If God DOES exist, would good atheists be allowed in heaven?

[MoralCompass]

"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.  When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism."

That is taken from Wikipedia, and yes, it can be changed by everyone, but I assure you, close tabs have been kept on something like this.

So, it appears that universally, atheism and nontheism are the same thing and your definition is less popular, but also the one most Christians give, which may frustrate alot of atheists, since the other is bigger in the atheist community.
There are more weak atheists than strong atheists, and the weak ones harbor a complete lack of belief.  Belief, which, in my knowledge, is the same thing as opinion.

Note - the order of definitions mentioned above is in Dictionary.com as well.
Shouldn't the prominent definition be listed first?
Could anyone explain why it isn't?

[SteveS]

Good afternoon, MoralCompass.  I too crashed after my last post!  It was getting late  :?  

Okay, where to go from here?  Firstly, this discussion is entirely semantical, no doubt about it.  We are arguing what these words mean - that is a perfectly acceptable definition of "semantics" - understanding meaning especially as it relates to language.  Secondly, I have issue with the dictionary definition as well, but if this is how the phrase is commonly used in practice then I don't know what I can do about it.

I agree that "atheism" and "nontheism" are one and the same - if "theism" is "A", then "atheism" is "not A".

There are more weak atheists than strong atheists, and the weak ones harbor a complete lack of belief.

This statement is incomplete and therefore misleading.  They "harbor a complete lack of belief" --- in what?  Anything?  No, they "harbor a complete lack of belief in the existence of deities".  Whether they have additional opinions or not is immaterial to the fact that they lack a belief in the existence of deities.  

It seemed to me that you were trying to argue here that since a weak atheist lacks belief in a deity then the weak atheist has no opinions on deities.  This is ridiculous to me - a weak atheist may lack a belief because they lack an opinion (never heard of god) or they may lack a belief because they do have an opinion and in their opinion there is no god!  In both cases they lack a belief in god: in one they have an opinion and in one they do not, but don't they both lack a belief in the existence of gods?  

To illustrate this further, what if I don't believe that unicorns exist.  I have a concept of what a unicorn is, and I don't know that unicorns do not exist, but I believe that unicorns do not exist.  Then, you say to me, "a unicorn is a horse with two horns on it's head".  I say, "Gee, to me a unicorn is a horse with only one horn on it's head".  You reply "you don't believe in unicorns, and thus are unqualified to have an opinion on them, so you should take a vow of silence on unicorns".  I reply, "I don't believe that unicorns exist, but I still have an opinion that a unicorn is a horse with one horn, not two, on it's head.  What you have described is a variation of a unicorn, or some new idea."  See what I mean?  Would you honestly argue that since I don't believe unicorns exist I can't have any opinion whatsoever on the definition of a unicorn?

Back to atheism and agnosticism, let me try to summarize your view; it seems to me that you are saying there is a large difference between the following two statements:

1) I don't believe that "god exists" is true

2) I believe that "god does not exist" is true

I would agree that there is a difference; I'm just not sure how large it is.  The difference would be the implied reason for distinguishing the statements.  Both of these statements, though, are consistent with the atheistic definition that we have agreed upon, namely "I don't believe the statement 'god exists' to be true", and thus I would say that both statements qualify as atheistic.

1) I don't believe "god exists" is true because I believe the answer to the question "does god exist?" is unknown

2) I don't believe "god exists" is true because I believe the answer to the question "does god exist?" is no

It seems to me that you are defining "agnostic" as view 1, and "atheist" as view 2.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In either case, though, if an atheist is a non-theist, then an atheist is a person who "lacks belief" that "god exists" is true, so both of these views are atheistic views.

Further food for thought, which may interest your philosophical friend, the philosopher George H. Smith (I deliberately refrain from qualifying him as "published" or "professional" because I'm not making an appeal to authority here, merely presenting an argument made by a philosopher) argues that all agnostics are inherently atheists by arguing that a position of "agnostic theist" is incoherent.  Please see the summary of his argument presented on the wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism#George_H._Smith.27s_criticism

Since you have personally vouched for the reliability of the wikipedia I presume you will not object to my quoting it here.  Also, please note that the argument presented by George Smith utilizes the definition of atheism that we have agreed on, namely "lacking a belief in a deity", as you yourself have quoted from the wikipedia:

When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities

Can you see where I'm coming from?  If an atheist is a person lacking a belief in a supreme being, then whether the reason for this lack is that the question is unknowable or that the question is knowable but the proposition is false, both of these people could very accurately and truthfully be said to be "lacking a belief in a supreme being", and should thus be considered atheists by the definitions we have agreed upon.

Just a final note, MoralCompass, this topic was interesting and enjoyable to me, but ultimately I don't care what label I'm stuck with.  If you want to call me an agnostic, go ahead.  I call myself an atheist for the reasons I present.  But, ultimately, I'm not emotionally attached to the label in any way.  I'm more interested in learning whether or not my views and beliefs about god and the world are correct.  To argue that atheists should take a "vow of silence" on hypothetical religious propositions is absurd to me.  Effectively, the atheists are saying "if we're wrong, what would you think about god/heaven/religion/afterlife/etc".  What could possibly be objectionable about that?  Most atheists would also term themselves "free thinkers", which is following thought without boundary --- thinking about things regardless of what others think.  Most likely, they would use this as an explanation for why they would ignore your suggested "vow of silence".  This certainly applies in force to me personally.

[donkeyhoty]

MoralCompass your line of thinking and posts are a mess.

First, as someone else said, you don't know what hypothetical means.  Here's an example, would you rather have robot arms or robot legs?  For further clarification, by robot arms and legs, I mean Robocop-like.  Regardless of what you think about the possibliity of making, and affixing, robot arms or legs to a human, you can answer the question.  If you can't, you should leave the realm of philosophy.

Second, unless you are agnostic in regards to all gods, then your position of strong agnosticism is untenable. Belief in the Abrahamic god holds as much weight as belief in the Norse gods, both of which hold as much weight as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Also, you need to clarify what you mean by god if you don't claim that your agnosticism relates to all gods.


Belief and opinion are similar but not the same, see: hypocrisy.

[MoralCompass]

First, as someone else said, you don't know what hypothetical means.

Don't jump to conclusions about me.  I know what hypothetical means.  Its taking a supposed situation, not proven true, and being logical about it.  You suppose something is true, knowing its not, and put reason on top of that.   Science tests hypothetical situations to develop theories.
 
"If you were a weak atheist, speaking hypothetically about God, it would be going against the definition of a weak atheist, being that you are forming a belief about god."

I admit this quote was unclear.  Let me explain.
The hypothesis isn't knowledge yet.  Its a belief, still unproven, but backed up by reason (Irreducibility Complex)
Sure, we can ask hypothetical questions for fun, but when it comes down to the nature of reality, things start to get a little more serious.  Once again, I am being a semantics nazi, but its important.  The belief is the prediction with reason behind it in the hypothetical.
"If God DOES exist, it is my belief that he will welcome atheists into his kingdom?"
So, of course you can speak hypothetically about god, and I take back what I said about the vow of silence - that was rude.  But if you want a hypothetical to be useful, you must take it seriously, and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

 
Your question "Would you rather have robot arms or legs?" actually ISN'T hypothetical, because it has been proven a possiblity already, so its just a normal question, there is no requirement for a hypothesis or "if" in that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4275245.stm

Second, unless you are agnostic in regards to all gods, then your position of strong agnosticism is untenable.

I can believe in whatever god I see fit.  All strong agnostics are saying is they believe it is impossible for the existance of a god to be knowable.  We can still believe.

[MoralCompass]

You suppose something is true, knowing its not,

Ugh...correction:

You suppose something is true, not knowing whether it is or not.

[donkeyhoty]

Its taking a supposed situation, not proven true, and being logical about it. You suppose something is true, knowing its not, and put reason on top of that. Science tests hypothetical situations to develop theories.

No.  You are confusing a hypothesis with a hypothetical question.  And even that you're muddy on.

This is what you're doing, and I'll use a hypothetical question as the example:

Q:  If the world were to end tomorrow, what would you do?
You:  The world's not gonna end tomorrow.  We shouldn't talk about it.

A hypothetical question has nothing to do with the validity of anything in the question or response. At it's simplest a hypothetical question asks, "What If?".

Your question "Would you rather have robot arms or legs?" actually ISN'T hypothetical, because it has been proven a possiblity already, so its just a normal question, there is no requirement for a hypothesis or "if" in that.

In re: the link, Wow, that's cool, robot arms.  Still, the question is hypothetical, unless you already have both robot arms and legs.

Here's another hypothetical, that could possibly be true, but isn't, as far as I know:  If you had a million dollars what would you do?

Now, you might have a million dollars thus negating the hypothetical, but I'd venture to say that you don't.  While you certainly could make a million dollars one day, a "proven possibility", you don't have it now, thus a hypothetical.  For your edification here's another hypothetical with choices of two "proven possiblities":  Would you rather die by drowing or by burning?

But if you want a hypothetical to be useful, you must take it seriously, and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

Once again you are demonstrating you know not what a hypothetical is.  Belief has nothing to do with hypotheticals.  Except that you might believe robot legs are cooler than robot arms.

I can believe in whatever god I see fit. All strong agnostics are saying is they believe it is impossible for the existance of a god to be knowable. We can still believe

You failed to answer the question. I didn't say you couldn't believe in any god.  
Do you believe in a specific god over any of the others?  If you do, your situation is untenable.  If not, then what is your definition of a god?

[SteveS]

MoralCompass - I just don't understand your insistence on a totally personal, stiflingly narrow definition of atheism that to the best of my knowledge no human being on earth uses except you.  You say:

and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

I am convinced that no matter what argument I present, what personal way I describe my beliefs, what source we quote, what definition people in general and atheists in particular use, you will remain ultimately deaf to the evidence and stubbornly cling to your own made-up definition.

You grant yourself the right to believe anything:

All strong agnostics are saying is they believe it is impossible for the existance of a god to be knowable. We can still believe.

but for some reason deny atheists this right.  For what possible reason?

An atheist can clearly say that he/she believes that god does not exist.  A person who believes that god does not exist clearly qualifies as having "no belief that god exists".  How can you not see that?  Every source that has been quoted in this thread, as regards definition of atheism, is completely consistent with these statements.

How do you generalize "lack of belief in the existence of god" to "lack of belief in anything"?  If I say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow", are you going to tell me "you are entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism, so you cannot believe the sun will rise"?  Is this not obviously absurd?

An atheist can hold any belief whatsoever save one: belief in the existence of god.  Why?  Because an atheist is a person who does not have a belief in the existence of god.  Any other belief one holds would have no bearing on whether or not the person is an atheist.  No belief that god exists?  Atheist.  Belief that god exists?  Theist.

[Will]

I admit this quote was unclear.  Let me explain.
The hypothesis isn't knowledge yet.  Its a belief, still unproven, but backed up by reason (Irreducibility Complex)
Sure, we can ask hypothetical questions for fun, but when it comes down to the nature of reality, things start to get a little more serious.  Once again, I am being a semantics nazi, but its important.  The belief is the prediction with reason behind it in the hypothetical.

Hypothesis isn't belief. Hypothesis is a suggestion as to something that may be possible. When I postulate a hypothesis that before the big bang there was a big crunch, I need not believe it to be true. I can consider it as one of the possibilities, based on evidence, but my belief is not required. Arguing about god has nothing to do with the 'nature of reality'. It's a flight of fancy. Had this thread been called "If Odin DOES exist, would good atheists be allowed in Valhalla?" it would be the same thing. If you posted in a thread like that, would it necessitate you no longer believing in god? Of course not.

"If God DOES exist, it is my belief that he will welcome atheists into his kingdom?"
So, of course you can speak hypothetically about god, and I take back what I said about the vow of silence - that was rude.  But if you want a hypothetical to be useful, you must take it seriously, and you are then entering the realm of belief, which is not part of atheism.

This isn't about usefulness. This is about fun. This thread is here for entertainment. "What if the crazies are right?! Bwahaha!!" That kind of thing. So, to be clear, this isn't supposed to be useful in any philosophical sense.

[MoralCompass]

MoralCompass - I just don't understand your insistence on a totally personal, stiflingly narrow definition of atheism that to the best of my knowledge no human being on earth uses except you. You say:

My bad for not being more specific, and therefor I brought you to believe something about me that wasn't true.  I should have tagged god onto the end of my definitions of atheism.  So, let me make it clear that atheists have the right to believe anything as long as it is not god, or anything that god entails.

However, this is not where the restriction stops.  The extention of the definition is "the lack of belief in the non-existance" of god.  This is covered by Smith himself in "The Case Against God."  I can't quote him for lack of access to an excerpt, but I'll see if I can get my buddy's copy again.  I'll post one, because it was explained well.

A person who believes that god does not exist clearly qualifies as having "no belief that god exists".

Not necessarily.  These are two different things.  In the first, a belief is held.  In the second, no belief is held.  You can't say the two are the same.  Like I said, I'll come back with an excerpt.

[MoralCompass]

Hypothesis isn't belief. Hypothesis is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Belief is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Give me a situation where hypothesis isn't easily replaceable by the word belief and I will give in.    

When I say belief, I am of course talking about reasonable believe, something that has education behind it.  So, don't bring me an example such as "My hypothesis of trees being able to communicate with human beings proved to be false."

That would be an example with irrational belief in it, and would also, not be a hypothesis because there is no education behind it.

In regard to my agnostic theism, I do not lean to any particular god, but rather look with reason to the higher power that thinks logically.

There are hypothetical questions that exist for fun, and hypothetical questions that exist for the pursuit of knowledge.  The ones that are asked for usefulness have hypothesis behind them.  Look it up, its in the definition of hypothetical.
 
An atheist may not see asking hypothetical questions just for fun as something, when applied to existence of god, inappropriately insincere, but what value are you giving your philosophy if aren't taking the subject of it seriously?

[Will]

Hypothesis isn't belief. Hypothesis is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Belief is a suggestion as to something that may be possible.

Now I see where the problem is. You've confused hypothesis with belief. A belief is something that is accepted reality to the believer. A hypothesis is a possibility to someone who is able to step back and realize that it's only a possibility and is not a certainty.

Give me a situation where hypothesis isn't easily replaceable by the word belief and I will give in.  

"I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible..."... are you telling me people who pray the Lord's Prayer are only saying god might exist? I suspect there are over a billion people who would disagree. Belief is certain.

When I say belief, I am of course talking about reasonable believe, something that has education behind it.  So, don't bring me an example such as "My hypothesis of trees being able to communicate with human beings proved to be false."

As we see with faith in the divine, though, belief is not always rational. As a matter of fact, if you venture over to Dictionary.com, you'll see that in the second definition of "Belief", the following is given:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:

Not susceptible to proof.

An atheist may not see asking hypothetical questions just for fun as something, when applied to existence of god, inappropriately insincere, but what value are you giving your philosophy if aren't taking the subject of it seriously?

You yourself said that a hypothetical question can be for fun.

The question in question doesn't devalue our philosophy at all. Moving outside one's philosophy in hypothetical flights of fancy does not value or devalue the philosophy. It's separate. Just as me going to a club on Friday wouldn't devalue or value what I do at work. Think about it in those terms.

[donkeyhoty]

Ugh, I'm done trying to explain what a hypothetical question is.


That being said, on to what a hypothesis is and should be.  

A hypothesis has nothing to do with belief, or at least shouldn't.  It is about testing something that might be true, or you want to find out if it is true.  Belief does not enter into the equation.  Belief is irrelevent, unless you are a poor scientist.  You might want your hypothesis to be true, but that is also poor science if you let it cloud your judgement or testing.

Case in point: Intelligent design is poor science because its adherrents use their belief to determine the hypothesis and conclusions.  They take what they believe to be true, their God doing everything, and formulate a hypothesis and false conclusions to support their beliefs.  No actual science whatsoever.

Good science - hypothesis and conclusions from testing dictate beliefs
Bad science - beliefs dictate hypothesis and conclusions

[paperino]

Hi Donkeyhoty! And thanks for welcoming me!
I hope that this reply reaches You. I didn't follow this chain from the start, but You sure make sense.
I also wanted to answer another new member on the issue of "why has religion persisted so long". My answer would have been; type 'cargo cults' on a search engine.

Thanks,
PR

PS. Why are so few people contributing to this site?

[SteveS]

MoralCompass, thanks for the clarification - I'm glad we could finally come to agreement on some of this!  Phew.

let me make it clear that atheists have the right to believe anything as long as it is not god, or anything that god entails.

Ah, sneaky, trying to slip one past me!  Up until the comma I agree, from there I do not.  If god entails "A", this just means that if "god exists" is true then "A exists" must also be true.  Notice that this is not reversible; if "A" exists it does not imply that god exists (if all you know about god and "A" is that god entails "A").

If "X" is a rose(A), then "X" is a flower(B) because all roses are flowers.  Thus, "A" entails "B", and being a rose entails being a flower.  If you flip it around, it does not work.  If "X" is a flower, it does not follow that "X" is a rose, because not all flowers are roses.  Being a flower does not entail being a rose.

So, your statement is exactly backwards.  You should have said "or anything that entails god".  In other words, an atheist cannot believe anything from which follows the necessity of god's existence.  An atheist cannot believe that the planets move due to the will of god, because "planets moving by the will of god" entails "god exists".

See what I mean?

Not necessarily. These are two different things. In the first, a belief is held. In the second, no belief is held. You can't say the two are the same.

Yes necessarily.  These are two different things - I agree. But, I'm not saying they are the same.  What I am saying, is that if I hold a belief that god does not exist, then I cannot also hold a belief that he does.  This would be contradictory.  So, if I truly believe that god does not exist, then I must also lack a belief that he does.  They are two different things, but the first implies the second.  To say otherwise would be illogical, because of the law of noncontradiction.

For clarity's sake:
 
Holding a belief that god does not exist implies lacking a belief that god exists.

Lacking a belief that god exists does not imply holding a belief that god does not exist.

This is why they are different; it is also why we can draw an implication from one position, but not from the other.

However, this is not where the restriction stops. The extention of the definition is "the lack of belief in the non-existance" of god. This is covered by Smith himself in "The Case Against God." I can't quote him for lack of access to an excerpt, but I'll see if I can get my buddy's copy again. I'll post one, because it was explained well.

Please do (this was a terrific book, IHMO).  I think that you are partially mistaken here, if I'm reading you right.  I think that a person who has a "lack of belief in the non-existence of god" could be either; theist or atheist.  I think Smith would agree - in particular, Smith's "implicit atheist" would definitely lack a belief in the non-existence of god, but would still be considered an atheist due to his simultaneous lack of belief in the existence of god.

So, specifically, lacking a belief in the non-existence of god is a possible but non-required attribute of an atheist.

In particular, the relevant parts of George Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God would be Part 1, Section 1, subsections I through IV.

[paperino]

A rose is a rose is a rose,
Gertrud Stein
To do is to be,
Plato
To be is to do,
Aristotle
Do be do,
Sinatra (Kurt Vonnegut Jr)