# Let Theists agree before they have the nerve to criticize atheists! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2007, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785 "2007-05-12T00:55:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/501 "2007-05-20T16:20:45Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I realize that this was more hyperbolic rhetoric than argumentation, but it is probably not true (depending on the persons selected). The Catholic priest has no expectation that the others are going to hell (unless he is a Feeneyite heretic). It is doubtful that a Protestant minister believes that the others are damned (unless he is a member of a denomination that is significantly literalist). The Muslim might be more problematic, although those Muslims I have met who would tend to choose to appear on that sort of show would view their co-panelists as “people of the book” and not believe that they were damned, either. [/QUOTE] True, the specific doctrine of hell may be one on which there is compromise, and that would be a fair point if you had not, yourself, recognized it as hyperbole. But the point remains the same that there are a lot of VERY fundamental theological issues that these people do not agree on: issues that are generally a pretty big deal, and yet these panelists never actually confront them with each other in the way they do the assertions made by atheists. Somehow, not being convinced that there was a Creator is open for debate, but disagreements on whether or not Jesus saves (which if true is pretty much THE most important issue, ever, period) is ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/502 "2007-05-20T16:25:14Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] But the point remains the same that there are a lot of VERY fundamental theological issues that these people do not agree on: issues that are generally a pretty big deal, and yet these panelists never actually confront them with each other in the way they do the assertions made by atheists. Somehow, not being convinced that there was a Creator is open for debate, but disagreements on whether or not Jesus saves (which if true is pretty much THE most important issue, ever, period) is ignored. [/QUOTE] Maybe because those other issues weren’t what that particular episode of the show was about? It would have constituted a hijack of the program to bring those other issues up there? I’m guessing they didn’t debate global warming, the war in Iraq, or Kirk vs. Picard, either. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/503 "2007-05-20T16:32:41Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] Maybe because those other issues weren’t what that particular episode of the show was about? It would have constituted a hijack of the program to bring those other issues up there? I’m guessing they didn’t debate global warming, the war in Iraq, or Kirk vs. Picard, either. [/QUOTE] Pretty lame dodge there Thud, imho. If it would have been a hijack, why have three panelists representing different belief systems at all? Why not just one? And then there is simply the reality that there is rarely or no “particular episode” in which those guys then go and do debate each other. It’s just atheists talk, so they must be rebutted, and then, religionists talk no rebuttal needed (from atheists or other believers with different beliefs). ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/504 "2007-05-20T16:41:31Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Yes, there ARE many religious believers that don’t object to the beliefs of others. But in this particular case, and in most particular cases, that’s simply not the actual situation. There really IS disagreement over who, for instance, Jesus was, and to most religious believers (especially in America), that issue really does matter and isn’t just a matter of vague “it’s all good, God!” indifference. [/quote] You really badly need a cite for this. ‘Because I said so’ doesn’t count. > [@](#): > > Given that you will deny even plain facts about the text of the Bible, I think we can safely ignore your anecdotal claims of superior experience in matters of theological doctrine. I am not going down one of those ‘you said bla and I said bla’ rabbit-holes. That I disagree with your interpretation of what you read is not the same as ‘denying facts’. You, BTW, are not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes ‘fact’ about the Bible. Just, you know, in case you didn’t realize it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/505 "2007-05-20T16:43:06Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] You really badly need a cite for this. ‘Because I said so’ doesn’t count. [/QUOTE] You want a cite that Jesus is seen differently in different religions? Or that the issue of Jesus is one that many religious people feel strongly about? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/506 "2007-05-20T16:52:23Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] You really badly need a cite for this. ‘Because I said so’ doesn’t count. [/quote] > **[Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)** > > Islam\[a\] is an Abrahamic religion based on the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. The monotheistic religion has an estimated 2 billion worldwide adherents, called Muslims. Islam is the world's second-largest religious population after Christianity. Muslims believe that there is a primordial faith that was revealed many times through earlier prophets and messengers, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and they believe that Islam is the universal and complete version of ... > **[Catholic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church)** > > God > Schools Relations with: The latter should be of particular personal interest to you. If you’d like to learn more, perhaps you should read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly the sections on, say, baptism. > [@](#): > > I am not going down one of those ‘you said bla and I said bla’ rabbit-holes. That I disagree with your interpretation of what you read is not the same as ‘denying facts’. You, BTW, are not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes ‘fact’ about the Bible. Just, you know, in case you didn’t realize it. The Bible proscribes death for all manner of minor superstitions, including idol worshipping, sabbath working, etc. This is a fact, not something open to interpretation. If you interpret the Bible differently in the sense that you believe that your God doesn’t want you to read it literally, that’s your business and I have no quarrel with it, but claiming it doesn’t SAY what it plainly says is just nonsense, serving only to derail debate. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/507 "2007-05-20T16:55:33Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] That’s a somewhat odd interpretation. The definition says that you must believe in _no god_ to be an athiest. [/QUOTE] Right. No God. Note the singular. > [@](#): > > Not just \*a \* god, or even _some_ gods. You may believe in no gods at all to be an atheist. Ah, see, you’ve slipped into the plural now. Is it god, or gods? This is important. > [@](#): > > Not believing in Allah by itself is not enough under this definition (though it is a requirement); you must believe in no gods whatsoever. A point that I have made over and over is that before a assertion of atheism is made there must be an assertion of theism. Atheism is a _response_. The theist says “such and such a god exists,” the atheist says “no, it doesn’t.” The problem, again, as noted in the OP, is that there is no one definition of god. “Supreme Being” doesn’t cut it, as Zeus, for example, is not a supreme being. Again, atheism is a response, not a bald assertion. It is a disbelief in the god in question. A disbelief in the god asserted. Nothing more, nothing less. > [@](#): > > Not “you must believe a god does not exist”. Your own definition is silly; that you seem to be deliberately misreading another definition is unpleasant. May God grant that that is the most unpleasant thing you encounter today. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/508 "2007-05-20T17:12:05Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] That’s a somewhat odd interpretation. The definition says that you must believe in _no god_ to be an athiest.[?QUOTE]Right. No God. Note the singular. > [@](#): > > Not just \*a \* god, or even _some_ gods. You may believe in no gods at all to be an atheist. Ah, see, you’ve slipped into the plural now. Is it god, or gods? This is important. > [@](#): > > Not believing in Allah by itself is not enough under this definition (though it is a requirement); you must believe in no gods whatsoever. A point that I have made over and over is that before a assertion of atheism is made there must be an assertion of theism. Atheism is a _response_. The theist says “such and such a god exists,” the atheist says “no, it doesn’t.” The problem, again, as noted in the OP, is that there is no one definition of god. “Supreme Being” doesn’t cut it, as Zeus, for example, is not a supreme being. Again, atheism is a response, not a bald assertion. It is a disbelief in the god in question. A disbelief in the god asserted. Nothing more, nothing less. > [@](#): > > Not “you must believe a god does not exist”. Your own definition is silly; that you seem to be deliberately misreading another definition is unpleasant. May God grant that that is the most unpleasant thing you encounter today. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/509 "2007-05-20T17:18:19Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] That’s a somewhat odd interpretation. The definition says that you must believe in _no god_ to be an athiest. [/QUOTE] Right. No God. Note the singular. > [@](#): > > Not just \*a \* god, or even _some_ gods. You may believe in no gods at all to be an atheist. Ah, see, you’ve slipped into the plural now. Is it god, or gods? This is important. > [@](#): > > Not believing in Allah by itself is not enough under this definition (though it is a requirement); you must believe in no gods whatsoever. A point that I have made over and over is that before a assertion of atheism is made there must be an assertion of theism. Atheism is a _response_. The theist says “such and such a god exists,” the atheist says “no, it doesn’t.” The problem, again, as noted in the OP, is that there is no one definition of god. “Supreme Being” doesn’t cut it, as Zeus, for example, is not a supreme being. Again, atheism is a response, not a bald assertion. It is a disbelief in the god in question. A disbelief in the god asserted. Nothing more, nothing less. > [@](#): > > Not “you must believe a god does not exist”. Your own definition is silly; that you seem to be deliberately misreading another definition is unpleasant. May God grant that that is the most unpleasant thing you encounter today. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/510 "2007-05-20T17:31:07Z")
I hope i’m not missing anything in the invisible posts. [QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Right. No God. Note the singular. Ah, see, you’ve slipped into the plural now. Is it god, or gods? This is important. [/quote] Good point; there is a difference. Handily, it’s not one we have to worry about here, since disbelief or belief in many gods implies disbelief or belief in one god. But the singular or plural doesn’t make any difference as to whether atheists can believe in a god under this definition. It says you must “believe in no god”. That’s not “Don’t believe in one god”. You can’t, under it, believe in any god singly or many gods. A Christian, not believing in Allah, does not count, since they do believe in a god. If “gods” are p, you can’t just not believe in q as part of the set of p; you must disbelieve in the whole of p. > [@](#): > > A point that I have made over and over is that before a assertion of atheism is made there must be an assertion of theism. Atheism is a _response_. The theist says “such and such a god exists,” the atheist says “no, it doesn’t.” The problem, again, as noted in the OP, is that there is no one definition of god. “Supreme Being” doesn’t cut it, as Zeus, for example, is not a supreme being. > > Again, atheism is a response, not a bald assertion. It is a disbelief in the god in question. A disbelief in the god asserted. Nothing more, nothing less. Gosh, if only i’d made a point previously about atheism being a disbelief in _all_ “asserted” gods. Wouldn’t that have been nice? Again, atheism is the disbelief in \*all \* gods asserted. Not just one. > [@](#): > > May God grant that that is the most unpleasant thing you encounter today. Who needs God, when you yourself can change that? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/511 "2007-05-20T18:05:01Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] Can you imagine ANY representative of Islam or Christianity saying that it is enough to believe only “we are because God is” **in order to be a Muslim or a Christian?** [/QUOTE] Emphasis mine. Did the title of the OP change when I wasn’t looking? Perhaps we should ask a mod to change it to “Let Christians and Muslims agree before they have the nerve to criticize atheists”. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/512 "2007-05-20T18:15:27Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I hope i’m not missing anything in the invisible posts. [/QUOTE] Aside from relentless, bone crushing, inescapable rhetoric, nothing of substance. > [@](#): > > Good point; there is a difference. Handily, it’s not one we have to worry about here, since disbelief or belief in many gods implies disbelief or belief in one god. This is what we go round and round about. It is possible to disbelieve in countless gods and still believe in one god, as you have already conceded. For there to be disbelief in many gods, the gods must still be identified. **It is incoherent to assert disbelief in a god whose existence has not been asserted.** > [@](#): > > But the singular or plural doesn’t make any difference as to whether atheists can believe in a god under this definition. It says you must “believe in no god”. No, it doesn’t. You continue to miss this point. It says, and I quote, _“the doctrine or belief that there is no God.”_ This “God” \*must be identified \*before the doctrine can come into existence. “Believe in no god” is _not the same thing_ as “Disbelieve in God.” > [@](#): > > That’s not “Don’t believe in one god”. Perhaps. What it definitely is, however, is “Don’t believe in _any particular god_.” > [@](#): > > You can’t, under it, believe in any god singly or many gods. A Christian, not believing in Allah, does not count, since they do believe in a god. Yet, they disbelieve in \*thousands \*of gods. Here is a thought experiment. Suppose you are an explorer who stumbles upon a culture that has been isolated from other cultures for millennia. This culture worships The One True God, CONTRA. They have no concept of other gods. You are a Christian. As far as they are concerned, are you an atheist? > [@](#): > > If “gods” are p, you can’t just not believe in q as part of the set of p; you must disbelieve in the whole of p. You have identified the crux of the issue. “gods” are not p. Each god is separate and distinct, and some gods are mutually exclusive. If “gods” are p, then they are equally not p. > [@](#): > > Again, atheism is the disbelief in \*all \* gods asserted. Not just one. Change "all’ to “each,” and I agree. Consider an analogy. Lets say you and I are playing a round of golf, and I birdie every hole. It is accurate to say that I birdied “all the holes.” However, I did it _one at a time_. That is the same way an atheist disbelieves in “all of the gods.” One at a time. Each god is different. Some are mutually exclusive. As the OP has noted, this presents a _problem of definition_. Any disbelief in any god is atheism. How can it not be? Answer me that. How can disbelief in a god \*not \*be atheism? > [@](#): > > Who needs God, when you yourself can change that? 😉 Really? By simply accepting your position I assure that nothing more unpleasant will happen to you today? Sounds almost supernatural. From where do I derive this power? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/513 "2007-05-20T18:25:25Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Ah, see, you’ve slipped into the plural now. Is it god, or gods? This is important. [/QUOTE] I really do not see that it is and I suspect that your point would fail on a standard use of either logic or language. To deny **generally** that a god exists is to deny that any god exists and to posit one god or a thousand does not change the basic belief that no god exists. Aside from the old atheist joke that “I just disbelieve in one more god than you do,” I really doubt that you will find some number of atheists who would hold that there might be other gods out there, but they do not belive in this one. Since the position that you champion is not actually held by the persons you are discussing, I find your argument far less than simply unpersuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/514 "2007-05-20T18:41:33Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I really do not see that it is and I suspect that your point would fail on a standard use of either logic or language. To deny **generally** that a god exists is to deny that any god exists and to posit one god or a thousand does not change the basic belief that no god exists. [/QUOTE] The belief is that no god _who has been described_ exists. “There is no God” is a nonsense statement, absent a definition for “God.” > [@](#): > > Aside from the old atheist joke that “I just disbelieve in one more god than you do,” Interesting. What is that called, poisoning the well? Not that, but I cannot remember right now. At any rate, you have dismissed my position as a “joke” without stating why. I assure you, it is not a joke. I have explained why numerous times in this thread. Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of shredding my actual argument, rather than dismissing it out of hand? > [@](#): > > I really doubt that you will find some number of atheists who would hold that there might be other gods out there, but they do not belive in this one. And it is not necessary for me to do so. Atheism does not concern itself with potential gods, only actual ones. (Actual as asserted, that is.) > [@](#): > > Since the position that you champion is not actually held by the persons you are discussing, I find your argument far less than simply unpersuasive. I am a bit lost. It has been a long day for me, and I am sure that the fault is mine. Who are the “persons [I am] discussing?” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/515 "2007-05-20T18:48:10Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Aside from the old atheist joke that “I just disbelieve in one more god than you do,…” [/QUOTE] I’ve never viewed this as an atheist joke, and you left out the the important part, which goes along the lines of,“..and when you understand why you don’t believe in all the other gods, you will understand why I don’t believe in yours.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/516 "2007-05-20T19:02:24Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] I’ve never viewed this as an atheist joke, and you left out the the important part, which goes along the lines of,“..and when you understand why you don’t believe in all the other gods, you will understand why I don’t believe in yours.” [/QUOTE] I have always heard it told as a humorous koan and the second part, while relevant to a discussion between theists and atheists is not necessary to the specific point I was making to **Contrapuntal**. As to the assertion by **Contrapuntal** that atheism must be reactive, I deny the claim. I know any number of atheists who deny all realms of spirtitual and who hold that nothing outside the physical can exist and that no physical being can demonstrate powers beyond what humans posses. One can throw in whatever other potentially divine attributes one wishes and they would be equally denied _a priori_. That definition may be true regarding many atheists, (although I have not seen it), but that definition imposes a meaning on the word that is not supported by the actual non-believers I have encountered. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/517 "2007-05-20T19:25:39Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Pretty lame dodge there Thud, imho. If it would have been a hijack, why have three panelists representing different belief systems at all? Why not just one? And then there is simply the reality that there is rarely or no “particular episode” in which those guys then go and do debate each other. It’s just atheists talk, so they must be rebutted, and then, religionists talk no rebuttal needed (from atheists or other believers with different beliefs). [/QUOTE] Well, now I’ve listened to the three panelists (though not yet to the Dawkins interview they were responding to) (as available on [this page](http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=379067&ts=2007-05-10%2020:00:00.0)), so I now have a little better idea of what it was all about. The issue being discussed was not so much the existence/nonexistence of God, nor the truth/falsity of any particular religious claim. It was more along the lines of the usefulness or beneficialness or results of religion in general: Would we be better off without religion? Or, as the website puts it, “Can We Live by Reason Alone? Volunteers helping the homeless … the Run for the Cure … can reason alone explain this? Are we good because of God?” Here are some things I can say after listening to the program: The three panelists were not introduced specifically as representatives of their particular religions, but as “here to affirm the value of religion”: a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology; a spritual counselor (from a Jesuit renewal center); and an imam from the Islamic Information Center. The three panelists responded to Dawkins (i.e. the things he had said in his interview earlier in the program and in his book, which they had read) and to questions from the host, not to each other. At no time that I can remember did any of the three respond to anything each other had said. The panelists displayed no anger or animosity, toward Dawkins or anyone else, though of course they did express disagreement with Dawkins. None of the panelists ever said anything that I would characterize as “dumping on atheism.” The extent that I think the OP has a point is this: I admit it would have been interesting to ask the panelists a question relating to religious differences. Something along the lines of, “If you claim that religion in general is a good thing, would you still say so even if it’s not _your_ religion?” But I would not have asked such a question beliigerently or in an attempt to pwn anybody, as the OP apparently would have. I’d just be interested in hearing what the panelists would have had to say about it. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/518 "2007-05-20T19:59:40Z")
[QUOTE=Meatros] The difference is, of course, that atheism isn’t a worldview. [/QUOTE] Of course it is. One might say that it’s not a religion, but it most certainly is not a worldview. It doesn’t matter whether you choose to call it a worldview or not, though. Call it a guiding principle or a philosophy, if you wish. The point is that the atheists here cannot even agree on what atheism is. And **Apos** , I did see your response to my objection. Frankly though, I think your response is just silly. There is nothing more basic to a worldview (or philosophy, or whatever) than a definition of what that worldview IS. The disagreements among theists do not nullify theism itself, as one can be a theist without being a Christian, a Moslem, a Jew or whatever. You cannot convince me, however, that the definition of atheism is irrelevant to the issue of whether atheism is reasonable or justified. That simply defies common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/519 "2007-05-20T21:01:23Z")
**JThunder** ; did you make a mistake in your first line? It seems contradictory.. [QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Aside from relentless, bone crushing, inescapable rhetoric, nothing of substance. [/quote] You’ll have to start bringing them into the visible posts, then. > [@](#): > > This is what we go round and round about. It is possible to disbelieve in countless gods and still believe in one god, as you have already conceded. “Conceded”? Of course I think that. > [@](#): > > For there to be disbelief in many gods, the gods must still be identified. **It is incoherent to assert disbelief in a god whose existence has not been asserted.** Fair enough. Atheism is the disbelief in all asserted gods. > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t. You continue to miss this point. It says, and I quote, _“the doctrine or belief that there is no God.”_ This “God” \*must be identified \*before the doctrine can come into existence. “Believe in no god” is _not the same thing_ as “Disbelieve in God.” Somewhat of an inaccurate quote, since it’s actually “no god”, not “no God”, but since you’re not naming a particular god with that, it doesn’t matter (even though you switch between the two when comparing, but hey, feel free). But I do agree. “Believe in no god” is certainly not the same thing as “Disbelieve in God”; and I have continually asserted this. “Believe in no god” means exactly what it means; an atheist must believe that there are no gods, singly or plural. That doesn’t leave room for a belief in a or many gods. You must believe in _no_ gods. > [@](#): > > Perhaps. What it definitely is, however, is “Don’t believe in _any particular god_.” Yes, I agree. This is what i’ve been saying. The definition says an atheist cannot believe in any asserted god. > [@](#): > > Yet, they disbelieve in \*thousands \*of gods. Quite true. But they believe in _one_, which is one too many to be called an atheist. One single god belief is enough to rule them out of that particular group. > [@](#): > > Here is a thought experiment. Suppose you are an explorer who stumbles upon a culture that has been isolated from other cultures for millennia. This culture worships The One True God, CONTRA. They have no concept of other gods. You are a Christian. As far as they are concerned, are you an atheist? Yep (at least until they learn other concepts of god). An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in all asserted gods. Since, for the culture, the only asserted god is CONTRA, and Christians do not believe in him, they are (from their point of view) atheists. > [@](#): > > You have identified the crux of the issue. “gods” are not p. Each god is separate and distinct, and some gods are mutually exclusive. If “gods” are p, then they are equally not p. It doesn’t matter that they’re seperate and distinct, or even that they’re contradictory. They are the set of items of which a single one may not be believed in to be an atheist. You can’t be an atheist and believe in an item from p. > [@](#): > > Change "all’ to “each,” and I agree. Consider an analogy. Lets say you and I are playing a round of golf, and I birdie every hole. It is accurate to say that I birdied “all the holes.” However, I did it _one at a time_. That is the same way an atheist disbelieves in “all of the gods.” One at a time. Each god is different. Some are mutually exclusive. As the OP has noted, this presents a _problem of definition_. Any disbelief in any god is atheism. How can it not be? Answer me that. How can disbelief in a god \*not \*be atheism? Because atheism isn’t disbelief in a god. It’s disbelief in _all_ asserted gods. Your analogy is, however, correct. The “atheist” is comparable to “the person that birdies all the holes”. Now, if you don’t birdie a single hole, you are not that person. Likewise, if you don’t birdie several, you are not that person. You must birdie \*each and every \* avaliable hole in order to be that person, just as you must disbelieve in _each and every_ asserted god to be an atheist. That you birdied them one at a time is not in doubt; the point is that _all must be birdied_. > [@](#): > > Really? By simply accepting your position I assure that nothing more unpleasant will happen to you today? Sounds almost supernatural. From where do I derive this power? You don’t need to accept my position; I would be quite happy to disagree with you normally. But when you refuse to read a simple definition, and claim that your own definition which apparently no-one else agrees with is “the” definition, I am left with a bad taste in my mouth. Feel free to disagree, but don’t do it with bad arguments, that’s all. Oh, and no, you don’t assure that nothing more unpleasant will happen. You could simply up the unpleasantness to record levels, therby ensuing your supremacy. A joke. Thus the smiley. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2007, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785/520 "2007-05-20T21:07:47Z")
Oh, and before I forget, I think you still haven’t given me an answer to my question, **Contrapuntal**. What word would you use to refer to someone who does not believe in _any_ asserted gods? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-theists-agree-before-they-have-the-nerve-to-criticize-atheists/403785.md?page=27)