Yes, there are three. As I've pointed out (if you'd read my text for comprehension rather than scoring points), "not true" includes "false" and therefore excludes "undecidable". — 180 Proof

For the record, I'm not trying to score points. Sorry if that's the impression you get. Must be my lack of linguistic proficiency. I hope you'll let that slide.

Coming to our disagreement, I recall you showing me how God can be disproven: via entailments of God's predicates (re the riddle of Epicurus) that turn out to be false (modus tollens).I'm with you as regards that. God exists is false

However, there's another category of proofs that have the following form:

1. Premises
Ergo,
2. Conclusion: God exists

Such arguments, all of 'em, have been refuted, but do take note of the fact that this doesn't imply the conclusion (God exists) is false. Not guilty doesn't imply innocence or something like that.

There is no such thing as theism per say - there are simply theists who hold a range of often incompatible and contradictory views from one another. — Tom Storm

Would it also follow that there's no such thing as religion due to the variations in religion? Can the same be said of political systems, that there's no such thing as them either due to their variations?

I agree with you of course that different religious systems describe their gods very differently, but each can independently be said to be theistic, and so the question then becomes what makes each theistic system resemble the next, but I don't think any of this means theism doesn't exist. We just find ourselves with the universal problem of precise definitions.

I think any honest theist would admit that the religious tradition they hold to is as much the result of family tradition, regional influences, and other such coincidences than actual free choice after full exploration. Sure, there are occasional Catholics who become Baptists, but none worship Zeus much any more, so something other than obvious truth must be guiding theists to their particular brand of religion.

My point here is that I do hold that whether to be atheist or theistic is a real choice we make, but once decided to be theistic, we tend toward the path of understanding most accessible to us. Those raised Jews turn toward Judaism and so on. With that, I think we're required to have respect for those other traditions with recognition ours isn't the only way; otherwise I'd be faced with the absurd argument I chose my Judaism after considering other options. I didn't.

I point this out only to defend against the idea that theism is so varied and murky that it doesn't meaningfully exist, and to respond maybe preemptively to the question of how can a theist pretend he's found the light after open minded exploration, when all he really did was repeat what he's always been told.

Would it also follow that there's no such thing as religion due to the variations in religion? Can the same be said of political systems, that there's no such thing as them either due to their variations? — Hanover

No, that maybe too strong, I was being a bit flip and more aphoristic. But there is a poetic sense in which this is true. It is often nearly impossible to define core beliefs for any given institution. How can we say something is the case if the situational vagaries produce variations so great?

I point this out only to defend against the idea that theism is so varied and murky that it doesn't meaningfully exist, — Hanover

I wasn't trying to argue this so staunchly. As you know, people tend to think that institutions or positions are monolithic and that there is 'one' Catholicism or one atheism. This is a problematic approach and it is always worth remembering that a KKK member and Bishop Desmond Tutu (when alive) could both be said to be members of the same faith, with the same founding beliefs and yet have almost nothing in common.

What would a valid form of atheism look like? — whollyrolling

"I don't believe God exists (full stop)" is valid atheism.
OR
The following quote from Hillary also answers you question:

The real atheist just shuts up and lives life. — Hillary

Therefore there are 2 kinds of atheism, one based on disbelief, and one based on belief accompanied by spread of their belief.

Again, as I've pointed out, my (second order) argument addresses "theism" (i.e. the prosecutor's case) and not "God" (i.e. the defendant) .

Therefore there are 2 kinds of atheism, one based on disbelief, and one based on belief accompanied by spread of their belief. — SpaceDweller

I think there are many types of atheism. Including religious or mystical atheism (atheist idealism). And there are atheists who embrace supernatural forces like astrology or ghosts. I think most beliefs come with the desire to spread a message or engage in public advocacy. This is true for religions especially (evangelism), secular beliefs systems, the arts, politics and law reform groups. This is a natural thing in a pluralistic society.

This is true for religions especially (evangelism), secular beliefs systems, the arts, politics and law reform groups. This is a natural thing in a pluralistic society. — Tom Storm

What you said is that the arts, politics or law reform groups could be classified as "religions"?

I think most beliefs come with the desire to spread a message or engage in public advocacy. — Tom Storm

Sure they do, but we are talking about atheism taking the role of theism here, which makes atheism invalid.

What you said is that the arts, politics or law reform groups could be classified as "religions"? — SpaceDweller

I don't think it would be meaningful to describe them as religions, but you can if you want. It is a natural thing for organizations to engage in marketing their ideas and ideals. Many organizations do it, especially political and social action movements.

Sure they do, but we are talking about atheism taking the role of theism here, which makes atheism invalid. — SpaceDweller

I don't understand the connection. Sounds like you have a real problem with atheism if it doesn't correspond to your idea of what atheism is.

Feminism seeks to change minds and educate the world too - I guess you would see that as a religion then?

Do you see any group which seeks to influence people's thinking as religious because of this advocacy work?

Tell me more about why you think this way, I'm interested in how you arrived at this - are there any other thinkers who hold this position that you can cite?

Again, as I've pointed out, my (second order) argument addresses "theism" (i.e. the prosecutor's case) and not "God" (i.e. the defendant) ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

:ok:

I don't think it would be meaningful to describe them as religions, but you can if you want. — Tom Storm

Sure, with the aim to decry something or somebody you can abuse the language in the most absurd ways, such as you attempt to equalize politics and arts with religion.

I don't understand the connection. Sounds like you have a real problem with atheism if it doesn't correspond to your idea of what atheism is. — Tom Storm

It's not my idea, the definition of atheism is clear:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities God.

Therefore it's not a belief there is not God, it's disbelief.

Feminism seeks to change minds and educate the world too - I guess you would see that as a religion then?
Do you see any group which seeks to influence people's thinking as religious because of this advocacy work? — Tom Storm

I'm sorry but It's not me who equalize these terms, it's you, don't push your burden of language abuse on me :smile:

Tell me more about why you think this way, I'm interested in how you arrived at this - are there any other thinkers who hold this position that you can cite? — Tom Storm

I already told you:
1. Valid atheism (by definition above) is lack of belief in God, such atheists just live their life.
2. Invalid atheism (aka. new-atheism and contradictory to definition of atheism) belief there is no God accompanied by spread of word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

Interesting perspective. We're too far apart in world-views to even start a discussion on this. Thanks for clarifying your idea. :wink:

It's not my idea, the definition of atheism is clear:
[ ... ]
Therefore it's not a belief there is not God, it's disbelief. — SpaceDweller

Trifling semantics. And "God" being undefined, this expression is incoherent. Lastly, your "definition of atheism" is colloquial, from a dictionary, and not philosophically probative – trivial. Consider how ("old") atheists might philosophically define themselves:

(A) negative atheism – lacking sound arguments demonstrating any gods exist, the atheist does not believe that any gods exist – [common, no burden of proof]

(B) positive atheism – given sound arguments demonstrating that gods do not exist, the atheist believes that gods do not exist – [uncommon, burden of proof]

(C) antitheist-atheism – given sound arguments demonstrating that theism as a deity-Type is not true (i.e. consists of false claims and incoherent terms), by implication deity-Tokens of the theism deity-Type (e.g. "God of Abraham", Greco-Roman gods, Hindu gods, etc) the antitheist-atheist knows are imaginary – [unique to me (AFAIK), burden of proof]

Lastly, your "definition of atheism" is colloquial, from a dictionary, and not philosophically probative – trivial — 180 Proof

I took my definition of atheism from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

What is your (or philosophical) definition of atheism?

Consider how philosophical ("old") atheists define themselves discursively: — 180 Proof

how?, I don't know.

And "God" being undefined — 180 Proof

What do you mean it's undefined?
It's well defined in both philosophy and theology.

What do you mean it's ["God" is] undefined? — SpaceDweller

Which "God" does "God" refer to? What are this (your) "God's" attributes, predicates, properties, etc?

What is your (or philosophical) definition of atheism?

See previous post (finished after your reply):

Religions don't have that much in common either. Even within the one faith, they have often knocked off each other in endless vicious schism infighting about doctrine and dogma. As it turns out theists can't agree about god/s — Tom Storm

And this doesn't happen in science?

And this doesn't happen in science? — Hillary

Who's talking about science? I was addressing this below which is clearly missing a large part of the story.

The glorious and liberating feeling of bathing in the soothing shining light of the eternal divine intelligences, who, in their great wisdom and in honest selfishness, have created the cosmos and all life in it, so it can continue their blissful heavenly play. — Hillary

Which "God" does "God" refer to? What are "God's" attributes, predicates, properties, etc? — 180 Proof

https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/definitions-of-god.html

See previous post — 180 Proof

Your point A and B are same as my previous points about valid and invalid atheism, just described differently:

...
Therefore there are 2 kinds of atheism, one based on disbelief, and one based on belief accompanied by spread of their belief. — SpaceDweller

(C) antitheist-atheist

Disagree because deity is not same thing as God.
There are countless kinds of deities with unique properties, almost all of which not o-o-o God, and most of which depicted with statuette.

I don't know why it's even relevant to discuss or identify God or specific deity since we are talking about atheists who reject any kind of a deity or God.

Who's talking about science? I was addressing this below which is clearly missing a large part of the story. — Tom Storm

Yes, I understand that. But you make it appear as if atheism doesn't suffer from the same defects as religion.

"Religions don't have that much in common either. Even within the one faith, they have often knocked off each other in endless vicious schism infighting about doctrine and dogma. As it turns out theists can't agree about god/s"

Just replace religion by science and theists by scientists.

Yes, I understand that. But you make it appear as if atheism doesn't suffer from the same defects as religion. — Hillary

I never said that, and that wasn't what we were discussing, but you may be right about this, atheism isn't quite as dreadful to other people. Good point. :up:

Okay. Nevermind.

I never said that, and that wasn't what we were discussing, but you may be right about this, atheism isn't quite as dreadful to other people. Good point. :up: — Tom Storm

Yes you're right! Just listen to that freak Dawkins...

I think there are many types of atheism. Including religious or mystical atheism (atheist idealism). And there are atheists who embrace supernatural forces like astrology or ghosts. I think most beliefs come with the desire to spread a message or engage in public advocacy. This is true for religions especially (evangelism), secular beliefs systems, the arts, politics and law reform groups. This is a natural thing in a pluralistic society. — Tom Storm

Like it is true for scientifically thinking atheists. Just look at Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Dennet, Pinker, and other cruscaders of the religious devotion to the one and only way.

hm, ok :meh:

Like it is true for scientifically thinking atheists. — Hillary

Exactly - that's what I am saying - if you think you have better ideas and can help people, you want to share it with others. Bingo! :up:

Exactly - that's what I am saying - if you think you have better ideas and can help people, you want to share it with others. Bingo! :up: — Tom Storm

Indeed! But what are better ideas must of course be determined after the facts. And science and technology, however interesting and wonderful, haven't done a good job so far. Just look at the state of the world. Science has taken global control, our schools have become it's indoctrination institutes (the bible replaced by science books), and the young people are turned into colorless replicators of the knowledge crammed into their minds, as if computers are programmed.

Maybe. I think most things people do are fucked because people do them.

the young people are turned into colorless replicators of the knowledge crammed into their minds, as if computers are programmed. — Hillary

I hire a lot of new graduates from university, I have rarely met any who care much for science. I don't think science is all that popular. Certainly not in Australia. In fact I'd say we are living in anti-science times. Maybe it's different where you live.

I hire a lot of new graduates from university, I have rarely met any who care much for science. I don't think science is all that popular. Certainly not in Australia. In fact I'd say we are living in anti-science times. Maybe it's different where you live. — Tom Storm

I don't talk about universities. I talk about schools where the children go by force of law.

Where Aboriginal children taken away from their parents in the name of science or religion? What was the reason? Was it because they had other gods, instead of the Christian monster God?

.

Where Aboriginal children taken away from their parents in the name of science or religion? — Hillary

Christian culture and missionaries tended to take children and stick them in church orphanages where there was often abuse, but this is a separate issue.

I don't talk about universities. I talk about schools where the children go by force of law. — Hillary

Same story at schools. Science isn't all that popular. But we should let people get back to the OP topic.

Indeed. Was a nice small digression.

So, I see there are two current threads about atheism. There are no atheist churches, obviously. But can there be atheist religious devotion?