# Fundamentalist Atheists equivalent to Fundamentalist Theists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001 "2011-04-19T21:35:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/161 "2011-04-21T13:25:02Z")
It’s part of my philosophy that you shouldn’t murder. Does that make me an antimurderist? No. Or that I have a whole philosophy about murder? There’s no dissertation bouncing around in my head. This thread asked a question. I attempted to answer it by pointing out what is natural to humans and how the mind works. Since you don’t seem to know empiricalism or theory of mind (or don’t care), then I can’t do this. No big deal. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/162 "2011-04-21T13:30:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m using standard definitions. You should check your own dictionaries. You have some misunderstandings about what some of these words mean. Dio, seriously. I know what these words mean. You keep making “belief” and “knowledge” synonyms. [Not so easy.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Belief) This thread is getting derailed; I’m stopping. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/163 "2011-04-21T13:34:17Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > DING DING DING DING! > We have a winner! > > Finally. Some logic. That’s great. If God is outside the human realm, there is no reason at all to believe in its existence, let alone debate its properties. Which is the atheist position. (Most) theistic gods are **not** defined to be outside human experience at all, except when some semi-clever theist is debating the existence of that god. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/164 "2011-04-21T13:40:46Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > That’s great. If God is outside the human realm, there is no reason at all to believe in its existence, let alone debate its properties. Which is the atheist position. (Most) theistic gods are **not** defined to be outside human experience at all, except when some semi-clever theist is debating the existence of that god. Swipe out “god” with “which we cannot know”. In Judaism, God is: I AM THE I AM. que sera sera God is whatever we define it to be. But…all humans have words for god. It’s universal. God isn’t outside the human experience. That would be like s9hikalnhasism. It’s just beyond human understanding (like space). Doesn’t prove or disprove God. I was just merely pointing out how useful philosophy is when exercising your right to wail on Creationists! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/165 "2011-04-21T13:59:56Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Swipe out “god” with “which we cannot know”. That’s just the typical tactic of redefining “god” to be undetectable for the purposes of debate. The two terms aren’t equivalent, if they were, people wouldn’t believe in god. > [@](#): > > God is whatever we define it to be. Show me one believer who agrees with that. > [@](#): > > But…all humans have words for god. It’s universal. God isn’t outside the human experience. That would be like s9hikalnhasism. It’s just beyond human understanding (like space). Unknowable is not the same as not understandable. And now you’re making the claim that god == space. Or not. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t prove or disprove God. Either god is space and thus does exist for all practical definitions of “exist” (even if you claim you can’t understand space and that kind of god is equivalent to the non-existence of every major theistic god, and also not outside the human realm or experience), or god isn’t space and you’re just ducking the question. > [@](#): > > I was just merely pointing out how useful philosophy is when exercising your right to wail on Creationists! 😃 Seen similar redefinition tactics before. Not impressed yet. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/166 "2011-04-21T14:22:07Z")
What you’re giving isn’t answers, CP, but wastes of time. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/167 "2011-04-21T14:34:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Can we start by defining atheism? I’ve seen plenty of folks on this board who will say things like “Theists think God exists, but we know better, and know they’re wrong”, but then turn around and say in another thread that atheism is just a lack of belief. No, a lack of belief means uncertainty about whether God exists, which is agnosticism. Once you say “I know that God does not exist”, you’re asserting a religious belief. I’m not too interested in defining words, but I think this deserves an answer with respect to what people who call themselves “atheists” actually identify with. If an atheists says “I know that God does not exist,” it’s along the lines of how any other person would say that he knows that leprechauns don’t exist. In a strict epistemological sense, it’s an unsupportable statement, but practically, everyone knows what you mean. Atheists view the concept of God just like everyone else views the concept of leprechauns. It’s an extraordinary claim, for which no evidence is presented, so the default position has to be to accept that they don’t exist, provisionally. > [@JoeMonocle](#): > > In fact, belief that G\*d does not exist requires precisely the same type of faith as does theism, namely, a belief for which it is impossible to advance respectable knowledge claims. The claim that a God exists does not have evidence to support it. Rejection of that claim does not require faith or evidence. Rejection of that claim is what makes an atheist. > [@](#): > > G_d by definition, at least the G_d of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for starters, exists outside of this universe and so is, in principle, unobservable. If this God is, in principle, unobservable, then belief in it is, in principle, unjustified. You’ve just admitted here that there’s no way to justify a belief in this God of yours. Seems like this would be the end of all the Abrahamic religions, but… > [@](#): > > At the end of the day atheists try to distinguish their non-empirical faith by appeals to probability, parsimony, and other scientific standards, however all such appeals serve to conceal the circularity and emptiness of empirically based arguments that G\*d definitely doesn’t exist. So who argues that God definitely doesn’t exist? > [@](#): > > Empirically grounded scepticism however cannot drive a compelling case for a knowledge claim that G\*d does not exist. Sure, and that’s why no one makes a knowledge claim that God does not exist. At least, not some vague, poorly-defined concept of God. Of course, some formulations have logical contradictions and can be shown not to exist, but in general, no one makes the knowledge claim that they don’t. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > > [@Der Trihs](#): > > > > No. There is zero evidence for Judaism and the other Abrahamic religions, just like any other religion. > > The religion doesn’t exist? 😕 Please stop being obtuse. There is zero evidence that the claims of Judaism and other Abrahamic religions are true. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/168 "2011-04-21T14:54:18Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > It’s part of my philosophy that you shouldn’t murder. Does that make me an antimurderist? yes, but I don’t see what this has to do with the topic. Atheism is not “anti” anything. > [@](#): > > Or that I have a whole philosophy about murder? So what? Atheism is not a philosophy. > [@](#): > > Since you don’t seem to know empiricalism or theory of mind (or don’t care), then I can’t do this. No big deal. There is no such word as “empiricalism.” The word is empiricism, and you have not demonstrated that you know what it means. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/169 "2011-04-21T15:04:49Z")
The worst part is that CitizenPained has claimed to be a teacher in other threads. Those poor students. I hope her tests are better written than her posts. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/170 "2011-04-21T15:30:15Z")
**CitizenPained** , you are blatantly misusing very basic philosophical terms and logical principles. Really, this is stuff that my Intro to Philosophy TA would have marked me down for. For instance, you seem unclear on what “atheism” means, or what the null hypothesis is. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/171 "2011-04-21T16:20:58Z")
ENOUGH! **Everyone** back off on the snide comments and attempts at under-the-wire jabs. There will be no more comments on the efforts of other posters to explain themselves, their ability to think, or their capacity for knowledge. You can continue your semantic game of dueling idiolects, but you wll no longer make observations about other posters as part of the thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![JoeMonocle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/51bf81/32.png) [@JoeMonocle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeMonocle)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/172 "2011-04-21T19:05:29Z")
To Diogenes the Cynic, I point out that you assume, wrongly, that I am a theist, and so your “sky fairy” derision is misplaced. You make the mistake of assuming that if one sketches the outlines of an issue one must thereby be a partisan of whichever side seems to “win”. I also, for example, believe that Gadaffi is right about the Rebels and right about the U.N… I am not, however, pro Gadaffi, as the overall weight of my beliefs and sentiments on the issue involves more than whether or not Gadaffi can make a case for himself. Similarly, Noam Chomsky is a Zionist, and anyone who reads anything else into his critiques is wrong. I am agnostic, and would lump in what you call “atheism” as agnosticism. It seems to me that you’re an agnostic wearing an ill fitting atheist’s costume. As for your blunt statement that you think I don’t know what “theology” or “theism” mean, I would say, “physician, heal thyself”. Wherever you look, along the broad boulevard of civil conversation, “atheism” is understood as the theory or belief that g\*d does not exist. It seems to me that you mix up what looks, at first blush, like a linguistically apt expectation of what “atheism” should mean, with how the word is most often used, both casually, and academically. As for the suggestion that putting atheists in the theistic camp is wrong headed because this standard would lend credence to Smurf believers, you are right. This doesn’t mean that Smuf believers are likely to become respectable any time soon. But it does mean that theism happens to be in an epistemological category whereby human knowledge claims amount to null. If this were not the case, the matter would have been settled by now. Looking at what makes Smurfism and Theism different, though, is instructive. I’m not sure what Smurfism entails, but I can tell you that Theism has to do with first causes of the universe. I feel enmeshed in jungly undergrowth any time I try to get to the heart of the matter on this point, and usually have to resort to violent hacking and thrashing just to get out alive, generally creating more heat than light. Rather than subjecting myself to the experience or others to the spectacle, I’ll defer to whoever, among the _Theists_, might like to take it on. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/173 "2011-04-21T19:16:21Z")
> [@JoeMonocle](#): > > I am agnostic, and would lump in what you call “atheism” as agnosticism. It seems to me that you’re an agnostic wearing an ill fitting atheist’s costume. I would expect Dio to say that he’s an agnostic atheist, like most atheists would, if they’re getting technical about it. Many agnostics (most, probably, though not nearly all) are atheists. Atheism is about what you personally believe (or don’t believe) regarding the existence of god(s). Agnosticism is about what you think or believe you can KNOW about god(s). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/174 "2011-04-21T19:21:14Z")
> [@JoeMonocle](#): > > I am agnostic, and would lump in what you call “atheism” as agnosticism. It seems to me that you’re an agnostic wearing an ill fitting atheist’s costume. I am both agnostic and atheist. They are not opposed. People commonly confuse agnosticism with weak atheism. > [@](#): > > As for your blunt statement that you think I don’t know what “theology” or “theism” mean, I would say, “physician, heal thyself”. Wherever you look, along the broad boulevard of civil conversation, “atheism” is understood as the theory or belief that g\*d does not exist. Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of theistic belief. It is not a assertion of the negative, it’s a lack of assertion of the positive. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that you mix up what looks, at first blush, like a linguistically apt expectation of what “atheism” should mean, with how the word is most often used, both casually, and academically. I am using the word exactly how it’s used academically. Popularly, it gets commonly misunderstood (as you are doing). > [@](#): > > As for the suggestion that putting atheists in the theistic camp is wrong headed because this standard would lend credence to Smurf believers, you are right. This doesn’t mean that Smuf believers are likely to become respectable any time soon. But it does mean that theism happens to be in an epistemological category whereby human knowledge claims amount to null. If this were not the case, the matter would have been settled by now. Theism belongs to no epistemological category at all. It’s just an assertion. > [@](#): > > Looking at what makes Smurfism and Theism different, though, is instructive. I’m not sure what Smurfism entails, but I can tell you that Theism has to do with first causes of the universe. Smurfs created the universe. Now how is that assertion different from saying a sky god did it? You don’t actually think First Cause is a persuasive argument anyway, do you? > [@](#): > > I feel enmeshed in jungly undergrowth any time I try to get to the heart of the matter on this point, and usually have to resort to violent hacking and thrashing just to get out alive, generally creating more heat than lightRather than subjecting myself to the experience or others to the spectacle, I’ll defer to whoever, among the Theists, might like to take it on. What is “the heart of the matter?” ---
**Author:** ![JoeMonocle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/51bf81/32.png) [@JoeMonocle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeMonocle)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/175 "2011-04-21T19:25:34Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I would love for you to apply your atheism is a form of theism logic to the word anorexia or anaerobic. That’s not “my logic”. It’s the consensus view of what the word means, both as used in common discourse, as cited in dictionaries, and as used by academics whose business it is to know what the word means. The English language is full of words that don’t quite mean what you’d think they might, based upon syntactic parsing. Claiming that “atheism” means something other than what it means because of a quirk about its prefix is just not interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/176 "2011-04-21T19:29:25Z")
That is not how the word is used academically. I know that for a fact. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/177 "2011-04-21T19:37:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If God is outside the human realm, why should I trust any human’s opinion about God? Exactly. It’s that simple. After months of an ongoing discussion with my conservative Christian sister I asked her what person I should trust to tell me what to do in regard to my immortal soul, and how would I know if that imperfect human was correct? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/178 "2011-04-21T19:39:17Z")
> [@JoeMonocle](#): > > That’s not “my logic”. It’s the consensus view of what the word means, both as used in common discourse, as cited in dictionaries, and as used by academics whose business it is to know what the word means. > > The English language is full of words that don’t quite mean what you’d think they might, based upon syntactic parsing. Claiming that “atheism” means something other than what it means because of a quirk about its prefix is just not interesting. Then you have been misinformed regarding the nature and the meaning of the word atheism. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/179 "2011-04-21T19:48:37Z")
> [@JoeMonocle](#): > > That’s not “my logic”. It’s the consensus view of what the word means, both as used in common discourse, as cited in dictionaries, and as used by academics whose business it is to know what the word means. > > The English language is full of words that don’t quite mean what you’d think they might, based upon syntactic parsing. Claiming that “atheism” means something other than what it means because of a quirk about its prefix is just not interesting. So you assertion is that atheism means what the most people think it means? So if enough people don’t understand the correct meaning of a word, trier incorrect notion becomes the meaning? I guess there is some truth to that, but it’s understandable that some people still use the original and more technical definition. When engaged in a discussion it’s good to know how the other person is defining a term. Unless their definition clearly incorrect. In this case , it’s not. A lack of belief is the classic definition and atheism is not akin to a religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/180 "2011-04-21T20:02:44Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Then you have been misinformed regarding the nature and the meaning of the word atheism. Not necessarily. From Merriam-Webster: > [@what did I just say](#): > > 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS > 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity I’ll agree that, when taken as the name of a philosophical position, only 2a is applicable. But in English, words mean what people use them to mean, and though I think that is frequently counterproductive to discourse, there’s no denying that many people use _atheism_ as **JoeMonocole** has been. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001.md?page=10)