@TheMiddleWay Paul raises a good point when he mentions a particular deity - The Biblical God. He went on to say:

"However, it's possible to know that there is no personal God as described in the books of the Bible, who created the Earth and all the creatures thereof no more than 10,000 years ago and performed "miracles" defying the laws of physics on behalf of 12 tribes wandering in the desert, because we have scientific, historical, and archaeological evidence contradicting these stories"

The italicized texts mark the points in which he drives home the idea that we need not remain agnostic to particular deities whom have specific characteristics and doctrines susceptible to logical and empirical speculation. We do not need to rely upon this fallacy to defend an atheistic position.

@TheMiddleWay Paul raises a good point when he mentions a particular deity - The Biblical God. He went on to say:

"However, it's possible to know that there is no personal God as described in the books of the Bible, who created the Earth and all the creatures thereof no more than 10,000 years ago and performed "miracles" defying the laws of physics on behalf of 12 tribes wandering in the desert, because we have scientific, historical, and archaeological evidence contradicting these stories"

The italicized texts mark the points in which he drives home the idea that we need not remain agnostic to particular deities whom have specific characteristics and doctrines susceptible to logical and empirical speculation. We do not need to rely upon this fallacy to defend an atheistic position.

@TheMiddleWay I mentioned not only their doctrines, but their characteristics as well. Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the like are very hotly debated subjects even without respects to a god... the very concepts themselves are often explained to be logically incoherent. I mention these as they are popular amongst deities.
Anyways, if you do not believe in a particular deity, you could be defined as an atheist with respects to that deity, which is why I carry my title.

Paul never made the statement that this was the case with all deities.

Edit: hit reply before completing the comment lol sorry
Edit 2: deists are the only ground I'm neutral on when it comes to gods. I am atheist, but agnostic.
Sometimes people seem to see agnostic as a middle ground between belief and non belief... but agnosticism addresses knowledge while atheism addresses belief. There is no reason to believe in a deity so I remain atheistic. I do not use this lack of evidence to become Gnostic however. So that ignorance fallacy you mentioned does not apply to me. It's a very careful word game we're dancing around ;] i don't know that the God does not exist, but the lack of evidence keeps me both agnostic and atheist... thanks for your replies, I enjoy your consistency and well spoken thought out typing?

@TheMiddleWay I'm entirely aware of the manner in which agnosticism is able to be used in other contexts, and aside from the manner in which you address me almost in a childlike manner in the beginning of your response, I appreciate your insight very much. I was not aware of the etymology or propositional nature of theism and atheism. Though I never considered theism in the ontological sense and atheism in the epistimelogical, rather I considered both in the epistemological.

Theism as - the belief in a personal God
Atheism (the negation) - the lack of, or nonbelief in a personal God.

I was also entirely aware of atheism being the negation of theism... the first parts of your comment were a bit frustrating to get past.

Anyway, atheists still have no problem providing ontological counters to a number of deities. As I've mentioned in my earlier comment, arguments against the nature or characteristics of a deity --supposing enough to argue against has been supplied by a particular theist -- can be made against that character/nature (a counter ontological argument). And I'd suppose this is how I have arrived to my atheism even now knowing it is defined as the statement that God does not exist. (Note I am referring to a particular God and not ALL gods.) I would remain (now knowing from your comment) apistic to deistic gods as well as agnostic. I think I'm clear now.

Some ontological counter arguments involve refuting the concepts of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, eternal existence, and others. Including:
The problem of evil
Euthyphro dilemma
Omnipotence paradox
Divine omniscience and time
Etc

I'm aware that there are refutations to these counters, but every counter seems to have a counter, and those counters their own counters and so on in philosophy... my point is that atheists need not "move goal posts" to develop counters.

I can say confidently that specific gods do not exist. Thanks for your time as well as expanding my vocabulary and understanding.

Edit: how do you do bold text?...that's all lol

@TheMiddleWay

"My problem with that viewpoint (and again, one I recognize many take the same view not just you) is that by saying "God doesn't exist" and then following that up with "I'm only referring to a particular god", it makes it impossible to know WHICH god you are claiming doesn't exist."

As you have made very clear before, atheism is the negation of theism. Now if theism is defined as the belief in an active, personal, transcendental deity, then atheism is the nonbelief in said deity. (Of course for whatever reason, which seems like the real "word magic" to me, belief in this context refers to the propositional content of the belief rather than the mental state of belief.)

Atheism, then does not assert that no gods exist. It asserts only that theistic gods do not exist.
Deistic deities excluded.

"You stated great epistemological arguments that refute the ontology of theism that, unfortunately, also carry equally great epistemological counter arguments that affirm the ontology or at least counter the counter thus canceling out the initial logic. When something like this happens, if we believe one but not the other we invite confirmation bias and guesswork, not rationality, to be the final decider of what is logical and real to us"

The significance of my quoting those arguments was not to claim that atheists have the final word or to admit some kind of bias, but to refute your point about atheists needing to "move goalposts" because they are unable to develop ontological arguments against theists. You've mentioned already that science provides ontological propositions which aid in formulating counters to theistic arguments. "Supernature" is also another term which is hotly debated and often explained to be paradoxical....

And no, science in not unable to answer the "question of gods." It was empirical evidence which brought about the end of theism such as that of the Greek mythologies. Science is able to provide data which can be helpful, and already has for some, in explaining away gods.

Edit: there's not a way to move this post into the "Philosophy" group is there? This thread would be an excellent contribution I think.

@TheMiddleWay "...in light of the lack of evidence for the existence and non-existence, I just don't make a claim either way and choose to base my beliefs on the evidence I do have instead of that I don't."

Okay, so please give examples of the evidence for the existence of god.

For the record, I'm an agnostic atheist, in my understanding of those terms (and as they're broken down on the Iron Chariots site). I don't know (have no knowledge, a-gnostic) if there is or is not a god, having no evidence one way or another. Therefore, in the absence of evidence I am an a-theist. I do not believe in any god, since there is no evidence to support the existence of any god. I don't deny the possibility of a god existing, but I do think the odds are strongly against it. There almost certainly is no god.

Sometimes I still wish there were, because then I'd have someone definitive to blame things on... but there we are.

@Paul4747

The problem is that -- as he's just explained to me -- (it might help to read our conversation above) the atheist, as defined in philosophy, is not just a nonbelief, but an assertion carrying with it a dogma which, like any argument, requires a justification.

Atheism in philosophy is essentially the claim "not theism." Or "no God exists" with regards to theistic deities.

@EliRodriguez11
Except that it's not. With all due respect. Perhaps this is true of the strong atheist position that "there is no god", but you will note that I've very clearly said all along that this is not my stance. I've never claimed to know that there is or is not a god(s). I simply don't believe in god, because there's no reason to.
There are many kinds of atheist. Please don't make a blanket assumption that everyone believes the same (or disbelieves the same).
While there is no evidence, zero, zip, zilch, for the existence of any god, there still might be one. One that doesn't do anything. One that is functionally as if he/she/it didn't exist anyway, For my purposes, it's the same difference. I continue to live as if there is no god.
This is not dogma. Dogma does not change, even with new evidence. Look at Catholic dogma if you want to see what I mean. It's simply an intellectual conclusion, after looking at the available evidence.

@TheMiddleWay Why do you keep mischaracterizing what I'm saying?

Not believing in god is not the same thing as claiming there is no god.

@TheMiddleWay

" I think having an ongoing series in that group on logical fallacies, all of them, and seeing how they do or do not apply to this sites mission would be a really good idea to keep the group active!!!"

Definitely.

Difference between deist and theist:

"Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities, which are both immanent (i.e. they exist within the universe) and yet transcendent (i.e. they surpass, or are independent of, physical existence). These gods also in some way interact with the universe (unlike in Deism), and are often considered to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent."
[philosophybasics.com]

"Deism is a form of Monotheism in which it is believed that one God exists, but that this God does not intervene in the world, or interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. It posits a non-interventionist creator who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws."
[philosophybasics.com]

"Deists typically reject supernatural events (e.g. prophecy, miracles, the divinity of Jesus, the Christian concept of the Trinity), and they regard their faith as a natural religion as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which is artificially created by humans. They do not view God as an entity in human form; they believe that one cannot access God through any organized religion or set of rituals, sacraments or other practices; they do not believe that God has selected a chosen people (e.g. Jews or Christians) to be the recipients of any special revelation or gifts; and, given that they view God as having left his creation behind, prayer makes no sense to them, except perhaps to express their appreciation to God for his works."

"Another thought is that theism and deism both fall under the topic of theology. AFAIK there is no separate branch of philosophy called Deology that strictly speaks to the deist gods v. the theist gods"

Deism is a philosophical position like theism within theology.

"The distinction between theism and deism is, admittedly, a new one to me."

The distinction has been around for quite some time...
'"Deism" and "theism" changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the increasing influence of Atheism: "deism" was originally used as a synonym for today's "theism", but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.'

And No, atheism does not mean "without gods" and you've said so yourself, it is a negation of theism. Here...

"The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”."

Theism - posits the existence of at least one particular trancsedental, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, imminent ,and personal deity.
Atheism - negation of theism. Not deism.

Edit: you seem particularly keen of withholding etymological meanings. You also seen keen of pointing out the fallacies within ones line of reasoning. Perhaps you should hear of this one:

"The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, and is sometimes used as a basis for linguistic prescription."

Etymology is useful for developing a word close to what is intended to convey a particular meaning. That meaning is what is crucial to expressing some message and the etymological origins of the parts of that word are susceptible to losing some of their original context.

@TheMiddleWay

"But by the same token, using the latin word for "god", deus, instead of the greek work, theo, or english word, god, and then claiming that your latin-based god definition is in a wholly distinct category than the greek-based god definition merely because you use a different word for it and give it different properties for it doesn't change that the original and broad usage of the greek-based word applied to all definitions of gods, not just a particular one."

I never made such a claim. As a matter of fact, your point is perfectly in line with my thinking. Changing the etymology of the words to roots which literally convey the same meaning, and then saying that the words mean different things is exactly my point in mentioning the etymology fallacy. Even though the words theism and deism both contain roots which mean the same exact thing, it is perfectly ok for them to mean different things. Saying that it is not ok is to commit said fallacy.

"But if theology is the study of theism (due to the theo-) and deism is studied under it, then deism is surely within theism not adjacent to it in order to be studied under theology. Surely if deism were so distinct from theism that they are not the same thing, we wouldn't study it under theology but deology."

We don't need any "ifs". Theology is not the study of theism. Theology is the study of the nature of divinity. Not necessarily theism nor deism.

As for why deism falls under the monotheistic categories, it's probably because like some theistic religions, deism posits the existence of a single deity, not necessarily (again I see this etymology fallacy issue) because it is the same thing as theism.

"Further, the Internet Encyclopedia of Physics (which is peer reviewed) and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (associated with Stanford University) both hold to that atheist view of Atheism as without gods, without making the narrower prescription of what those gods do or do not do..."

Sorry to say it but you're just blatantly wrong on this part. The IEP makes is very clear...

"Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism."

[iep.utm.edu]

The SEP does as well...
"While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”. "

[plato.stanford.edu]

The SEP even does a larger favor by explaining again, that etymology is not everything when discussing the meaning of a word.

@TheMiddleWay
" To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Exactly. A lack of belief. I also don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

@TheMiddleWay
In the case of someone carrying a gun, this is a concrete, testable example. I can believe someone is or is not armed, up until the point I search that person. After that, I can state with certainty "He has a gun" or "He does not have a gun".

In the case of a supernatural being, there's no test. Nobody can ever state "There is no god" (not with intellectual honesty) because a god may exist in a form we can't detect or recognize. (They also can't state "God exists", at least not until objective proof is produced.)
Your use of concrete analogies for the existence of a supernatural being don't apply.

@TheMiddleWay

"So an atheist being a deist might be valid under the narrow view of atheism (if we don't consider creating all existence as an omni attribute) but clearly invalid under the wide view."

I think this is a sound place to stop. I think we've both made our points and met at a good even breaking point.

"It's not about ok or not, about right or wrong. There is no moral judgement involved."

I shouldn't have used "ok". The way I was interning use it was in the context of validity. Ok would mean logical or valid and not ok would mean illogical or invalid not morally right and wrong. Sorry.

Anyway, this thread is a bit ridiculously long and I've enjoyed the discussion. We've opened up plenty of opportunities for future discussions. Good game middle! It was great and I appreciate your intellects. I've learned a fair amount from you.

Edit: If I ever need a go to man for etymology, it's you. Semantic man ?

As in... Douglas Adams "babblefish" or has some stupid tech company or agency bought the rights to the babblefish name so now when you say babblefish it means something entirely different?

Maybe I'm just too old school hence I draw back to the original DA babblefish.

At least it can help us with semantics! Lol

@Sadoi Doug Adams

@TheMiddleWay lmao ooh good one!!

Well...I Am Agnostic... Hahaha maybe we can arrange something... Let's write up a contract and I will commit myself to your teachings

@Sadoi love them!

@TheMiddleWay I'm going to stop you right there, because, as a law enforcement officer, I can tell you that a drug only tests the presence of drugs in the system, It can't test for the "absence" of drugs. There are many ways to mask the presence of drugs in the human body, by taking other substances prior to a drug test. Although tests are more sophisticated now, they can still be fooled.
The more basic problem with your statement, of course, is that you cannot prove this negative claim, any more than I can prove I've never been to France, or never eaten tofu. (For example.)

@TheMiddleWay No, you haven't, because you can't. Furthermore, you don't have to. A drug test puts the positive burden of proof on the testing authority, They must establish the presence of an illegal substance. It is flat-out impossible to prove the absence of something. You can't prove that Sasquatch does not exist, even though humans have been hunting for an 8 foot tall hairy biped, for decades, in America, and found not one single specimen, dead or alive. I can't prove that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster orbiting Saturn right now which has touched me with its noodly appendages, and I just don't remember. (Or maybe it's Jupiter.)

You cannot prove a negative claim, unless it's proving that something else happened contradicting another claim... such as proving that the Earth did not come about in six literal days, as Bible fundamentalists would state. It's proven that the Earth took much longer to form and for life to appear, especially human life. That's not "proving a negative claim", it's proving a contradictory claim.

Just as it's impossible to prove the absence of a god in the universe, which is why the majority of atheists and agnostics don't try. It's merely that the evidence shows that everything that happens can be explained by natural causes. There's no need for god to exist in order to explain the universe. But if God does exist, it's the believers' burden to prove it, not the atheists' to disprove it.

Sums it all up nicely.

Lots of unproven assertions there, especially that closing line that God does not exist. What about the burden of proof concept? Does it only apply to assertion with which you disagree?

@WilliamFleming Trying to "Define" god or his Existence/Non Existence is never simple.What Is God is one mans definition.

@WilliamFleming

@Coldo Very good quote! Thanks for that link.

@Coldo

"For those looking for a quick answer to the question of whether the above narrative is literally true, we’ll state up front that it is not. Nothing remotely like the account related above appears in any biography or article about Albert Einstein, nor is the account congruent with that scientist’s expressed views on the subject of (in which he generally described himself as an “agnostic” or a "religious nonbeliever" ). Einstein’s name has simply been inserted into an anecdote created long after his death in order to provide the reading audience with a recognizable figure and thus lend the tale an air of verisimilitude"

[snopes.com]