Sorry "agnostics", but you're either a theist or an atheist

[Haggis_McMutton]

My personal position is of being unsure either way. I lean towards atheism, but atheism is, for me, not an absolute disbelief. I genuinely don't think about it. The reason why I often bring up the unicorn analogy is that it's another thing I just don't think about. Believing in god, or not believing in god just doesn't really explain how I go about my life.

String theory was perhaps, in your case a bad example then. But pick any controversial explanation of how things are and you'll find there's a middle ground of people going about there lives without investing hugely in either direction.

Well, again, this is a generalization of a subgroup of atheists. It's only an "absolute disbelief" for strong atheists, and i consider those people to be wrong.

Atheism is lack of belief in deities. That's it.
It doesn't matter how vocal you are about it, how strong your disbelief is, or if you even have disbelief(you might not have ever encountered the concept of god, for instance. You'd still be an atheist since you obviously would be lacking belief in god).

I don't really know how to take that first sentence. I don't really consider myself as a part of a subgroup of atheism, and I'm not sure how I'm generalising when I talk only about my own beliefs. Surely you're the one generalising here- you're dismissing a whole range of people for whom belief or disbelief in a god just isn't that important.

The unicorn analogy is pretty much designed for me. It's not about dismissing belief in god, but rather explaining how I feel about belief in god (emphasis on "I").

Ok, guess I made some assumptions about what you were saying.

We're talking about wether agnostics exist as a category separate from theists and atheists(hint: they don't).
You said: "I lean towards atheism, but atheism is, for me, not an absolute disbelief. I genuinely don't think about it." as part of this debate. i took this to mean that you believe that not thinking about it or not having absolute disbelief means you aren't an atheist. That's why I thought you were generalizing the beliefs of atheists by equation strong atheism or explicit atheism with simple old atheism.

What i'm saying is that on the question of belief in deities, there are only two option. You either have belief, or you do not have belief.

All the other stuff about strength of belief and what not are separate and have nothing to do with the above point.

[john9blue]

the problem with defining atheism as "lack of belief in god" is that the definition makes agnosticism, ignosticism, and theological noncognitivism all fall under the 'atheist" umbrella. it also allows people who have consciously claimed that "god does not exist" (an unprovable statement of belief) to fool themselves into thinking that that statement doesn't require belief and is the "neutral" position, even though the positions that actually lack belief (stated above) would never make such a statement.

it's as if i claimed that saying "intelligent life doesn't exist beyond our solar system" required no belief because there has been no proof of intelligent life thus far. clearly it DOES require belief, because the answer to the question is still undetermined.

also, claiming that "god does not exist" is equivalent to claiming either that "the universe was started by something other than a conscious being" or "the universe was never started at all", both of which are positive statements of belief. therefore, claiming "god does not exist" is a belief.

[BigBallinStalin]

the problem with defining atheism as "lack of belief in god" is that the definition makes agnosticism, ignosticism, and theological noncognitivism all fall under the 'atheist" umbrella. it also allows people who have consciously claimed that "god does not exist" (an unprovable statement of belief) to fool themselves into thinking that that statement doesn't require belief and is the "neutral" position, even though the positions that actually lack belief (stated above) would never make such a statement.

it's as if i claimed that saying "intelligent life doesn't exist beyond our solar system" required no belief because there has been no proof of intelligent life thus far. clearly it DOES require belief, because the answer to the question is still undetermined.

also, claiming that "god does not exist" is equivalent to claiming either that "the universe was started by something other than a conscious being" or "the universe was never started at all", both of which are positive statements of belief. therefore, claiming "god does not exist" is a belief.

Sorry, john, the lack of belief in a deity or deities, is defined as atheism.

Search through credible dictionaries and then argue with them.

[Haggis_McMutton]

the problem with defining atheism as "lack of belief in god" is that the definition makes agnosticism, ignosticism, and theological noncognitivism all fall under the 'atheist" umbrella.

They do fall there. I did not invent the word a-theist.

it also allows people who have consciously claimed that "god does not exist" (an unprovable statement of belief) to fool themselves into thinking that that statement doesn't require belief and is the "neutral" position, even though the positions that actually lack belief (stated above) would never make such a statement.

Of course stating "god does not exist" requires belief. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I'm stating everyone is borned as an implicit atheist, a person who hold no belief either way, you can then become an explicit atheist or a theist as you grow up(or indeed, switch between the two).

it's as if i claimed that saying "intelligent life doesn't exist beyond our solar system" required no belief because there has been no proof of intelligent life thus far. clearly it DOES require belief, because the answer to the question is still undetermined.
also, claiming that "god does not exist" is equivalent to claiming either that "the universe was started by something other than a conscious being" or "the universe was never started at all", both of which are positive statements of belief. therefore, claiming "god does not exist" is a belief.

Strawman, I never made such a claim. I am just saying that the term "atheist" encompasses more beliefs than you seem to suggest.
Like I said, just because you don't agree with what some subgroup of atheists say, doesn't mean you need to distance yourself from atheism itself. You agreed with my paragraph in the OP about trying to not be associated with "assholes".

Edit: fastposted. DAMN YOU BBS AND YOUR STATING THE SAME THING AS ME IN 1/10 OF THE SPACE

[BigBallinStalin]

[Symmetry]

My personal position is of being unsure either way. I lean towards atheism, but atheism is, for me, not an absolute disbelief. I genuinely don't think about it. The reason why I often bring up the unicorn analogy is that it's another thing I just don't think about. Believing in god, or not believing in god just doesn't really explain how I go about my life.

String theory was perhaps, in your case a bad example then. But pick any controversial explanation of how things are and you'll find there's a middle ground of people going about there lives without investing hugely in either direction.

Well, again, this is a generalization of a subgroup of atheists. It's only an "absolute disbelief" for strong atheists, and i consider those people to be wrong.

Atheism is lack of belief in deities. That's it.
It doesn't matter how vocal you are about it, how strong your disbelief is, or if you even have disbelief(you might not have ever encountered the concept of god, for instance. You'd still be an atheist since you obviously would be lacking belief in god).

I don't really know how to take that first sentence. I don't really consider myself as a part of a subgroup of atheism, and I'm not sure how I'm generalising when I talk only about my own beliefs. Surely you're the one generalising here- you're dismissing a whole range of people for whom belief or disbelief in a god just isn't that important.

The unicorn analogy is pretty much designed for me. It's not about dismissing belief in god, but rather explaining how I feel about belief in god (emphasis on "I").

Ok, guess I made some assumptions about what you were saying.

We're talking about wether agnostics exist as a category separate from theists and atheists(hint: they don't).
You said: "I lean towards atheism, but atheism is, for me, not an absolute disbelief. I genuinely don't think about it." as part of this debate. i took this to mean that you believe that not thinking about it or not having absolute disbelief means you aren't an atheist. That's why I thought you were generalizing the beliefs of atheists by equation strong atheism or explicit atheism with simple old atheism.

What i'm saying is that on the question of belief in deities, there are only two option. You either have belief, or you do not have belief.

All the other stuff about strength of belief and what not are separate and have nothing to do with the above point.

Fair enough- I think that. like myself, you are a bit torn between thinking it's an either/or topic, while acknowledging that a middle ground exists. I think you're trying to dismiss that middle ground, and I don't think that's fair.

There are many good reasons why I should consider myself an atheist, and there are many good reasons why I should consider myself an agnostic. I think the problem is in defining what I think entirely in the language of religion. I don't like it when, from the opposite side, religion is described purely in terms of the rational and the irrational.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Well, there's no tension between being an agnostic and an atheist, as they address different question.

Agnosticism adresses the question of wether you know anything about the existance of deities, while atheism adresses wether you believe in a deity or not.

Myself, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe any deities exist, but I admit that I obviously don't know this for a fact.

[john9blue]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3 ... =firefox-a

-the doctrine or belief that there is no God
-a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

there are two definitions, i'm using the first, you are using the second

the first requires belief, the second doesn't

but if you only fit the second definition, then you are probably more accurately defined by another label

are we on the same page here?

[Haggis_McMutton]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aatheism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

-the doctrine or belief that there is no God
-a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

there are two definitions, i'm using the first, you are using the second

the first requires belief, the second doesn't

but if you only fit the second definition, then you are probably more accurately defined by another label

are we on the same page here?

Yes, except I don't think another label is necessary.
The first is simply a subset of the second, like people who "know" god exists are a subset of people who believe god exists.

[Juan_Bottom]

I also agree that strong atheists are about as deluded as religious people, I can't say I've actually ever met a strong atheist though(in RL), I have a feeling they're a very small percentage of atheists.

They're the ones in front, writing all the books and doing the TV specials. Names you know like Hitchens and Dawkins.

[Metsfanmax]

Agnosticism adresses the question of wether you know anything about the existance of deities,

Strictly speaking, agnosticism should address the question of whether you should alter your life style based on the knowledge (or lack thereof) of a deity.

[jonesthecurl]

But if you don't know if there's a god, then you certainoy don't know which god is real if there is one. What set of rules apply? Surely that's one of the things you don't know.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I also agree that strong atheists are about as deluded as religious people, I can't say I've actually ever met a strong atheist though(in RL), I have a feeling they're a very small percentage of atheists.

They're the ones in front, writing all the books and doing the TV specials. Names you know like Hitchens and Dawkins.

Hmm, I doubt Dawkins is a strong atheist.

Positive(or strong) atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is at least one god" is a false statement.

Dawkins seems to always use the more cautious "god is very improbable". For instance, randomly searching on google i found this article of his: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-d ... 32164.html. Notice the tile: "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God", he bothered to put that "almost certainly" in there.
Seems to me like he's not a strong atheist.

Can't be bothered to research Hitchens right now as well, though I guess I could more readily see him as a strong atheist.

[FVAISEY]

According to my dictionary an atheist believes that there is no god. If I understand your use of theist, it's some one who believes that there is a god. I don't see enough evidence to make a conclusion either way. Agnostic.

[Neoteny]

Allow me to simplify. If you believe in a god, you are a theist. If you do not meet that criterion, you are an atheist. If you are unsure, then you are not a theist, and you are a type of atheist. That is the OP's point. Read the thread instead of your dictionary, as you will appear to be literate and on topic.

We know you agnostics don't want to be associated with us meany atheists, but continuously asserting you are not atheist is ineffective.

[Neoteny]

According to my dictionary an atheist believes that there is no god. If I understand your use of theist, it's some one who believes that there is a god. I don't see enough evidence to make a conclusion either way. Agnostic.

Your homework is to go count how many times that has been said in this thread.

[john9blue]

Allow me to simplify. If you believe in a god, you are a theist. If you do not meet that criterion, you are an atheist. If you are unsure, then you are not a theist, and you are a type of atheist. That is the OP's point. Read the thread instead of your dictionary, as you will appear to be literate and on topic.

We know you agnostics don't want to be associated with us meany atheists, but continuously asserting you are not atheist is ineffective.

there are multiple definitions of the word, yours isn't the only one

[Neoteny]

Allow me to simplify. If you believe in a god, you are a theist. If you do not meet that criterion, you are an atheist. If you are unsure, then you are not a theist, and you are a type of atheist. That is the OP's point. Read the thread instead of your dictionary, as you will appear to be literate and on topic.

We know you agnostics don't want to be associated with us meany atheists, but continuously asserting you are not atheist is ineffective.

there are multiple definitions of the word, yours isn't the only one

Not my definition. Simplificication of premise in OP. Read the thread.