You are right, not all theists are as extreme as I portrayed, I apologize.

Vox Smith, Vox Dei: your sins are forgiven. ;>)

The majority of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, however, certainly are and those are the ones that you usually find online debating (for lack of a better word) that their beliefs are true. They’re the ones that, when asked a question, just throw Bible verses at you and make empty claims and demand that everything they say must be regarded as gospel truth because it’s what they believe.

Oh, I agree completely. I’ve had many migraine inducing “debates” with the fundies. Arguing with them is pointless, really.

For the record, I have no problem with the more liberal theists who are respectful and intelligent and reasonable, but those aren’t the ones condemning atheists to hell, trying to force creationism into the schools and trying to rebuild a “Christian nation”, by and large, are they?

Again, agreed. Of course, I feel compelled to point out that I’ve met some pretty insufferable atheists in my time, as well. Present company excepted, of course. ;>)

The problem lies with the fact that we’re dealing with a concept that is, practically by definition,unknowable. Therefore, both theists and atheists err when they lose sight of the fact that almost any statement made on this subject falls into the realm of speculation. I suspect the reason that there seems to be more silliness on the theist side is simply because there are a lot more ways to believe than to disbelieve.

I honestly believe that the only way one can enter into this debate without becoming insufferable oneself is to approach this subject with a certain amount of intellectual modesty and a healthy respect for the margin of error in one’s own beliefs.

-smith

Today, however, I *do* have beliefs concerning god, since I’m now familiar with the concept. I now *do believe* that he doesn’t exist, in the same sense that I believe that there are no tooth-fairies and Santa. (I guess this is where my views depart from Bad’s.)

That comment was well put. But by the same token, one can also classify theism in an analogous way. Like yourself, I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy (although I’m still holding out hope for Santa.) While I do happen to believe in a concept known as, for convenience’s sake, “God”, I do not believe in Thor, Jupiter, or, for that matter, Jehovah. To me, those concepts are simply humans trying, as they always do, to put a human face on something they don’t understand.

So just as atheism can be categorized in the two ways you describe, theism can also be categorized into those who believe in the existence of a higher power, without making any specific claims about said higher power, and those who take it a step further, and attempt to ascribe human motivations to this higher power.

You imply that there is a meaningful difference between these two statements. It would be helpful to me if you could explain what you feel that difference to be.

Certainly, since strict logical formalism did not suffice. :)

Ouch!!!! ;>)

Telling you that I do not believe in God is a claim ultimately about no more than MYSELF: it’s simply an expression of my self-knowledge. Telling you that I believe there are no Gods is a claim about the contents of all existence.

Fair enough. I still think it’s a fairly thin line semantically, but I understand your point. And I think it is to your credit that you make that distinction. It seems as though many atheists DO make the assertion that there is no god in any way, shape or form, and then get bent out shape when it is pointed out to them that there is, as you point out, a certain burden of proof that goes with that statement, a burden which, I might add, really can never be met conclusively.

-smith

This might help explain the difference:
When I was, say, 5 years old, I did not yet have a concept of god (I know, I know, lucky me), so I wasn’t able to hold any beliefs about him. In those times, it made sense to say of me that I *didn’t believe* in god, but it wouldn’t have made sense to say that I *did believe* that there was no god. One cannot hold beliefs on the concepts one doesn’t possess. (Notice that, in this sense, we are all born atheists.)

Today, however, I *do* have beliefs concerning god, since I’m now familiar with the concept. I now *do believe* that he doesn’t exist, in the same sense that I believe that there are no tooth-fairies and Santa. (I guess this is where my views depart from Bad’s.)

Atheism can therefore be understood in these two very different ways, which only contributes to all the misunderstandings… oh well.

You imply that there is a meaningful difference between these two statements. It would be helpful to me if you could explain what you feel that difference to be.

Certainly, since strict logical formalism did not suffice. :)

To not believe something is not a belief. To believe THAT there is no god IS a belief. That in itself is a pretty huge difference in terms of philosophical assertions (or, in the latter case, something that is NOT a PARTICULAR philosophical assertion!)

Some other key differences: the former carries no burden of proof. The latter does.

They also aren’t even statements about even remotely the same thing. Telling you that I do not believe in God is a claim ultimately about no more than MYSELF: it’s simply an expression of my self-knowledge. Telling you that I believe there are no Gods is a claim about the contents of all existence. I’d say that’s about as different as something can get.

The reason they might seem similar in practice is that B~X is logically a subset of ~BX.

I think that aside from the real loons, even most fundamentalists are a lot more complex and nuanced than you’re giving them credit for. Which ultimately makes them more complicated opponents to deal with in the political and philosophical arena. In general, I think trying to psychoanalyze your opponents is a tricky task: especially since we’re not always particularly disposed to be very charitable. :)

Certainly there are intelligent, well-meaning theists out there, I know quite a few of them, but those aren’t the ones that we usually run into trouble with. It’s the people whose entire life revolves around their religious beliefs that tend to be problematic.

For the record, I have no problem with the more liberal theists who are respectful and intelligent and reasonable, but those aren’t the ones condemning atheists to hell, trying to force creationism into the schools and trying to rebuild a “Christian nation”, by and large, are they?