Is Atheism a Rational Stance?

[LaserGuy]

A Theist (for lack of a better term) believes that existence includes a spiritual aspect of some sort that transcends the material universe as we normally interact with it.

An Atheist believes the universe has no spiritual dimension of any sort and that the material universe we perceive with our senses and devices is all there is.

An Agnostic believes there is not enough evidence to conclusively judge the previous two beliefs.

Theism is almost always used to refer specifically to people who believe in a God or gods. I don't think that someone who, say, were to believe in ghosts, but not in any gods, would be properly called a theist, or even a deist. They'd be an atheist who believes in ghosts. (A)theism are terms that refer to the specific claim about the existence of a God or gods. As it happens, most people who are atheist also do not believe in other supernatural manifestations, but this is not necessary.

I think what you are calling an atheism would probably be better described as empiricism; what you are calling theism would probably be better described as mysticism. Or perhaps naturalism versus supernaturalism.

[Jonesthe Spy]

I realize there's a lot of fuzzy borders with my categorization - it's mostly based on the very vocal group of atheists of the Dawkins variety, and seems to be where the lines are drawn in most discussions I've seen. I also think that form of atheism is more accurately named Logical Positivism than Empiricism.

Anyway, if you're going to limit yourself to three categories I think mine are as comprehensive as it's going to get (putting aside the mater of the best label for the first group). Or you can start splitting off into lots of subcategories - deist vs theist vs mystic, non-theist vs materialist, etc.

[gmalivuk]

Anyway, if you're going to limit yourself to three categories I think mine are as comprehensive as it's going to get

What do you mean by "comprehensive"? Surely the categories exhaustively divide humanity into three disjoint sets just as effectively if we use "god" instead of "a spiritual aspect of some sort blah blah blah", and has the advantages of being much faster to say and also be in line with the fact that the "-the-" part means "god", and not "spiritual aspect whatever".

[Jonesthe Spy]

Anyway, if you're going to limit yourself to three categories I think mine are as comprehensive as it's going to get

What do you mean by "comprehensive"? Surely the categories exhaustively divide humanity into three disjoint sets just as effectively if we use "god" instead of "a spiritual aspect of some sort blah blah blah", and has the advantages of being much faster to say and also be in line with the fact that the "-the-" part means "god", and not "spiritual aspect whatever".

Um, no. "God" and "Spiritual beliefs" are very different things. The former is included in the latter, but "spiritual beliefs" include a vast array of possibilities beyond a deity-figure (or figures). So if you're breaking down belief systems into three categories as morriswalters and Elasto were, then I figure those categories should be as accurate and inclusive as possible.

[qetzal]

I'd be pretty surprised if the average Theist thinks he has proof for God. He might think he has sound reasons for believing in God (just like an Atheist would think he has sound reasons for not believing in God); He might even think he has evidence for God (eg. he prayed and a miracle occurred). But I doubt he thinks he can prove God exists. He will almost certainly acknowledge that belief in God requires faith.

The three categories to my mind are:
- A Theist believes God exists
- An Atheist believes God does not exist
- An Agnostic has not come to a conclusion as to whether he believes God exists or not - though on balance he probably sides one way or the other

(I know the 'more correct' definition of an Atheist is someone who does not believe God exists rather than someone who believes God does not exist, but, to my mind, that's a rather weak form of Atheism - with elements in common with Agnosticism)

I think there's very good reason to distinguish between "I do not believe in the existence of any gods," and "I believe that gods do not exist." I also think the former is more justifiable than the latter.

Let me illustrate by saying that I do not believe in any gods. That's because I choose to predicate my beliefs on evidence, I see no good evidence for the existence of gods. I'll go a step further and say that I believe that certain specific gods do not exist, including God of the Bible/Torah/Koran, the Greek/Roman gods, the Norse gods, and most other concepts of god that humans have conceived. I believe none of them exist(ed) because they're all inconsistent with available evidence (IMO, of course.)

However, I'm not willing to positively claim that no gods exist at all. That depends entirely on what qualifies as a god. Some versions of a deist god might exist. I don't actively believe it, but it's possible. No doubt there are other conceptions of god that are not obviously in conflict with available evidence. I don't actively believe in those gods either, but nor do I actively disbelieve in them.

Bottom line: I don't think that a simplistic statement that "god does not exist" is meaningful, because the term 'god' has too many acceptable meanings.

[gmalivuk]

Anyway, if you're going to limit yourself to three categories I think mine are as comprehensive as it's going to get

What do you mean by "comprehensive"? Surely the categories exhaustively divide humanity into three disjoint sets just as effectively if we use "god" instead of "a spiritual aspect of some sort blah blah blah", and has the advantages of being much faster to say and also be in line with the fact that the "-the-" part means "god", and not "spiritual aspect whatever".

Um, no. "God" and "Spiritual beliefs" are very different things.

Indeed, but that wasn't my point. My point is that you trisect people's religious beliefs whether you call it "god" or "spiritual stuff", the only difference being that some people will be in one group under one of those divisions and in another under the other. But since everyone still falls into one of them, I don't know how you can say yours is more comprehensive.

[krogoth]

That's all fine and dandy that there is a difference, but it's beside the point Jonesthe Spy.

We are talking about the general groupings we don't need to define it more than "Atheism" and "Theism" we don't even need to go to Agnostic or any sub groups because that's not what the topic was about.
Note: as gmalivuk says above, you either fall into one of these groups because they are 'group' the other is 'not in group' and thus cover all things.

We can ALSO ask is spiritual belief a rational stance, and I would say it's answer is the same as if asked for Theism.

(I don't know if I should be giving these groups a capital letter or not).

The only reason I brought Agnostics into it was because it's the "I'm not sure", it doesn't matter if "I'm not sure and I believe" or "I'm not sure and I don't believe"

Topic answer being.
It's rational to not believe in something that's unprovable. (Axiom's not withstanding).

Edited: changed "opposites" to "'group' the other is 'not in group'"
also removed a non-required line

[Jonesthe Spy]

I don't know how you can say yours is more comprehensive.

Try going back and reading my whole post and not just the snippet you quoted and it will probably make more sense. But just in case, let me help:

All people who believe in some sort of god have spiritual beliefs.

Not all people people who believe in a spiritual aspect of the universe believe in a god(s).

I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

And Krogoth, I was responding to the definitions put forth by morriswalters and Elasto. But as I said near the beginning of this discussion, I am also of the opinion that Agnosticism is the only rational stance. I think atheists like to think of themselves as completely rational because of the idea that they are merely refusing to believe the unproven, but in fact they do have a positive belief: that the Universe is a purely material, mechanical structure and that experiences and perceptions that cannot be verified by scientific method are invalid in regards to defining the nature of the universe (approximately - I'm sure a large number of atheists would not agree).

[DaBigCheez]

All people who believe in some sort of god have spiritual beliefs.

Not all people people who believe in a spiritual aspect of the universe believe in a god(s).

And that's not being contested, and is irrelevant to gmal's point.

I could classify people into three groups:
A: People who would be willing to eat spaghetti every day
B: People who would be willing to eat spaghetti sometimes, but not every day
C: People who would never be willing to eat spaghetti, on any day

This is a comprehensive categorization - every person will fall into one and exactly one of these three groups.

I could instead classify people into these three groups:
1: People who would be willing to eat some type of pasta every day
2: People who would be willing to eat some type of pasta sometimes, but not every day
3: People who would never be willing to eat any type of pasta, on any day

This is broader - all people who would be willing to eat spaghetti every day would be willing to eat some type of pasta every day, but not all people who would be willing to eat some type of pasta every day would be willing to eat spaghetti every day.

However, it is not more comprehensive - they are both fully comprehensive. In each classification system, every person will fall into one and exactly one of the three groups. The distribution will be different, and you could argue the second is a more *useful* classification scheme - if, for example, the divisions would be 1% A/98% B/1% C vs. 40% 1 / 59% 2 /1% 3, then it may be better if your goal is to divide people into groups of more similar sizes - but that doesn't make it more comprehensive.

[yurell]

An Atheist believes the universe has no spiritual dimension of any sort and that the material universe we perceive with our senses and devices is all there is.

An Agnostic believes there is not enough evidence to conclusively judge the previous two beliefs.

A theism is the lack of a positive belief, not holding the opposite positive belief. If you wanted to to define atheism in that manner, it would be better expressed as:

An atheist does not believe in the existence includes a spiritual aspect of some sort that transcends the material universe as we normally interact with it.

That said, I was under the impression atheism referred explicitly to deities, hence you could have atheistic religions. It can be pictured as dividing all people into the sets of 'theistic' and 'not theistic', the latter being atheism (hence the name a-theism).

[gmalivuk]

I don't know how you can say yours is more comprehensive.

Try going back and reading my whole post and not just the snippet you quoted and it will probably make more sense. But just in case, let me help:

All people who believe in some sort of god have spiritual beliefs.

Not all people people who believe in a spiritual aspect of the universe believe in a god(s).

I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

The only one here having difficulty understanding is you.

One of your groups is bigger, one is smaller, and the other is probably roughly the same size. This does not make your scheme as a whole any broader or more comprehensive than the one that actually includes the word "god".

[DSenette]

An Atheist believes the universe has no spiritual dimension of any sort and that the material universe we perceive with our senses and devices is all there is.

An Agnostic believes there is not enough evidence to conclusively judge the previous two beliefs.

A theism is the lack of a positive belief, not holding the opposite positive belief. If you wanted to to define atheism in that manner, it would be better expressed as:

An atheist does not believe in the existence includes a spiritual aspect of some sort that transcends the material universe as we normally interact with it.

That said, I was under the impression atheism referred explicitly to deities, hence you could have atheistic religions. It can be pictured as dividing all people into the sets of 'theistic' and 'not theistic', the latter being atheism (hence the name a-theism).

this....atheism does not require "negative belief" that's antitheism.

the A in atheism is the same as the A in arrhythmia which isn't a heart rhythm that is in opposition to normal heart rhythms, it's the absence of a rhythm to begin with (or at least absence of normal heart rhythm).