Atheism VS Theism. Two irreconcilable “Camps”?

[ironbark]

The proposition has been put that atheism and theism are two oppositional and conflicting camps or sides.
Along with this notion comes the expectation of identification and allegiance with one camp/side or the other.

I’m wondering how many DUers share this two oppositional camps cosmology and must an individual choose or be identified with one or the other?

Is it possible that people can waver and fluctuate in their belief? Go to bed an atheist, wake up a theist…be an atheist again by lunch time?

Is it possible for people to hold both conceptions (or elements thereof) simultaneously?
(ie to not recognise a god but to value and support religion)

Is it possible to conceptualise atheism and theism as other that oppositional and conflicting?

[laconicsax]

1. Most theists are also atheists when it comes to other gods.

Most Jews don't believe in Helios, most Christians don't believe in Amaterasu, just to name a couple of examples. In this sense, atheism and theism are not mutually exclusive positions.

I would say that all theists are also atheists when it comes to other gods, but I have to remain open to the possibility, remote as it may be, that one or more people have decided to believe in every god ever imagined.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. Or that they simply believe all those other gods were other peoples'

way of perceiving God.

I don't think we were really *meant* to all see God in the same way.

[laconicsax]

15. Yes, there's that as well.

Do you believe that all theistic religions worship your god in their own way?

[JerseygirlCT]

21. I think humankind has always been in a search

for relationship with God, and yes, have approached that in different ways, and with differing perceptions.

Religion is one of those ways, and certainly, I don't agree with many of the tenets that some have developed in that search. We all go wrong, and religion is human-made and for humans, not for God.

[Silent3]

28. While that's a pleasant "let's all sing Kumbaya" thought...

...trying to cast all gods as merely different perceptions of the same God can only be done by:

(1) Asserting the primacy of monotheism over polytheism -- i.e. those polytheists are all worshiping different aspects of the same single God, they just don't know it! This assertion can be somewhat softened by referring vaguely to "the Divine", as if "the Divine" is more of a "realm" or "power" than an individual entity, but that kind of thinking leads to...

(2) Glossing over significant and often mutually contradictory conceptions of gods, conceptions too different and assertive to sensibly be categorized as merely different perceptions or aspects of a singular coherent phenomena. This "glossing over" is often handled by pointing out limitations of human comprehension, but that leads to at least two problems:

(2a) The idea that many people's beliefs are inaccurate or incomplete approximations of a different, grander Truth is simply not compatible with many believer's belief that they in fact have access to actual Truth, not mere limited or distorted approximations thereof.

(2b) The same limitations of human comprehension that would lead to such wildly different perceptions of the supposed Divine would also render humans incompetent to say anything sensible or meaningful about the idea of the Divine, including whether or not there's anything there at all to talk about or believe in.

[darkstar3]

29. Well and clearly stated.

:applause:

[JerseygirlCT]

31. No, I disagree

1 - some perceive God as having many facets = polytheism.

2 - yes, of course, with the vast differences in human beings, there are equally different perceptions of God. This is only a problem if one insists on a one true correct perception - which isn't likely to be found. There are far more likely many somewhat correct perceptions. The blind men and the elephant for an easy picture...

2a - because the idea is not compatible with many believer's belief doesn't make it any less valid.

2b - I don't think that's so. Meaningful to who? Who defines what's meaningful? Many quite wonderful and sensible things have been said, by people with many different ideas of God. Are we not capable of sorting through and accepting what makes sense to our individual understandings? Beyond that, most major religions do have some pretty similar basic underpinnings if we look at the practical - that is, how we are to treat one another.

[Silent3]

34. The dogmas of polytheistic religions don't generally...

...say that each god is an aspect of one God. They say each god is a god in its own right. The supposed resolution you create only works for a subset of religious believers who are willing to water down their belief systems.

2) I've long thought the blind men and the elephant story was a terribly flawed analogy. They don't all own a piece of truth, they're all just plain and simple WRONG. An elephant is not a rope or a tree trunk or a fan or whatever, even if the elephant has aspects that are very, very, very loosely like some of those things. If you tried to tie up your donkey with that "rope", or chop down that "tree trunk" to make firewood, you'd soon have a nasty collision with the reality of the situation, finding out that your supposed "facet of the truth" was far worse than an admission of ignorance about what you'd encountered.

2a) It may not make it the idea less valid, but it does make the idea less effective at its purported purpose of creating religious harmony -- if the people you're trying to harmonize don't buy into the watered-down versions of their beliefs which are necessary to achieve harmony, harmony will not be achieved. If the goal is to show how wonderfully accepting one is of all different faiths, that goal can't truly be achieved by recasting the beliefs of others as flawed and incomplete versions of a different truth.

If that's acceptance, it's only of a very condescending variety. How accepting is it to "accept" someone else's beliefs under terms that person wouldn't accept?

2b) When you get down to the basic commonalities between all religion, all that's left are things that can be found with no religion at all -- if there's anything left at all (not all religions are sweet visions of rainbows and puppy dogs). There is no there there, other than perhaps an extremely generalized state of superstition.

Who defines "meaningful"? People define it, collectively, like all other words. There are at least two different meanings of "meaningful" we need to identify here, however. The first, which I am NOT discussing, could be stated as "having personal emotional significance".

The second, which I AM talking about, is "conveying clear conceptual content, distinct discernible ideas". The blind men of your fable can't put their individual perceptions together into any clear unifying concept. How would you even know there was any elephant among the blind men at all if you didn't have a non-blind outside observer who could see the elephant? Each man could have been touching exactly the things he thought he was touching, with no unifying explanation for the separate perceptions.

Alice thought she heard a dog barking, Bob had a craving for ice cream, Carol was feeling vaguely guilty for having left the air conditioning on at home when no one was there, and Dave decided his next vacation should be in Egypt. Why not decide these thoughts and sensations were all different perceptions of the same unifying concept, Glorg? How is that different from deciding that all religions are merely different perceptions of the same truth?

Unless you claim yourself to be outside of the plight of the blind men, or at least in possession of a specific, not vague, explanatory theory that not only precisely explains each individual perception but also accurately predicts new ones, you can't be in the position to meaningfully propose a unifying concept such as "God", "Glorg", or even proposing that there is any unity at all. All you have is the wishful thinking of a liberal but vague theology.

[rrneck]

42. It seems to me

that the meaning of the word "meaningful" that you are not discussing is the portion of the human experience with which religion is concerned and the foundation of its (proper) operation. When religion tries to apply "meaning" in the sense that you are discussing it falters and virgins get thrown into volcanoes.

People give meaning to everything. Everything. Even the stuff they make up for no other reason than that it makes them feel something.

[struggle4progress]

25. One, of course, chooses one gods, either deliberately or by accidental practice

Perhaps believing-in-this-or-that-god should be understood as choosing-in-this-or-that-god, rather than assenting-intellectually-to-this-or-that-traditional-view

[adnelson60087]

2. Sure you can claim the 2 sides can get along

as long as you don't look too closely. Or really believe what the other side is saying. Either you accept the supernatural or you don't. I guess I don't see any other way to think of the bottom line here.

[uberllama42]

3. "The proposition has been put"

May I ask, by whom?

[ironbark]

14. Sure, and you’ll get exactly the same reply as when I ask. ;-)

[uberllama42]

20. Well, I don't remotely feel obligated to respond

to anything in the OP, even though it's fairly obvious that you're making a wild extrapolation from what I said elsewhere. For one thing, it's just too far removed from anything I've said. For another, I already laid out in intricate detail what I mean by saying there are two camps here.

[ironbark]

23. Your right

"it's just too far removed from anything I've said"

The assumption of "extrapolation" is misplaced.

[Curmudgeoness]

4. As an atheist, I have respect for theist's beliefs, therefore,

I see no reason that there should be conflict. Of course, that is if everyone in the conversation also agrees to the "you are free to believe your way" ideal. I also, if I would have had children, would have had them attend a church. I think that it is not a bad thing to have a belief in something beyond us, and they should know what it is that they would choose to believe/not believe in. So, yes, these are opposites, but no, they do not have to be in conflict.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. As a believer

I find a whole lot in that to agree with.

I don't think one's belief is necessarily something to be worn like a button or displayed like a bumper sticker. It's too easy to fall into the "with us or against us" camp.

Rather I think it's something quite personal, and in my experience, apt to modify itself on a daily basis.

As you say, so long as there is respect, there is no reason whatsoever for their to be conflict.

[Curmudgeoness]

11. I envy you in a way. Having something to believe in must be comforting.

But when it isn't there, it isn't there. I totally respect people who live by their beliefs in god, it is never a bad thing if you live as you are taught.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Thanks, Curmudgeoness

Yes, it has been a comfort, often. But I do understand - as my belief isn't really something I can quantify - I just KNOW - I certainly wouldn't deny that someone for whom it just isn't there is just as certain as I am.

(That certainty goes only to God's presence. Matters theological beyond that are often up for discussion and evolution!)

[humblebum]

16. Well put. nt

[Beststash]

5. Live and let live!

I would never think of telling someone else how to live. I think people should be able to believe how they wish as long as they do not try and tell anyone else how to live.

IMO, the simple act of accepting one's own religion is quite enough and should not be involved in proselytizing.

Peace

[Warpy]

6. Personal boundaries!

People who don't have them are going to get their knickers in a twist no matter which side of the question they're on because they're the ones who are going to be personally threatened by the knowledge that someone else doesn't think the same way they do.

People with strong personal boundaries know another person's belief or lack of belief is not about them, and can cope with it perfectly well.

[JerseygirlCT]

9. That seems about right, Warpy

It seems to me that understanding your own belief (or non, you know what I mean) is enough of an undertaking - I don't get the need to try to insure that everyone else agrees with you.

Heck, the idea of everyone agreeing with me is scary, b/c that implies that my own beliefs are set in concrete.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. I'm an agnostic, I think both camps might exist, or one, or the other, or neither, and either way...

it doesn't matter to me.

[ironbark]

12. Ditto to all......and thanks ;-) n/t

[Angry Dragon]

17. Going to throw this out there

All people have a spirit and that spirit makes them unique. By that uniqueness no one sees god the same way as another.
For the ones that believe in a god, most feel that he/she is most powerful and has created everything.
There have been many gods referenced throughout the ages. What if there is only one god, but that god
reveals himself/herself in many different ways to touch the uniqueness within people.
Everyone sees a different god, but it is just different sides of the same god.
Seems fighting over which god is right would be a huge waste of time and energy.

So what it boils down to is not the trappings that go with believing but what are the very basic
foundations of the belief. Love, compassion, tolerance, help towards others.

That is why we are free to decide the type of god one wishes to believe in.

[ironbark]

18. Sounds plausible and reasonable to me.

“What if there is only one god, but that god reveals himself/herself in many different ways to touch the uniqueness within people.”

That’s pretty much the theory of ‘Progressive Revelation’ (evolution of religion) first proposed (as far as I know) by the founder of the Baha’i faith (1844) and since taken up by a dozen or more religious movements. The proposition is basically that there is a great global bedrock of native belief, a subsequent lineage of prophets, manifestations and teachers that constitute the worlds Major Living Faith traditions (if the belief/religion is dead/no followers it wasn’t from god). The theory goes much as you describe only the “revealing” occurs in different periods/places in accord with the unique needs of the time and place. Religious law is seen in this context as varying/social and unvarying/spiritual…ie not eating pork is a place specific social law….The Golden Rule is a continuous spiritual law.

“So what it boils down to is not the trappings that go with believing but what are the very basic
foundations of the belief. Love, compassion, tolerance, help towards others.”

I’ve got no argument with that ;-)

Only problem is…this ‘Love thy neighbour’ business is getting tricky and complex…turns out that to actually love them requires getting to know them, what to “tolerate” and what “help” might be required. Also turns out that my neighbour, with my life/style impacting on him and his impacting on me, lives on the other side of the planet.

Who is leaving the big dirty carbon footprint is more complex than “Can I borrow your donkey”.

;-)


Glad you took the time to "throw it out there"

[Angry Dragon]

19. "lives on the other side of the planet"

I had a thought in my youth many moons ago that one could change the world.
You could do this with a smile, passed from one person to another until that smile passed onto everyone.
Not a big change, but a first step.
So you get to know your neighbor next door and find each other with many of the same
needs and desires. Nothing profound just good education for your children, tolerance of your ideas, enough money to enjoy life.
Each one of you then goes unto another, and then they go onto others as you
continue reaching out. Someday this would travel the world getting back to you.
That is how we change the world.

Some would say this is naive and I would tell them that killing each other is not working.

[ironbark]

27. That is the voice, the principle and the sentiment I came here to hear.

To be reminded and reassured it still exists.

Many thanks.

[Cleobulus]

37. The flaw in your argument is two fold...

first, you make an unwarranted and unsupported assumption that "all people have spirit". This statement is useless without defining spirit.

Second, considering the thousands of Gods and Goddesses out there, if they all are aspects of the "One TRUE God", then that God is insane and confused. Many of the traits and behaviors of these numerous Gods are diametrically opposed to each other. There are Gods that are evil, good, neutral, etc.

Not to mention the religions, even modern major ones, who do claim there's a single superior being of some sort have absolutely no agreement on the nature of that being, nor even the proper way to approach or worship said being correctly.

[laconicsax]

38. +1

But isn't it so much easier to arrogantly presume that not only your god is the One True God^TM, but that you're far more intelligent and sophisticated than the billions of believers, past and present, who didn't realize that they were actually worshiping YOUR god?

[Cleobulus]

39. I remember a story I saw on the internet about a Wiccan...

who talked to a Christian and the Christian claimed that the Wiccan was actually worshiping their God, just in a different way. The Wiccan found this insulting, and from that point onward more or less stopped believing that Gods were aspects of a single being or source, they became a "hard" polytheist, rather than someone who worships only aspects of a greater unknown "Godhead".

[ironbark]

40. The perceived ‘flaw’ is potentially resolved by the theory of ‘Progressive Revelation’

See #18.

“…considering the thousands of Gods and Goddesses out there,…”

As an exercise in critical thinking…Begin by breaking them down into the living and the dead.
Those that have zero- a handful of followers (dead gods/faiths) those whos followers number in the hundreds of thousands- tens of millions (The worlds Major Living Religious Traditions)

Google or off the top of your head- name the latter and put them on a timeline….see what happens.

[Cleobulus]

41. Sounds more like progressive make shit up...

but that's just me, besides that, what do numbers have to do with anything? Humans are very creative in making up fantasy worlds, look at any fantasy world or mythology out there, its just that some are recognized as such.

If progressive revelation is a theory on the development of monotheism, then wouldn't the Jews and Muslims be the ones closest to the Truth(with a capital T, as it were)? I mean, Christianity's 3 Gods in One deal isn't exactly strictly monotheistic.

And again, looking at the main religions, we have the 3 in one Godhead of Christianity, the stricter monotheism of Judaism and Islam, the practical atheism of Buddhism, and the 3 million+ Gods of Hinduism. Hinduism itself is confusing, with believers spanning from pantheists to strict polytheists.

In addition, what's with the progressive in the title of your idea? What's the progression here? Are Hindus less advanced, theologically speaking, than Christians?

[Jim__]

22. They are not two irreconcilable camps.

There are any number of atheists who respect the religious viewpoint and similarly any number of theists who respect the atheist viewpoint.

We don't know very much about the universe that we live in. The odds are that we are all wrong in our opinions about any ultimate understanding of the universe. Knowing that should make us a bit humble about our own opinion and tolerant of views that differ from ours.

[struggle4progress]

24. Apparently, some people find it an important and interesting disagreement. I don't.

For governmental purposes, in the US, one should want the state to be completely silent on this matter. So as a general rule, I agree with people who want theistic references removed from (say) the coinage or the pledge, and I usually consider politicians' religious references offensive. But I would not be happier if the religious references were replaced by anti-religious references.

For some policy purposes, and more generally for some moral purposes, most people will agree one ought to adopt an areligious stance: in the case, for example, of a child with a serious but easily treatable illness, it is appropriate for the state to intervene if parents insist on applying only prayer; if the illness is minor, the matter is not so clear, nor is the matter clear when the only available treatments for a very serious illness are highly invasive and have limited prospects for success. In any case, many religions do not take the view that prayer suffices as a practical matter; here is James 2: Suppose someone is without clothes and daily food. If you say, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but do nothing to help, what good is that?

The "debate" has been promoted primarily as a personal and political powerplay. The anti-evolutionists, for example, want to portray the teaching of evolution as an antireligious activity (although in fact evolution is simply and necessarily silent on religious questions) because this generates controversy and attention. Certain antireligious people will take the same stand -- that the teaching of evolution is an antireligious activity -- for exactly the same reason

[dmallind]

26. Yes and no

Must an individual choose to be identified as one or the other? Choice really doesn't come into it. You either are one or the other. Whether you try to assume another label or not is up to you, but any label you assume will not answer the basic question of "do you have any belief in any gods". That can be answerted only yes or no. How sure you are, on what vbasis, and how much you care may be intersting questions or not, but they are different questions than that answered by identification as either possessing or lacking god belief.

Can you waver and fluctuate between them? Certainly. In fact that's almost inescapable. Nobody is born with a god belief so any who have it (the majority) went through a transition no matter how brief. And anybody who lost it again doubtless did too. A daily switch back and forth is unlikely but possible I suppose. Such a person would have a rather sketychy grip on their own thought processes however.

Is it possible to hold elements of both? No. Not simultaneously. The prefix a means lacking. You cannot lack and possess theism at the same time. This is basic logic. Whether you value religion as an atheist or do not value it as a theist is immaterial. Theism or atheism is a question exclusively concerning belief in gods, nothing else.

Do they have to be opposite and conflicting? Depends on how you use those words. In an ideal world there would be mno conflict and people would be left to believe as they see fit without the presence or lack of belief or its trappings being forced either way, but as far as fundamental beliefs go yes they must by definition be "opposite" each other as they form a binary set. You are either theistic or atheistic just like you are either married or single, pregnant or not pregnant.

[TZ]

30. Message boards like this automatically draw lines

and encourage conflict. IRL, I'm an outspoken atheist as is my Dad and my Uncle. My mother is an agnostic. My older BIL is a born again although no longer actively practicing christian. My mom's best friend growing up was a Christian fundamentalist who spoke in tounges!! Many of my colleagues are religious but know I'm an atheist/secular jew. We had a fine conversation about religion -me (secular jew) Muslim colleague, and Born again Christian African the other week. No shouting was involved..:)
In other words, I don't think R+T reflects the real world at all.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. That's quite true.

And your conversation was undoubtedly more fruitful and pleasant for it!

[ChadwickHenryWard]

33. To quote Christopher Hitchens,

"What an incredibly stupid question."

[ironbark]

35. Did he have the intelligence to add why?

Or was he too steeped in arrogance to do so?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

36. He did. He gave quite an excellent answer to the question

though he was pretty "steeped in arrogance" while doing it. The context of the quote, however, is irrelevant to the discussion, and I don't know why you would care.

[rrneck]

43. You can't tell somebody else how to feel.

They are two camps, but they only become "oppositional" when one tries to tell the other what they should or should not be feeling.