset was to reduce my opponent to focusing on me rather than the God I was defending. Once the ad hominem began I felt I had accomplished my mission and had the upper hand in exposing the inherent weakness of the atheist's arguments that couldn't address the salient points of my rebuttals without invective and insult. I learned to play to this effect as a primary tactic.

As an atheist I have no such illusion and realize that I represent my position on its own merits with nothing to cover me but my own integrity and knowledge base. Of course, having only been in this position a few months I'm sure my assessments are likely a bit premature. I haven't really been able to engage a worthy opponent in a serious debate yet. I think most of the theists who frequent this forum are reluctanct to remove the gloves because they believe they may drive me further away from my old position.

As an individual with my own unique personality I find that I love challenging debates that stimulate my intellect and force me to consider the strengths and weaknesses of my own ideas. This will probably surface as the primary reason most of us continue to belabor these seemingly un-resolvable philosophical questions. But they do have a cumulative effect.

Anyway, you raise some interesting questions with this line of reasoning.