I think the problem here is the use of the words belief and god. Especially the former. I'm pretty much of the opinion that the word itself is toxic to this sort of discussion as it has way too many meanings. So I'm not going to use it. I'm going to use a synonym instead.
Faith.
Stop me if I'm being unfair but I don't think any religious person is going to have a problem with me describing them as someone who has faith in a higher power. This makes the definitions much easier to understand. A theist is someone who has faith in a higher power. I think I can use this definition for theism and probably not move anybody who would be a theist under the old definition outside of the group. So it's a reasonably fair definition.
As I pointed out earlier, amoral means a lack of morality, asexual means a lack of sexuality, astigmatism means a lack of focus, asymptomatic means a lack of symptoms. All these words mean a lack of something. So why should our definition for atheist mean a rejection of something? Why shouldn't it just mean a lack of something? So by definition an atheist becomes someone who lacks faith in a higher power. This fits the most inclusive definition for atheism I posted earlier.
Now ironically the argument I'm about to give is the same one that
MP-Ryan had on the political compass thread. One of people insisting on defining themselves on an inadequate one axis scale when a two axis one has been provided. Given the above, the second thing that defines peoples belief in a higher power is how certain they are of the evidence. This forms the second axis and is a scale with absolute certainty that the evidence proves the existence/non-existence of a higher power at the left extreme, and absolute certainty that the evidence can never prove it at the right extreme. The middle is what MP-Ryan and others have been describing as agnosticism and also is the position of anyone who has never thought about whether there is a higher power (If you've never thought about it, you have no certainty).
Doing that, you end up with definitions like this.
Theist + Left on second axis = Religious = Pretty much any of the major religions.
Theist + Middle = Weakly Agnostic Theist = Deist / Believer in higher powers but not in religion. / There is a higher power, but none of the religions have got it right.
Theist + Right = Strongly Agnostic Theist = Anyone who has faith that there is a god, but we'll never know who or what it is.
Atheist + Left = Very Strong Atheist = There is no god.
Atheist + Leftish = Strong Atheist = There probably is no god / There may or may not be a god, we should act as if there isn't one until proof is found.
Atheist + Middle = Weak Atheist, Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic, Implicit Atheist = There may or may not be a higher power, but I have no faith. / I'm a baby and thus have never thought about it.
Atheist + Right = Strongly Agnostic Atheist = I have no faith in God cause we'll never know what God is.
The position between theist and atheist are basically transitional. It's not possible to remain there. You only end up there during a crisis of faith. Note that every crisis of faith doesn't result in a transition though. Someone losing faith in their Christianity may transition from religious to weakly agnostic theist.
I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.
Actually I'm quite inclined to give the whole life is a computer simulation theory quite a bit of credence. It quite neatly answers why I bump into people I know thousands of miles away from my home. What I lack is faith that it is correct. So there you go, an atheist giving the possibility of a higher power equal status. I can give other examples if you need them.
I'm curious why you fellows seem to all want to lump my position with yours. Trust me, I am neither rich, nor famous, nor particularly above-average in looks, and while my wife seems to enjoy it I don't know that I'm particularly more skilled in the bedroom than the average man.... WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME! =)
It's not that we want you. It's that you do atheism a disservice. You keep claiming that your view is more scientific than atheism despite your view actually being largely the same thing as atheism. If you were claiming your view was less scientific than atheism, no one would have given a ****. But by elevating your position above that of atheism, you're going to get right up the nose of anyone who is an atheist and considers their position to also be the most scientific. Especially when you've continually misrepresented what atheism actually is.
That's why I spent a lot of time explaining above what atheism is. Cause you kept taking a fairly warped definition of strong atheism and insisting that was the correct one. It's not. And that's why you've got all the atheists upset at you. Your view sounds pretty much the same as mine but expressed differently. But even if I'm wrong about that, I take great exception to you claiming your view is more scientific than mine. I'm an agnostic atheist and as far as I'm concerned, you don't get more scientific than that.
I'm not picking on you. I see a discussion with Luis where I'm on the same side as you winging it's way towards me.
