[MP-Ryan]

No, it doesn't - which is what - what, 15 pages? - of discussion are about in the first place.  This is not a case where there are only two mutually-exclusive options.

And having read all of those pages as you repeatedly ignored what your interlocutors were actually saying, trust me, in this case, there are two mutually-exclusive options. An "atheist" is "anyone who is not a theist", and since you are in that category, you are an atheist. Congratulations.

In saying this you either haven't been paying attention or you are deliberately ignoring the context of the discussion.  In either case, either read the thread and follow the discussion or stay out of it, but condescending **** like 'kthx' has no place in this discussion.

Ha ha, yes, clearly I have been ignoring the context of this discussion, which is why I read every single page and finally got so aggravated with your (hopefully unintentional) missing the point so completely that I had to say what Bobboau has been inartfully trying to say from the very beginning: It is not possible to be neither a theist nor an atheist; this isn't a "Schrodinger's cat" scenario, this is basic set theory; are you in the set of people that are theists? No? Congratulations, that makes you an atheist. Why you spent so long arguing against this simple point (and in an extremely patronizing manner, I might add, what with your claiming the "scientific high ground") is beyond me, but there you go.

And yet several people have provided very good reason why this is not a binary scenario, which you seem to have missed completely or dismissed outright.  At any rate, I'm not arguing with someone who wants to simply assert how things are without any reasoning to explain that.

It is perfectly possible to be neither theist nor atheist, as has been argued for pages upon pages.  If you disagree with that, then join the debate, don't issue decrees.

[NGTM-1R]

this isn't a "Schrodinger's cat" scenario, this is basic set theory

It still has not been established that this is the case. That's why this discussion continues. You're not establishing it either.

[AdmiralRalwood]

This whole debate is between people saying there are three (or more) philosophical camps, and people saying there are only two which are mutually-exclusive.

Nooooo, no no no no no no no.

People aren't saying there are only two philosophical camps, they've been saying (you know, repeatedly) that the "theist/atheist" and the "gnostic/agnostic" questions are entirely separate.

And yet several people have provided very good reason why this is not a binary scenario, which you seem to have missed completely or dismissed outright.

So tell me, in what way are you not part of the set of people who are not theists?

[MP-Ryan]

f you change "All atheists have no belief in any god" and replace the words "have no" with "lack," that captures what the atheist crowd has generally maintained.

To be honest that makes it sound like atheists are lacking something [that they should have].

I do not lack belief - I just never acquired it...

So, if only for the negative connotations, I'm feeling disinclined to change the wording with the given reasoning. If you can give a better reason, I'll reconsider it. Functionally, though, I think it's the same thing.

It's not me you have to answer to, it's bobb at this point   I was just going with the definition he and kara have been most inclined to use.

One thing I'm not certain about is whether a form of agnosticism could be so opposed to gnosticism that it would outright reject even the possibility of a "spiritual world" from existing. That would, of course, make it synonymous with strong atheism, and is in fact included in the premises for strong atheism, but it might simply not make sense to expand the definition there.

I have never met a self-described agnostic that outright rejected existence of the spiritual world, probably because - as you said - that generally makes a person jump off the gnostic-agnostic scale and fall into the atheist category on the atheism-theism scale.

[MP-Ryan]

This whole debate is between people saying there are three (or more) philosophical camps, and people saying there are only two which are mutually-exclusive.

Nooooo, no no no no no no no.

People aren't saying there are only two philosophical camps, they've been saying (you know, repeatedly) that the "theist/atheist" and the "gnostic/agnostic" questions are entirely separate.

Actually, that only came up fairly recently with Herra's posts.

That said, even if the scales are separate that does not mean there isn't a position between atheist and theist.

And yet several people have provided very good reason why this is not a binary scenario, which you seem to have missed completely or dismissed outright.

So tell me, in what way are you not part of the set of people who are not theists?

Awful double negatives aside, I don't have a lack of belief in god(s) any more than I have a belief in god(s).  The premise of the theist/atheist debate is one I rejected entirely because I believe it to be utterly pointless because it cannot be scientifically tested and probably will never be.  Which is what I've been saying - cats, coins, and all the rest - since page bloody one.

I'm agnostic.  You guys are arguing about the existence of teapots; I don't even drink tea and don't give a **** about tea, pots, or anything related to them other than how the people arguing about them want to impose those belief sets on reality.

[Bobboau]

"anything other than yes" is an implied no because you're framing this as a binary choice.

you had me until this. 'anything other than yes' is 'anything other than yes'

it is binary, it is 'yes' and 'not yes', NOT 'yes' and 'no'.

There are 'not yes' options that also also be 'not no', this would be options such as but not limited to 'I don't know' or 'have not decided', or 'it's possible'.
These options are what the vast majority of atheists actual hold.
Mine is 'do not know', that is my knowledge statement on the issue.

I (do not have/lack) an affirmative belief in god(s), therefore I am not a theist, therefore I am an atheist.

[MP-Ryan]

"anything other than yes" is an implied no because you're framing this as a binary choice.

you had me until this. 'anything other than yes' is 'anything other than yes'

it is binary, it is 'yes' and 'not yes', NOT 'yes' and 'no'.

There are 'not yes' options that also also be 'not no', this would be options such as but not limited to 'I don't know' or 'have not decided', or 'it's possible'.
These options are what the vast majority of atheists actual hold.
Mine is 'do not know', that is my knowledge statement on the issue.

I (do not have/lack) an affirmative belief in god(s), therefore I am not a theist, therefore I am an atheist.

I was completely on board with this post until your last line.  I might still be on board with it if you're only claiming the last line is your interpretation and applies only to your particular rationale for calling yourself atheist.  If you mean that as generally principle, then I obviously disagree because I maintain the atheist/theist scale is not a binary choice.

We're now 8 pages into thread #2, and no one has yet provided a convincing argument as to why a person can only be theist or atheist.  kara attempted to several times, but then we got lost in semantics for a few pages.  I still maintain that there is a space where a person can be neither theist nor atheist because they choose not to even enter that discussion.  Are you arguing that anyone who chooses not to enter the debate is automatically atheist?  Every child under 2 is automatically an atheist, as is every spiritual person whose beliefs don't include deities?  That seems unfair both to actual atheists and all of the people I just mentioned who actively choose not to identify as atheist because it is not compatible with their beliefs.

[Bobboau]

It's not me you have to answer to, it's bobb at this point   I was just going with the definition he and kara have been most inclined to use.
[/quote

"lack" and "have no" are logically equivalent as far as I know, he was only objecting to the subjective tone the word 'lack' has.

[Bobboau]

I was completely on board with this post until your last line.  I might still be on board with it if you're only claiming the last line is your interpretation and applies only to your particular rationale for calling yourself atheist.  If you mean that as generally principle, then I obviously disagree because I maintain the atheist/theist scale is not a binary choice.

ok, so this all boils down to us having different definitions of what the word atheist means?

[AdmiralRalwood]

Awful double negatives aside, I don't have a lack of belief in god(s) any more than I have a belief in god(s).

Not having a belief in god(s) is lacking a belief in god(s). Otherwise, please provide your definition of the word "lack".

The premise of the theist/atheist debate is one I rejected entirely because I believe it to be utterly pointless because it cannot be scientifically tested and probably will never be.  Which is what I've been saying - cats, coins, and all the rest - since page bloody one.

Which... doesn't make you not an atheist.

[MP-Ryan]

I was completely on board with this post until your last line.  I might still be on board with it if you're only claiming the last line is your interpretation and applies only to your particular rationale for calling yourself atheist.  If you mean that as generally principle, then I obviously disagree because I maintain the atheist/theist scale is not a binary choice.

ok, so this all boils down to us having different definitions of what the word atheist means?

Perhaps?  See here:  http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698765#msg1698765

[MP-Ryan]

Not having a belief in god(s) is lacking a belief in god(s). Otherwise, please provide your definition of the word "lack".

Having a belief or not having a belief is a choice - one which agnostics haven't made.  Insert cat.

The premise of the theist/atheist debate is one I rejected entirely because I believe it to be utterly pointless because it cannot be scientifically tested and probably will never be.  Which is what I've been saying - cats, coins, and all the rest - since page bloody one.

Which... doesn't make you not an atheist.

It doesn't make me not a theist, either.

Again - there are not just two options, no matter how much some of you want it to be that way.

[Bobboau]

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.



a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.



a disbelief in the existence of deity



a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods



"disbelieves or denies"
basically this means the word can be used to refer to people who have an active belief that no god exists OR to people who simply passively lack belief.
The second meaning is the more common extant person going by the atheist label.


and if you have no belief it does not mean you chose not to...

[Herra Tohtori]

"No belief in gods" is subtly different from "Belief that there are no gods".

I agree with Bobboau on the purely semantic definition that anyone not belonging to the category of "theist" is by process of elimination an atheist.


However, it does a disservice to atheism to forget that there are a multitude of variations to theism. There is pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, autotheism and what have you.

Why should atheism be a restrictive single-class descriptor? Clearly, there are people with different types of non-belief.


The biggest of those would be the difference between weak and strong atheism, which can be best demonstrated with scientific terminology.

Weak atheism considers the God-claim to be unproven, unverified, and usually unlikely claim, but proponents of weak atheism do not outright reject the possibility of a god existing.

Strong atheism, for whatever reason, considers God-claim to be a falsified claim, but in this case falsification is not done by empirical experimentation but rather the definition of "God" being shown to be in contradiction with some logical premises.*



Regardless, theists and weak atheists can be either gnostic or agnostic. If you say you're agnostic, that doesn't automatically mean that you're either atheist or theist.

An example of an agnostic theist would be a person that believes that there is a "spiritual world" in general sense, demonstrated by belief in a particular deity or more, but considers the material world more important than worrying over the spiritual world.



*In my case, the first premise of my thinking is that everything that exists is a natural part of the universe; ergo, supernatural things do not exist. All divine things would also be supernatural, therefore nothing that exists can be divine. Ergo, if gods exist, they can't be divine, but are instead a natural part of the universe.

And if a god is not divine, it's not a god. It might have powers and abilities beyond our understanding, but on fundamental level, it would still be a conscious entity existing in the universe, just as we do. If such an entity appeared I might be awed or dumbstruck by its intellect, power, and general abilities, but my way of thinking simply does not include a viable definition of "divine".

I would rather approach a being like this as a peer, rather than as a subservient creature offering meaningless worship. Not to insult any believers, but you'll probably understand why most religions make little sense to me.

[SypheDMar]

Now we seem to have gotten to the bottom of the disagreement.

For many of us proclaimed atheists that have posted in this thread, atheism and theism is binary. Using the same terminology in the thread, theism is "yes" and atheism is "anything other than yes". That is our definition of atheism. It is a very broad definition of atheism that includes agnostics.

While the discussion on gnosticism is recent, karajorma already had a two axes graph that clearly distinguished between theism and atheism. In that graph, agnostics can be theistic or atheistic or neither. Points that karajorma did not plot are the points between strongly agnostic atheist, strongly agnostic theist, and agnostic atheist.

While I myself believe that not having faith is lacking faith, even if one hasn't made a choice about the existence of god, given the definition above, a person who chooses not to make the choice is an atheist because it is "anything other than yes". Again, that does not make you any less of an agnostic.



You can deny the definition, but then the discussion becomes pointless. Because then we are arguing different things. It comes down to:

If definition above is accepted, you are an atheist as well as an agnostic. Atheism is not necessarily "no god" but rather "lacking faith".
If definition above is not accepted, you are an agnostic. Atheism is "no god".

[AdmiralRalwood]

Not having a belief in god(s) is lacking a belief in god(s). Otherwise, please provide your definition of the word "lack".

Having a belief or not having a belief is a choice - one which agnostics haven't made.  Insert cat.

Babies don't choose not to believe in god(s), but they're still atheists. Also, Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do with choices at all. Remove cat.

[karajorma]

To be honest that makes it sound like atheists are lacking something [that they should have].

I do not lack belief - I just never acquired it...

So, if only for the negative connotations, I'm feeling disinclined to change the wording with the given reasoning. If you can give a better reason, I'll reconsider it. Functionally, though, I think it's the same thing.

Functionally it's the same thing. But given the number of pages this discussion has run to. I really don't think people understand (or want to understand) that having no belief in god is not the same as saying that there is no god. So I tend to use the word lack because it's punchier. Same with faith instead of belief. Belief is a word used far too often in general conversation to work in a discussion like this one.

[Bobboau]

finally! we may yet know peace in our time!

[MP-Ryan]

Interesting.

So you all assert that atheism is the default position of all of humanity, an unconscious position with no choice made that we all implicitly share from birth, unless we choose theism at some point in our lives?  Everyone is born an atheist whether they choose to identify as such or not?

I just want to be sure.  I don't agree with this premise, and I'm not sure all of you have thought-through the implications of this premise, but this discussion is the first I've ever heard atheism actually described in this manner.  Typically, atheism/theism is defined as a conscious choosing (even a lack of belief is a choice, given the reality of the prominence of religion in our world).

I have some more to add, but I'm curious to see if this premise is correct in your views.

[karajorma]

I'd already said as much earlier in the discussion.

Also. The wikipedia page on Atheism you linked to says this.

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

It's this kind of thing that has convinced me that this is a bad faith argument. You're clearly not even reading your own sources.