Or you can just describe what you mean that empirical science is just all theory.
This brings to mind a quote about simplicity.
“I am a theist.”
All you can connote from that sentence is that I don’t believe in atheism.
I find it ridiculous, that absence of a belief, however popular that belief may be, is given a -ism. It goes to show the influence of atheism in modern thinking.
I’m no longer going to call myself an theist, as I would be playing the atheist’s game.
Seriously, theism is not a religious position. It’s simply the negation of theism, and the affirmation of belief in the existence in a personal God. Why can’t I apply the same thinking to my position:
“I’m not a theist, I’m a Christian” kind of thing?
Lets logic this out.
All you can apparently connote from the term theism is the negation of atheism.
Atheism in itself negates theism. By your logic, a theist is someone who negates the negating of theism, and nothing more. Atheism is, therefore, an empty -ism(like I’ve been saying all along), but apparently so is theism.
Terrible, terrible, logic…
A theist IS someone who negates the negation of theism. That is true. P means the same as ¬[¬P]. They are logically equivalent. If that is not the case, please show it - don’t just claim that it is, and certainly don’t call my logic terrible when your response hasn’t addressed a logical issue.
Look -
From the theist perspective
P: God exists
The atheist position is thus rendered ¬P
From the atheist perspective
Q: God does not exist
The theist position is thus rendered ¬Q
What do you mean by an “empty -ism”?
- Theism is not a religious position. There are theistic religions, but it does not follow that theism itself is a religious position.
Have you ever heard of a religion called theism? I certainly haven’t.
-
That was clearly a typo. I meant to write “theism is the negation of atheism”, and that is true.
-
Once we fix my typo, it is clear what I meant. Theism is the negation of atheism, and the affirmation of a personal God. Given that the God of theism is a personal God, I think that this is reducible to the negation of atheism. You have not yet offered an argument against that position.
-
Atheism is not an empty category (although I’m not sure entirely what you mean by that in this context). Atheism means a belief that the God of theism does not exist. Theism does not connote many things. It simply connotes that God exists, which, shock horror, is what theists believe.
-
Christianity is a theistic religion. It does not follow that Christianity is a part of theism. Christianity is indeed a member of the set “theistic religions”, but it does not follow that Christianity is a part of theism. Christians affirm theism to be true, but that is different to what we are proposing.
True, BUT it’s not all it is. And this is the point of this thread. While we can argue linguistic semantics here, the point remains that atheism is ONLY a negation, while theism can be viewed as a negation of what negates it, but it also holds substance; concepts are connoted from “theism”.
My problem with this is not that it’s not an accurate interpretation of what theism is, in relation to atheism, but that it neglects to mention that theism is something more than just the negation of atheism. Atheism, on the other hand, is only a negation, and nothing more.
What theism contains in itself as a term, atheism neglects. Do you not see the problem here?
An atheist can be somebody who negates all beliefs. An atheist can be someone who affirms all beliefs beside theism as well. The category is moot.
I don’t believe in theism, but I also don’t believe in anything else----I am still within the boundaries of “atheism”.
I don’t believe in theism, but I believe in all other beliefs----I am still within the boundaries of “atheism”.
Atheism can exist only as a branch of theism. Otherwise, alone, it connotes everything, nothing, and everything in between. Hence the “empty -ism”.
Hi Tristan,
This isn’t semantics at all (are they any varieties of semantics that aren’t linguistic, by the way?). It’s an important point. I don’t see how theism being the negation of atheism means that it doesn’t hold substance - that isn’t true at all, and I’ve never claimed anything of the sort. Theism DOES have substance, it claims that God exists. Atheism also has substance - it claims that God does not exist. Both are declarative sentences, both tell us something.
I do not accept that theism tells us anymore than “God exists” - perhaps you can elaborate here. Theism is not a religious position - I don’t see why it would have to tell us anything more than “God exists”. After all, there are comparatively few people who just label themselves theists, rather than Christian, Jew, or Muslim etc.
So, I don’t buy your point. What is your argument?
But that’s precisely what I don’t think. I am claiming that theism is nothing more than the negation of atheism, and that atheism is nothing more than the negation of theism. Sure, you don’t have to agree with me (though I’m correct o this 
), but you haven’t offered any sort of argument here. You’ve just premised your conclusion - in other words, committed the fallacy of begging the question.
Also, I don’t see what this response has to do with a logical issue, which is what you called me on.
I don’t see the problem here, precisely because there IS no problem here.
The category of “atheist” is not moot at all, it tells us important things about a world-view. Sure, it’s probably not THE most important thing, but then, I don’t hold theism to be the most important thing about my own world-view. There simply isn’t a problem here.
Everything you’ve said here can apply to the theist as well - you aren’t immediately pidgeon-holed into some rigid belief system by labelling oneself a theist. The only belief that the theist is committed to is that God exists, which - SHOCK! HORROR! - is the negation of what the atheist believes.
The theist can believe pretty much anything. The only things he must believe are [P ^ [¬[¬P]], where
P: God exists
Atheism is not the absence of belief, it is just the absence of a belief in a divine entity. It is still a belief however. It is the belief that a belief in an entiity is inconceivable.
Theism is not only the negation of atheism, because atheism does not hold any substance without theism.
Let me explain:
For theism to be the opposite of atheism, atheism would have to hold substance without theism. Atheism would have to have substance in it regardless of theism, for your case of theism being the opposite of atheism.
But atheism does not denote any thing without theism. Atheism is dependent on theism for any substance. Theism, on the other hand, stands alone as a category in itself. If the absence of theism(atheism) was not assumed, then theism still holds substance regardless of that hypothetical. This means that theism is a category which holds substance regardless of it’s opposite, while atheism is dependent on it’s ‘opposite’ for it’s substance.
Atheism without Theism is nihilism.
Theism without Atheism is still theism.
It’s true that theism is not a religious position, but all religious positions are theistic positions.
All A are B
but
All B are not A
that means that:
All religious beliefs are theistic beliefs
but
All theistic beliefs are not religious beliefs
Therefore atheism is a conditional category. The condition for it’s having any substance is that theism has to be assumed.
Have you ever heard of an athletic competition named sport? Truth of the matter here is that religions are a subset of theism. Theism encompasses all of religion(like ‘sport’ encompasses all of 'athletic competitions).
You’re contraposing the statement “Atheists don’t believe in God” into “Atheists believe in not-God”.
Beyond believing in ‘not-God’, atheism holds no other substance. This one substance that it does hold is conditional, and this is the point of the thread. Atheism is a conditional category. Alone it means nothing. If you hold yourself to be an atheist, then you do so only because of theists. Most atheists(this comes from personal experience) want nothing to do with theists beliefs, but still choose to categorize themselves in a category which can exist only in the presence of the thing which they want nothing to do with. Ironic?
You bring up a very good point.
Isn’t atheism just a quick way of saying you don’t believe in God or that God exists?
That’s what I thought it really meant.
With that in mind, not believing in God or that God exists isn’t really an “ism”, it’s just a, well, it’s just a … .
And with that in mind, if not being theism is atheism, does theism include pantheism and panentheism. If not, then panetheism and panentheism is also atheism.
And what about the better example of deism. Is deism also atheism by virtue of atheism being the not theism?
And what about opposites? Who says that theism and atheism are “opposites”.
And, now that you mention it, who said that atheism means not believing in God or that God exists?
(Oh, the dictionary?)
Well, regardless, it’s time for some new more descriptive and less biased terms. 
They’re not opposites. One is the lack of the other. Guess which one is which?!
Atheism
The atheists believe in logical conclusions based on practical experience and in things present before the naked eye (perception). The real spiritual knowledge can satisfy all these requirements. The human incarnation of God is right before the eyes; in flesh-and-blood. All the bonds with family and wealth are before the eyes and liberation from such bonds, which is called salvation, is also before the eyes. One can experience God through the human incarnation in this world itself and in this very life itself.
Infinite love and bliss derived from the special divine knowledge preached by the human incarnation are enjoyed here itself. Enjoyment of love and bliss is the goal of any worldly bond. This is called Jeevanmukti, which means ‘salvation while living’; right here. What ever one achieves while living, that alone continues with the soul after death. Thus perception is the basis for even the invisible future.