A simple analysis of atheists' and theists'...?

Question

...views of reality, so as to help alleviate the use of platitudes:

Atheist: Does not believe in any gods. Denies, however, that he believes there are no gods. However,

disbelief in gods=belief that there are no gods.

To say that this is not true is a violation of the law of identity in logic.

[mono]theist: believes in God, and also does not believe in no God. The fact that we don't usually use double negatives in English does not negate the fact that,

disbelief in no God=belief that there is a God.

While I do not believe atheism is a religion, a violation of one of the fundamental laws of logic is not the way to prove this.

And so this is a question, what do you think of this?

I don't think people are really reading the question :p

"...you don't believe in fairies..." I would consider myself an afairist! Which means (formulated positively) that I believe there are no fairies. I also don't believe in fairies.

Having said that,my disbelief if fairies is tentative; it is not part of my overarching world view.

Answer 1

I'm an atheist.... the definition of atheism is merely a = not or no, theism = belief in god and for me and most of the atheists I know, no belief in god equals belief there are no gods.

I believe there are no gods. Therefore, for me at least, your original premise is untrue and therefore, it negates your entire argument.

Answer 2

Atheists do not necessarily deny that they believe there are no gods. I am an atheist. I believe that there are no gods. I say believe here, because there is no way to prove it. However, given the logical inconsistencies of the nature of the gods of various religions, and lack of any evidence or compelling reason to believe that one exists, I am going with the most reasonable view and say that until shown otherwise, I believe there are no gods.
Your first logical equation is so poorly defined that it is useless. Disbelief in gods could be the condition of someone who has not been presented with a description of a god that she feels is logically consistent and plausible. Such a person could still hold the possibility that a probable god could be described, but hasn't been yet.

Answer 3

weel, id say use a dictionary next time you want to explain what atheism means. for atheism means belief in nothing, while agnostic means undecided if there is a god like being or not, just not the mainstream religions version. as for theisms, they do believe in some deity, thats what makes them theists in the first place, your logic is flawed. stop trying to use logic on a system that has no logic, youll feel better at night.

Answer 4

I think you're almost correct. But I don't deny that I believe there are no gods. I believe that there are no real gods, as there is no reason to believe that there are any real gods.
Personally, I think gods only exist in papyrus, stone-carving, paperback, and hard cover literature. There is no proof of any specific god in any other venue.

p.s. Christianity is not pure monotheism. Judaism and Islam are pure monotheism, as they believe in one god with no parts, partners or pieces. Christianity has four different gods, the father, son, holy ghost, and devil. The fact that someone calls it monotheism does not change the fact that there are three separate entities that sit side by side, and one that opposes them.

Answer 5

I think you're trying read in more than there is, or confusing yourself with trying to think your way through it.

Atheist don't "believe" in the sense that you're using it.

Religion is well defined and atheist do not fit that definition.

Disbelieve in no God is not quite the same as belief in a god, this is where agnostics fit in. They don't believe that there isn't a god, but don't believe in one.

Essentially you're trying to force definitions that aren't what they are defined to be.

Answer 6

1. No, you can accept that there may be gods out there and still not believe in them until some evidence supports the idea.
2. By your "logic" disbelief in no God would actually equal belief in all Gods.

So I think you're trying to apply concepts that are too big for you.

Answer 7

I think you really need to look up the word "atheism."

Atheism is not a "violation of the law of identity in logic."

Is disbelief in ANYTHING a "violation of the law of identity in logic"? Substitute any other imaginary thing for "god" in your nonsensical statements and find out.

Answer 8

Agreed. Atheism seems to meet definition #5 below:

American Heritage Dictionary
-re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

4.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

5.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Answer 9

the "great" commission requires xians to spread the word. to me that means they have the burden of proof. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, people are free to believe as they wish. Having said that, while I think atheism is less tenable than theism, I understand the position. It is not whether their position is logical. It is simply that the people who are trying to convince them have failed in their burden. in other words, you can't prove there is a god.

Answer 10

It's not a belief, though. It's on a continuum from educated hunch to certainty. Atheists' minds are still open for proof. No belief required.