[watsisname]

What I don't get is why they aren't more up in arms about the claim from the agnostic side that you can both have and not have faith in something. If I was religious I'd be spitting nails over that one.

Huh?

While I have no faith that gods exist, I simultaneously have no faith that gods do not exist.  While I have no evidence that gods exist, I simultaneously have no evidence that gods do not exist.

There is a lack of faith either way.

[karajorma]

Religious people have the same binary definition as theist/atheist. It's just that they call them believer/unbeliever.

If you're a Christian you believe that you need to believe in God. Unbelievers get some sort of punishment. You could read MP-Ryan's posts as him claiming to have found a cheat code where he's not an unbeliever but doesn't need to bother believing in god. All that stuff that the bible says won't happen to unbelievers supposedly won't happen to him since he's not one.

[MP-Ryan]

What's beginning to annoy me is the perpetually moving goalposts on what is being defined as an atheist.  On page 1, we had this broad definition:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Since then, the goalposts have been moved all over.  The latest version (I think) is that if you are not someone who explicitly believes in a god or gods, then you are an atheist (juxtaposed with "rejection of belief" or "lack of belief") - which has the problematic effect of linking anyone with spiritual/supernatural beliefs in with atheists.  That makes that first definition, sourced from Wikipedia by kara, the more correct one.  Now, if every atheist on the planet is operating on this second one (which I'm going out on a limb and going to doubt right now, given the beliefs usually bandied about by atheists of one type or another) then yes, that makes all agnostics a subset of atheists.  I'm going to hazard a guess that there are quite a number of self-described atheists AND agnostics that take issue with this version of the definition.  The discussion is further complicated by a variety of atheist subset definitions like agnostic atheist, implicit atheist, explicit atheist, etc.

Semantics are a *****.

The prefix "a" means "without."  "Theist" means one who believes in god or gods.  The literal definition of someone who is an atheist is a person without belief in god or gods.  This is a positive affirmation - "I lack belief in a god or gods" or "I don't believe in god or gods."  An atheist is making a finite statement.

The literal definition of agnostic, on the other hand, is a person without belief that the material world created by the Demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced.  An agnostic is also making a finite statement, but it's not about the existence of god or gods either way - it's a statement that they don't want to be bothered about unanswerable spiritual questions and focus instead on the material world.

By root form definitions, we have three possibilities when it comes to the existence of god/gods:
1.  Theist - "I believe in a god or gods."
2.  Atheist - "I lack belief in a god or gods."
3.  Agnostic - "I don't know what you two are on about and I'm more interested in talking about things where we can find answers."

The various subtypes of atheism previously described are more or less attempts to take the group 3 and stuff them into group 2.  After all, they're philosophical allies on most matters and - as this thread demonstrates - a number of atheists really don't seen any difference between a lack of belief in god/gods, and a simple desire not to even talk about the subject.  They implicitly view group 3 as basically a slightly-eccentric version of 2.

The problem with that is that agnostics include agnostic atheists (which kara dug up) - those who lack belief in god(s) but acknowledge the possibility exists - along with agnostic theists - those who do have some belief in god(s) but acknowledge the possibility does not exist.  Agnostics can be a subset of both group 1 and group 2.  They're linked not by their belief or lack thereof in god, but by their point that there's no use talking about it.  Atheists, by definition, want to talk about it.  So do theists.  Agnostics make no claims at all except to say "we don't know and probably can't know, let's talk about something else."

Do agnostics take flak from both of the other groups?  Absolutely.  Are some agnostics also theists?  You bet.  Are some agnostics also atheists?  Indeed.  Do either identify as such?  No - because that's not the debate they want to engage in.

To say one is agnostic is to say debate over the existence of god(s) is pointless.  Atheists do not make the same claim - by their very statement that they are atheist, they choose a side in the debate.  This is why I maintain that agnosticism better fits the principles of science - if we can't reject either null, then we can't make a reasoned guess, and the scientific method falls apart until we can.

Invoking the teapot, the agnostic is someone who looks at Russell's premise, looks at the crowd claiming the teapot might exist, looks at the crowd claiming the teapot might not exist, and says "**** it, I don't like tea anyway."

So, karajorma, an agnostic atheist is an agnostic who has entered the debate - they state a lack of belief in god or gods, they then merely add the caveat that they don't really want to enter that debate and wouldn't it be much better to talk about real world implications anyway?

Perhaps I should not have focused on the 'decision' aspect of agnosticism earlier, but focused instead on why the decision is not made - it's not because the merits of one side or the other are being pondered, it's because the debate is basically thrown out as pointless.  If the result of the choice makes no change, why bother even trying to make one?

[Lorric]

If the result of the choice makes no change, why bother even trying to make one?

It's as I said a few days ago:

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698055#msg1698055

"But keep in mind, he's not going to change unless you give him a reason to change which benefits him. He is clearly very comfortable with identifying as agnostic, and honestly I don't think you'll be able to move him. I'd suggest just letting it go."

You need to give him an incentive.

[karajorma]

What's beginning to annoy me is the perpetually moving goalposts on what is being defined as an atheist.  On page 1, we had this broad definition:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

This is a bad faith argument. I'm out. 

Here is the actual quote. Emphasis added.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

That's the first line of the Wikipedia entry on atheism. I think the problem is that most atheists tend to actually agree with the more inclusive definition of what atheism is. Where as most of the people having an issue on the other thread were trying to claim it was the more narrow definition. But the most inclusivedefinition also includes implicit atheism.

[MP-Ryan]

I took your bolded statement to me you agreed with the broad-sense definition, rather than the second sentence from the Wikipedia quote you posted on page one.  If that is not the case, I apologize.  None of this is intended to be an argument in bad faith in order to "win" - the intention is to demonstrate that most agnostics really think they are different than atheists and have a very good reason for doing so, which is well-grounded in the rationalist philosophy of the scientific method.

That said, I did aim the last half of my last post to address this argument:

Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

Agnostics may have an absence of belief that any deities exist; that is not what makes them agnostic, as they also may positively believe that deities exist (at the same time - yes, paradox).  What makes them agnostic is that they hold that arguments on the belief of the [non]/existence of deities is pointless, for very scientific reasons.

Where I am getting frustrated is in the constant changes to the definitions of what constitutes an atheist that have been exhibited across two threads.  A number of self-professed atheists cannot agree on what makes them atheist, so it's hardly surprising that there is dissent on the inclusion of agnostics in that group.  It's also pretty disingenuous to dismiss a nuanced explanation of the differences between agnostics, atheists, and theists on the basis of an example quote in the introductory line.

[Mr. Vega]

decision

I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.

For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".

I think the point is very interesting.

As the guy who once spent 20 pages in a shouting match with you over this stuff, all I want to know is are you going to let a Cartesian rationalist like myself into this debate? Or is accepting Hume's radical empirical skepticism as dogma going to be a requisite for being treated like a first-class citizen by you?

For that matter, what's your take on a non-personal God, like Spinoza's or Einstein's God?

[karajorma]

I took your bolded statement to me you agreed with the broad-sense definition, rather than the second sentence from the Wikipedia quote you posted on page one.  If that is not the case, I apologize.

If it's not bad faith then there's a lack of understanding on your part which I'm not willing to bother with any more. The simple fact is that there isn't any disagreement over what makes people atheists. Bobboau has pretty much agreed with everything I've said and if you really think Luis wouldn't have complained about my definitions if they were wrong, you don't know him very well.

If it's really taken you this long to understand that atheists define themselves as people who have a lack of belief/faith in god/a higher power, there's really not much point in continuing.

[Luis Dias]

I understand where MP's frustrations come from, but I wonder if he understands mine or Kara's.

I've said this before and I'm continuously forced to say it again: Atheists *are* mostly agnostics. All the best atheists are agnostics as well. Russell, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, etc.,etc. will all agree that they cannot know the unknowable, and so on. Therefore, this idea that "agnosticism" is somehow the superior mindset fails to account on why atheism embraces agnosticism as it does.

The problem arises when one leaves the ivory towers of pure thougth and tries to have a conversation in the real world. In this world, people do believe in nonsense (I include myself in that category, I've watched myself believing in nonsense before, there's no reason to think I am a perfect being of thought right now), and when they ask if I believe in God, they are not asking this philosophical question. In that space, I'm an atheist. I'll say, "well that's pretty much as possible as the Santa Claus", which is, mind you, a completely agnostic and atheist thought at the same time.

A last thought before I engage mr Vega is this:

Let us imagine that we state that things that are beyond a certain criteria of "unbelievability" we stop being Schrodinger about it and call it resolved. Now, in this state, we never abandon the thought that the possibilities exist. What we do, otoh, is speak of terms like "certainty" not as if we are 100% sure of them, but 99% (for instance) and above. In this sense, when I am asked whether if Yaweh exists, I'll remember the overwhelming evidence against this particular deity: The fact that people invent deities every day; the fact that millions of different deities existed and exist; the fact that the originally polytheistic Bible was rewritten (by forgeries) through the ages until we got this Yaweh "only" god; the fact we don't have any material evidence for it; the fact that every previous evidence for it has been shown to be an illusion or better explained materially, etc.., and I'll place his existence beyond the "certainty" criteria that he just doesn't.

This is simple. Just imagine the following question: are you or are you not an atheist regarding Zeus?

So what I think really frustrates me and Kara is that obviously MP is an atheist by mine and his definition. I'm willing to bet he doesn't lose time by thinking "perhaps", and then follows it with some "what if" prayers to this deity. He doesn't lose time thinking whether if he is going to hell or not. He doesn't even lose time with the god question at all, only to acknowledge he hasn't the faintest idea on how we would go solve it.

Those are all atheistic themes. Go listen to Hitchens, his most continuous catching questions in the debates were of those sort "How you know this and that to be true is beyond me, how come you claim you can know the mind of God?" and so on.

Most atheists are atheists because they are agnostics, not the other way around. The question is rather political, ideological, social. The question is one of confrontation and thought-provocation. The question is that there are a whole bunch of clever and intelligent theists out there giving theological explanations for this and that, polluting every thought, idea and political situations with this God stuff. So it is good that we don't label ourselves as "open minded about every question", but rather as someone who clearly doesn't take bull****. I see "atheism" as a label that basically is saying "Yeah, I don't buy that ****".

... if you really think Luis wouldn't have complained about my definitions if they were wrong, you don't know him very well.

I thought I was clear in my statements, but apparently not (I even made a schematic very similar to your graph about this stuff): I completely agree with your definition. (and yes you do seem to know me very well )

[Luis Dias]

decision

I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.

For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".

I think the point is very interesting.

As the guy who once spent 20 pages in a shouting match with you over this stuff, all I want to know is are you going to let a Cartesian rationalist like myself into this debate? Or is accepting Hume's radical empirical skepticism as dogma going to be a requisite for being treated like a first-class citizen by you?

My thoughts are always evolving.... perhaps not always in the best direction but still. Now, while I really I mean really doubt Cartesian thought is still a useful tool in the 21st century, I am no dogmatist. Also, I do think this conversation is also slightly cartesian, because I think there's a slight confusion between what is scientifically possible to say about stuff and what we actually say about stuff. I wonder if my troubles with agnostics like MP do not arise precisely due to the inherent cartesian thought behind their words and my own "Humeism".

For that matter, what's your take on a non-personal God, like Spinoza's or Einstein's God?

A good question. I am not as atheistic regarding that God like I am regarding Yaweh, but I am still very skeptical of such a thing due to some reasons. First I fail to see the point of such kind of patheism or panentheism or whatever you want to call it. If God is Nature, then what is the meaning, what is it that we gain by adding this surplus? It feels something like Star Wars' "The Force" before they went all midichlorians about it. I did once think like this too. I do remember my teen days where I dwelled in my mind over the possibilities of even atoms shining with this superior force.

Curiously, the guy was deemed a complete atheist at his own time. And I don't exactly disagree with that assessment. His ideas made him basically a determinist and a materialist.

[swashmebuckle]

I've said this before and I'm continuously forced to say it again: Atheists *are* mostly agnostics. All the best atheists are agnostics as well. Russell, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, etc.,etc. will all agree that they cannot know the unknowable, and so on. Therefore, this idea that "agnosticism" is somehow the superior mindset fails to account on why atheism embraces agnosticism as it does.

The problem arises when one leaves the ivory towers of pure thougth and tries to have a conversation in the real world. In this world, people do believe in nonsense (I include myself in that category, I've watched myself believing in nonsense before, there's no reason to think I am a perfect being of thought right now), and when they ask if I believe in God, they are not asking this philosophical question. In that space, I'm an atheist. I'll say, "well that's pretty much as possible as the Santa Claus", which is, mind you, a completely agnostic and atheist thought at the same time.

Most atheists are atheists because they are agnostics, not the other way around. The question is rather political, ideological, social. The question is one of confrontation and thought-provocation. The question is that there are a whole bunch of clever and intelligent theists out there giving theological explanations for this and that, polluting every thought, idea and political situations with this God stuff. So it is good that we don't label ourselves as "open minded about every question", but rather as someone who clearly doesn't take bull****. I see "atheism" as a label that basically is saying "Yeah, I don't buy that ****".

So those who self-identify as agnostics have zero confidence in any assertion regarding the supernatural, while those who self-identify as atheists hold pretty much all of the same things to be true, but are willing to round their confidence up to "good enough" in order to not look feeble next to theists?

[Herra Tohtori]

I'm just gonna reiterate my last post in a TL;DR form here, since no one seemed inclined to comment on it very much.


Gnosticism is the belief that

a. there is a division between spiritual world and material world, and

b. the spiritual world should be embraced, even at the cost of losing sight of the material world.


Agnosticism, then, is the antithesis of Gnosticism in a similar way that Atheism is the antithesis of Theism.


Agnosticism is a world view that

a. is not certain whether there is a division between spiritual and material world, but acknowledges it is a possibility, but

b. it is not worthwhile to concentrate on the spiritual world at the cost of material world since we have no reliable information on it.


These terms do not fit on the same axis as Theism - Atheism (and different variations of them such as Pantheism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Antitheism, Materialism, Physicalism, etc.).

Gnosticism/Agnosticism axis describes the general opinion on how important is it to focus on the spiritual world, regardless of what a person's particular beliefs on that spiritual world may be.



As an interesting curiosity, the ancient Greeks had a very fascinating view that everything in the unicerse, or cosmos, was governed by the same set of rules (with exception of Chaos, of course). In fact, the world cosmos means...

...orderly or harmonious system. The word derives from the Greek term κόσμος (kosmos), literally meaning "order" or "ornament" and metaphorically "world",[1] and is antithetical to the concept of chaos. Today, the word is generally used as a synonym of the Latin loanword "Universe" (considered in its orderly aspect).

What the Greeks believed was that their "Deities" were governed by the exact same cosmological rules as humans, animals, and other mundane things. The only difference between the Greek gods and humans, then, was basically the level of ability and power to do things that normal humans could not. And the scale from "mundane" to "divine" was a continuous spectrum, rather than a clearly-defined limit somewhere.

Similarly, for the original hunter-gatherer peoples, it seems that their religion was concentrated on natural spirits and totems rather than omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent divine figures. These things were part of the natural world for them.


In fact, I would argue that the aforementioned definition of "God" popular particularly with the monotheistic religions is a fairly new invention and likely coincided with the formation of organized religions - possibly influenced by the birth of cities, where the rulers occasionally would claim their authority to be divine, elevating themselves to divine status (Pharaohs of Egypt, Kings of Uruk/Sumeria/Persia, Emperors of China and Japan etc.).


My rejection of theism is more of a conceptual than ideological. It stems from my basic world view which basically says that whether or not we can explain some thing, by existing it is still a natural part of the universe, and as such it is impossible for me to classify anything as "divine". That's why, should any entity make its existence known to us that would seem "divine" or even claim itself to be of divine origins... quite frankly, I would still not accept them to be "divine" by the virtue that they would exist in the natural universe.

That's why I can't describe myself as either gnostic or agnostic, since both of those require at least acknowledgement of a possibility that a "spiritual world" exists. I do not acknowledge that possibility.

In the same vein, I would describe myself as an Atheist, and specifically Materialist, Physicalist, and probably Antitheist as well.

[Luis Dias]

Atheists are those agnostics who manage to refuse the beliefs that otherwise agnostic theists have. The latter will acknowledge there's an unsurmountable gap between the mortals and the supernatural, but they believe in belief itself. This is a very different but interesting phenomena. These people constitute the majority of believers, they mostly "trust" that there are some blokes out there that probably know and experience about this stuff, but they never had. They take this "big other" out there to be absolutely necessary for the structure of their lives and morality, but they don't like to be bossed around by absolutists who say the Lord absolutely this or absolutely that. These believers will always regard what the Pope says not as the word of God but as the word of a man.

However they do have faith. They do not know what really happens, but they believe.

This is nothing like being an atheist.

[Bobboau]

where did I move the goalpost?
the following is every relevant post I have made in both threads:

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698183#msg1698183
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698196#msg1698196
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698199#msg1698199
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698200#msg1698200
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698202#msg1698202
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698203#msg1698203
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698206#msg1698206
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698211#msg1698211
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698295#msg1698295
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698364#msg1698364
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698405#msg1698405
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698411#msg1698411
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698418#msg1698418
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698576#msg1698576
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698589#msg1698589
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698601#msg1698601

in which of them did I ever say anything other than some variation of "atheist is someone who lacks belief" or "atheist is the set theory absolute complement of theist" which is a logical conclusion of the first point.
(feel free to look for posts I consider irrelevant too, just trying to make this easier on you here but I understand if you don't trust me here)

I have been trying (and failing) to get across one point this entire time, and that is that atheists are not people who believe there is no god, but rather people who lack a belief in god. it is a common mischaracterization that I have been trying to correct. every time I said "atheists are people who don't believe in god" I'd have someone immediately come back with "atheists believe there is no god" over and over again. this goal post has been firmly planted here this entire time, and the reason we have been frustrated is that no matter what we say no one on the other side of this discussion has been willing to acknowledge that until now.

maybe someone else on my side ****ed up and I didn't notice it, but I at least have been consistent about this.

reviewing my previous comments the only thing I notice that I did wrong was, in my zeal to communicate the atheist/theist divide, I did mischaracterize agnostic as a proper subset of atheist, when it is in fact an improper subset. my bad. I wasn't focusing on that relationship and didn't think it through fully, sorry.
I am sort of dismayed that no one called me out on this error, because that just means no one was reading my posts, but I already knew that. though MP did address the issue, in one of his more recent posts which is why I noticed my error.

[MP-Ryan]

If it's really taken you this long to understand that atheists define themselves as people who have a lack of belief/faith in god/a higher power, there's really not much point in continuing.

And yet that is precisely the definition of atheist I have been working from since the original thread, and addressed in depth in my most recent lengthy post as well.

There is obviously a fundamental disconnect in communication going on here.  Funnily enough, Herra has hit on the point, and yet pretty much everyone ignored him.  I find that I agree with most of what he's written, with the exception of his last two sentences.

[MP-Ryan]

where did I move the goalpost?

I don't think you did.  However, we've had various forms of the following presented as "atheism" (and not by me) from the first thread until now:

-Atheists lack belief in god(s).
-Atheists reject belief in god(s).
-Atheists do not believe in god(s).
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s).
-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god(s) is an atheist.
-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). (Though, being fair to Luis he pretty quickly abandoned that argument, which I suspect is because it's not where he meant to go anyway).

The first five have subtly nuanced but different meanings (lack belief is passive, reject belief is active, do not believe can be active or passive, and have no evidence is generally passive), but I have addressed all of them at one point or another and indicated how agnostics differ in regard to each of those statements.

Like I said earlier on this page (with admittedly a lot more clarity than I've said earlier):  agnostics can share believe of atheists or theists; what makes them agnostic is that they think its a pointless discussion and ignore the debate altogether.  In my case, I can't claim to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, because I really do maintain that I lack the data (based on the point about null hypotheses made earlier) to lean in either direction, so I can't be bothered to even deal with the notion of god(s) in general, except to try (and apparently fail) to explain my position to others.

[Luis Dias]

-Atheists lack belief in god(s).
-Atheists reject belief in god(s).
-Atheists do not believe in god(s).
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s).

These are mostly the same stuff.

-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god is an atheist.

explicitly, implicitly, where did this come from.

-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). (Though, being fair to Luis he pretty quickly abandoned that argument, which I suspect is because it's not where he meant to go anyway).

This is a misreading of what I said. I was saying we have a real big collection of evidence that Yaweh is a man made invention, not something that exists. I have resaid this earlier in this very page, and here you are saying that I "abandoned that argument". It's hard to talk when one is constantly being misrepresented in this fashion.

[Bobboau]

-Atheists lack belief in god(s). the correct definition
-Atheists reject belief in god(s). reject can be a fuzzy word, can mean "not accept" or "actively claim to be wrong"
-Atheists do not believe in god(s). do not see a difference between this and the first definition
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s). technically true, but this is more one of many justifications for atheism, rather than defining what an atheist is
-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god(s) is an atheist. a consequence of a lack of belief, though I suppose there is wiggle room for undefined gods in which case this would be incorrect
-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). totally wrong

I do not see any important difference between the first three (other than my notes on the word reject), the rest are at best unclear and incomplete and at worst wrong.
an important thing to note is that all of them deal with belief, and not knowledge.
and of course the fact that atheists are those who do not have an affirmative belief, making them the set theory complement to theists (those who do have an affirmative belief).

[MP-Ryan]

-Atheists lack belief in god(s).
-Atheists reject belief in god(s).
-Atheists do not believe in god(s).
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s).

These are mostly the same stuff.

Indeed; there are, however, subtle differences in active or passive voice.  Bobb's bolded part pretty much sums up the differences.

explicitly, implicitly, where did this come from.

Not to be confused with the terms used earlier, it was merely the way I captured this statement:

so all one needs in order to be classified as an atheist is to not answer in the affirmative to the question "do you believe there is a god". If you answer " not sure" then you clearly do not posses a belief in it, you don't know, you are agnostic, but as a necessary condition you also do not have belief in it you are therefore an atheist. the fact that you don't believe there is no god is irrelevant because... say it with me...

atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.

Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no.  Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."

This is a misreading of what I said. I was saying we have a real big collection of evidence that Yaweh is a man made invention, not something that exists. I have resaid this earlier in this very page, and here you are saying that I "abandoned that argument". It's hard to talk when one is constantly being misrepresented in this fashion.

If you claim there is a large collection of evidence that shows "God" is man-made, then you are saying there is evidence that "God" does not exist except as a man-made construct.  I fail to see how that is misrepresentation.

-Atheists lack belief in god(s). the correct definition
-Atheists reject belief in god(s). reject can be a fuzzy word, can mean "not accept" or "actively claim to be wrong"
-Atheists do not believe in god(s). do not see a difference between this and the first definition
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s). technically true, but this is more one of many justifications for atheism, rather than defining what an atheist is
-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god(s) is an atheist. a consequence of a lack of belief, though I suppose there is wiggle room for undefined gods in which case this would be incorrect
-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). totally wrong

I do not see any important difference between the first three (other than my notes on the word reject), the rest are at best unclear and incomplete and at worst wrong.
an important thing to note is that all of them deal with belief, and not knowledge.
and of course the fact that atheists are those who do not have an affirmative belief, making them the set theory complement to theists (those who do have an affirmative belief).

Good, we mostly agree.  Now that we've cleared up definitions, read this again, starting at the line "Semantics are a *****" (ignore everything before that line):  http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698629#msg1698629

[Luis Dias]

If you claim there is a large collection of evidence that shows "God" is man-made, then you are saying there is evidence that "God" does not exist except as a man-made construct.  I fail to see how that is misrepresentation.

First it is a misrepresentation to say that I abandoned the idea when I restated the same this very page. It is also slightly bad faith in the sense that it portrays a smug kind of rethorics (ah! he already sees how dumb the argument was he even abandoned it!).

Second, it is a misrepresentation in the sense that you are equating the word "Yaweh" with "God". It is not the same word or concept. Of course, for Christians, Yaweh is God, God is Yaweh, but the concept of God is extremely more vague, encompassing and inclusive than the specificity of Yaweh. I state that I have evidence that Yaweh is man-made, his attributes clearly devised by human design, for all too human reasons. I have stated that I have evidence and arguments to claim that this God is surely non-existent (given a good sigma-level of certainty of course).

This is not the same as saying I have evidence God does not exist, for God can be all sorts of a different entity, that may even have some similarities with Yaweh. Or not. Hell can exist. Hell can be the place where Gods (why just a single one?) have reserved for Christians. Why not? Why yes? Everything is possible in those scenarios, and I have also said that I'm quite the Ignostic when we start talking about these possibilities.