Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then that should be taken that as a no, as it seems reasonable to suggest you would know if you believed in a god. If correct, that places you in the not theist camp, or more clearly, someone who does not believe in a god.
Edit: If you actively believe a god(s) "x" exists, then you are a theist. Otherwise you are not a theist, which is just another way of saying atheist. You do not have to identify as such, but the distinction is a true dichotomy. You either actively believe in a god or you do not. Note that this position can change over time, and neither of them are fixed.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 03-08-2014 at 02:11 PM..
Then that should be taken that as a no, as it seems reasonable to suggest you would know if you believed in a god. If correct, that places you in the not theist camp, or more clearly, someone who does not believe in a god.
Edit: If you actively believe a god(s) "x" exists, then you are a theist. Otherwise you are not a theist, which is just another way of saying atheist. You do not have to identify as such, but the distinction is a true dichotomy. You either actively believe in a god or you do not. Note that this position can change over time, and neither of them are fixed.
Your assertion seems to be that you can be in only one of two possible states: (1) theist or (2) atheist. The problem here, as I see it, is one of semantics. Theism is the belief that there is some god, any god, and perhaps more than one god. And atheism is the belief that no god at all exists, at least that is what it is from a definitional standpoint. But is that what people mean when they make that claim? Or is it really the lack of belief in a particular god that is being claimed when someone says he is an atheist?
Since all you have to believe in is just one of the many possible gods to be theistic, yet to be atheistic you have to assert that you do not believe in a single one of all the possible gods, it puts a very heavy burden on the atheist to be able to make that claim. After all, there are, or have been, a large number of deities that have been worshiped or believed in throughout the ages. Each one of these would have to be looked at rationally to see if they can be believed in or not. So, I believe that when most people (at least in the western world) say "I am an atheist" they are really saying they do not believe in the god they are most familiar with, which is the Abrahamic god, and are likely agnostic about all the rest of the pantheon.
Yes, there are some who claim to have constructed logical arguments that prove a deity cannot exist, but for the most part, most denials come down to "I have not seen any evidence....." or "I have not heard a rational argument for....", both of which fit within the definition of someone who is agnostic about the existence of a deity.
BTW, I think the definitions, and discussions around each, of "theism", "atheism" and "agnosticism" in Wikipedia are very good.
And atheism is the belief that no god at all exists, at least that is what it is from a definitional standpoint. But is that what people mean when they make that claim? Or is it really the lack of belief in a particular god that is being claimed when someone says he is an atheist?
Since all you have to believe in is just one of the many possible gods to be theistic, yet to be atheistic you have to assert that you do not believe in a single one of all the possible gods, it puts a very heavy burden on the atheist to be able to make that claim.
Not really. I think a lot of former theists start out losing faith in their god, do a survey of other religions, figure out that they are just variations on the same BS, and that the core issue is not the particular god they were socialized to believe in, it is the general concept of faith (belief without requiring valid evidence / substantiation). Once you have that "aha" moment, all gods disappear. If you don't have it then you are still a theist, albeit perhaps an "agnostic" theist, still "seeking" for some god that you "know" "must" exist. Or you go with being an areligious theist ("spiritual but not religious") or you go with a Unitarian, Deist or New Age "sortagod".
Atheist = a-theist = no god. It's inherently self-defining. If you think believing in no gods at all is "too much of a burden" then you are not an atheist.
Your assertion seems to be that you can be in only one of two possible states: (1) theist or (2) atheist. The problem here, as I see it, is one of semantics.
My assertion is that you either believe in a god or you do not. I can see no middle ground between the two possibilities, and thus why I call it a true dichotomy. A theist is a person who believes in at least one god, an atheist is a person (or anything for that matter) who does not believe in a god. So, you are either a theist or you are not a theist (a-theist). It's pretty simple logic. I would be just as happy if people identified their stance on this issue by claiming theism or not theism, as it would be more clear, but we do already have the shortcut word, atheism.
Not really. I think a lot of former theists start out losing faith in their god, do a survey of other religions, figure out that they are just variations on the same BS, and that the core issue is not the particular god they were socialized to believe in, it is the general concept of faith (belief without requiring valid evidence / substantiation). Once you have that "aha" moment, all gods disappear. If you don't have it then you are still a theist, albeit perhaps an "agnostic" theist, still "seeking" for some god that you "know" "must" exist. Or you go with being an areligious theist ("spiritual but not religious") or you go with a Unitarian, Deist or New Age "sortagod".
The operative phrase above is: it is the general concept of faith (belief without requiring valid evidence / substantiation). In other words, lack of rational proof was what separated you from being theistic. That by definition is being agnostic about theism.
Quote:
Atheist = a-theist = no god. It's inherently self-defining. If you think believing in no gods at all is "too much of a burden" then you are not an atheist.
"God" is anything but self-defined. Different religions have different attributes they assign to their deity (or deities). "god" is a relative concept, it only makes sense within the context of the religion - and associated doctrines - that cooked up their god. Using the term "god" as a universal, one-size-fits-all, word is incorrect. IMHO.
I don't believe in the Christian god but that does not mean I am an atheist. I am not discounting the possibility that someone can present to me their putative god and a rational argument for the existence of that god, and I will then believe in it/him/her. I am then a theist. But until that time comes, I am stuck in the netherworld of not an atheist, not a theist. Since I am waiting for the rational argument for a god, any god, I am by definition an agnostic.
Atheism and Agnosticism > I'm Agnostic ... not an Atheist
I must admit to a certain fascination over the lengths some seem inclined to go to over this labeling stuff. It first appeared during a long exchange wherein an atheist (not to be named) found himself backed into a corner after asserting no God existed. He subsequently began back-pedaling and qualifying and otherwise confusing the issue until he seemed to hit on what he felt was the right definition. There have been numerous iterations and extensions of the same theme ever since. No one is now willing to assert that no God exists . . . without qualifying it. Now it is the popular "there is insufficient evidence to believe in a God" . . . NOT there is no God. It has been fascinating to watch. They seem satisfied that this definition justifies their default position of no God . . . without definitely asserting it. Quite entertaining tap dancing overall . . . but not very convincing, I'm afraid.
The scientific, rational process requires a well defined hypothesis. "God does not exist" is not a well defined hypothesis. The problem is that "god" is not well defined. It is not verifiable as it was stated here. Likewise, saying "god exists" is also not verifiable without defining what exactly "god" is.
This is an interesting debate but clearly has a tremendous emotional element to it. It goes to the core of who we are, our cultural prejudices, and upbringing. In fact, one could argue that those are really the only issues at play here. After all, I do not see any arguments presented that would be inclusive for the existence (or not) of Isis, Shiva or Zeus along with the existence of the Abrahamic god. Much of the debate here is centered on a particular god, and the outcome of that debate does not settle the general case at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheism and Agnosticism > I'm Agnostic ... not an Atheist
