The debate "Pretheism is a more logical position than atheism" was started by
April 28, 2015, 4:04 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
I_Voyager posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Getmurked posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
I_Voyager, wmd, ufufugh and 7 visitors agree.
project_mayhem, Sosocratese, Getmurked, jonatron5, Seraphim, hae_bae, Asa, DarkAngelAnarchist, sighnomore99, skyfrancois_97, soullesschicken and 13 visitors disagree.
Deists are people who believe there is a diety, but who think we can't know it. It's the most logical position, because it has no refutable qualities. I can't disprove a diety exists, and if you say you have no opinion on the constitution of the deity, then there's nothing to refute. Pandeism is similar, except it asserts the universe is god, or is becoming god. But they'd also state we can't know it.
The deists position is very nimble. Why do bad things happen to good people? Because maybe the deity doesn't care. Why doesn't the deity answer prayers? Because the deity isn't listening. If the universe was made for humanity, then why isn't it more hospitable for humans? Because the deity was limited and could only create this universe. Or maybe the deity didn't create this universe with humanity in mind, and we're just an after-effect.
It's just that theist and atheist are a bit different from eachother.
If a person is a theist, they're always a theist. They always believe in their theology.
But since atheism is the rejection of theology, one need not always be an atheist. One might refer to ones self as an atheist all the time... That might be like possessing and ideology that "I always reject all theologies all the time." I suppose it's alright for the atheist to take that position.
But the problem I have with it is that it means the atheist always has the theology on the mind. I don't always want to be an atheist, because I'm more concerned with how living well and rightly as a human works and I'd like the philosophy of life on earth to be that which defines me, and not just my rejection of one or another argument.
I suppose this is an attempt to look at atheism more moderately. I don't want to be an atheist, but I don't accept any theology. But I'm not an agnostic because I'm not just saying "I don't know". So I'm in a pretheological position. Then when I know what my philosophy of life must be named (really hard thing to do) I'll call myself that. If I find one.
but an athiest can be a non prethiest right? from what i have gathered you can have a pretheist who is open to both, an athiest, and a theist, but if that prethiest accepts a theological view, they are no longer a pretheist, yet if they choose an athiest view they are still pretheist? to me that cannot make much sense
deists and pandeists are what exactly?
Basically, yes. There is a bit of an expanded subtext, given that I'm someone whose thought of himself as "atheist", so I'm coming at it a little biased anywho.
The pretheist doesn't necessarily need to be open to either claim, but could be. The thing is if the pretheist is open to both claims, and then afterwards accepts a theology, they are no longer a pretheist, but a theist.
Where-as atheism is a response to a theological claim. "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." Since a person can only ever be responding when a claim is being made, it isn't logical for an atheist to think of ones self as "atheist". It's not like walking alone through a forest, the atheist looks at a tree and the tree says "There's a god" and then the atheist retorts "Nah-ah." So the atheist is still a pretheist, they hold a view that precedes a religious claims (the universe exists, I exist, you exist, all in/as nature), and noly ever become atheists when responding to any theological claim.
I also tried to include deists in the topic, since I think it's important not to forget deists and pandeists. Even if their view isn't common.
i understand. your stating that prethiesm is before any just claims, before your root yourself as an athiest or a theist, and its the most logical because not only are you not biased, but are opening yourself to both positions, to acquire as much knowledge to conclude fornm yourself where you will stand. correct?
And, yes, below :p
That's fine. It'll be here when you feel up for it ;) But as a position it's made towards atheists. So you might find it a little frustrating looking at it from inside a theology. So try to think about how the argument must look from an atheistic (or generally non-theist) point of view.
you meqn below? and sorry, your writing style is rather intelligent, but i do not feel like going through the means to decipher it at the moment
I would like to know if anyone disagrees with a specific reason, given my argument above.
The logical inductive beginning point for any being which pursues a logically knowable experience is acceptance that some component of the sensory experience of an objective world could be true, whichever that may be, and is minimally necessary to accept an experienced condition, memory or personal experience.
Secondly is an inductive processes of verifying what objects and implications are true or false. Generally this comes in the form of experiencing the reality and judging it.
This logical starting point must open up into ideologies, which are determined by experiences relative to the nature and position of the subject. If one is exposed to an ideology, the inquirer will value, be modified by, and reject any components there-in.
It is possible to engage with an object that describes an empirical knowledge unit. Science can sit as a variable fitting of this argument. This is an induction of common and explainable phenomenon given certain conceptual conditions. Acceptance or denial do not verify the knowledge unit necessarily, but the claim is at least spatial - in relation to the general fact of a reality of objects we previously accepted.
It is possible to engage with an object that asserts a theological ideology. The inductive experience is posterior to the deity of the theology and the truth of its transmission.
Upon that experience, a person may conclude "theism is true" or respond "I reject the theological assertion." The inquirer becomes deist, theist or atheist
All theism rests on the claim of an posterior truth to the physical reality which is more true or entirely true. Therefore one must assert the superior truth of the theology over the previous inducted pretheological relationship.
Therefore, all previous position stating inductive knowledge of the sensory experience in the material world are in the position of "pretheism". A pretheist is the simplest logical position, a priori theology. Theism as an assertion, if to be taken either as true or false, can be logically responded to by atheism. But every atheist must also logically be a pretheist to the theological assertion. A logical riposte.
Afterwards a theology may postulate the universal experience of the theological truth a priori, but that is irrational to accept if you know by your own pretheological experience this is not the case. Therefore "Logical Prethesim" is the most logical preceding philosophical perspective.