[Bobboau]

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."

no I don't. I have explicitly said that is not my position a number of times. in fact you quoted right there
"atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."

atheist is not "answering no to the question of god" it is "not answering yes". I would not be making this distinction at all, let alone in every other post in these threads if my position was 'anything other than "yes" was a "no"'.
constantly coming back to this mischaracterization is what is more and more making me think I am being trolled here.

not answering "yes" is not necessarily answering "no".
I am saying this my self, this is my position.

with this in mind, knowing that I do know this consider the following:
atheist means: not believing in god. (if you see a distinction between "not believe" and "lack a belief" other than one is an action and the other a state please tell me, because I do not and perhaps this is where our problem lies)
it does not mean: believing there is no god.
I do believe the distinction between these two positions is obvious. if it is not please tell me because that is where our problem lies.
even if someone answers "no" to the question "do you believe there is no god" how can they possibly not be an atheist if they do not answer "yes" to "do you believe there is a god"?
how does answering "no" to "do you believe there is no god" in any way tells you anything about if a person is or is not an atheist?

for clarity:
my position IS NOT anything other than "yes" is a "no".
atheist does NOT mean that you believe there is no god.

[Herra Tohtori]

[Mongoose]

Can I take a moment to observe from a mostly-outside perspective that you guys have now spent more than a dozen pages arguing about nothing, in both the literal and figurative senses?

[NGTM-1R]

my position IS NOT anything other than "yes" is a "no".

That's not entirely consistent with your postings on page 4, but then that's also an argument no one's made. (What MP-Ryan was discussing was your desire to consider him an atheist when he does not reject the possibility of a god-figure or the plural of them.)

[karajorma]

Standing on the outside of this argument, I've noticed a possible miscommunication between bob and MP.

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."

Bob is saying that anything other than an explicit "I have faith in god" means someone is an atheist. It doesn't mean that the person doesn't acknowledge the possibility of the existence of god. Merely that they have a lack of faith in them.

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.).

That's probably a better definition for agnosticism than the one I've been working with.

[Bobboau]

That's not entirely consistent with your postings on page 4, but then that's also an argument no one's made. (What MP-Ryan was discussing was your desire to consider him an atheist when he does not reject the possibility of a god-figure or the plural of them.)

rejecting the possibility of a god or gods is not a requirement of being an atheist, only a lack of belief is required.

in what way does anything I say on page four make my position "anything other than 'yes' is a 'no'".
I made three potentially relevant posts on that page.
* The first was me asking for clarification that he would not answer in the affirmative that he believed gods existed. once again I will point out answering this question 'not in the affirmative' (as OPPOSED TO 'in the negative') is the one requirement to being classified as being an atheist.
* the second post was me making this same clarification to someone else who had ignored it the previous n times I had such a clarification. my point in this post was that option B was irrelevant. not that A and B were mutually exhaustive
* the fourth was me listing the four options for the two separate questions


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

please check the above sentence before telling me again that he is not an atheist because he doesn't believe there is no god again

[MP-Ryan]

Bob is saying that anything other than an explicit "I have faith in god" means someone is an atheist. It doesn't mean that the person doesn't acknowledge the possibility of the existence of god. Merely that they have a lack of faith in them.

Is that not what I just said and bobb disagreed with?  Again, quoting the whole mess [underlined emphasis mine]:

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."

And then Bobb countered with:

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."

no I don't. I have explicitly said that is not my position a number of times. in fact you quoted right there
"atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."

atheist is not "answering no to the question of god" it is "not answering yes". I would not be making this distinction at all, let alone in every other post in these threads if my position was 'anything other than "yes" was a "no"'.
constantly coming back to this mischaracterization is what is more and more making me think I am being trolled here.

not answering "yes" is not necessarily answering "no".
I am saying this my self, this is my position.

with this in mind, knowing that I do know this consider the following:
atheist means: not believing in god. (if you see a distinction between "not believe" and "lack a belief" other than one is an action and the other a state please tell me, because I do not and perhaps this is where our problem lies)
it does not mean: believing there is no god.
I do believe the distinction between these two positions is obvious. if it is not please tell me because that is where our problem lies.
even if someone answers "no" to the question "do you believe there is no god" how can they possibly not be an atheist if they do not answer "yes" to "do you believe there is a god"?
how does answering "no" to "do you believe there is no god" in any way tells you anything about if a person is or is not an atheist?

for clarity:
my position IS NOT anything other than "yes" is a "no".
atheist does NOT mean that you believe there is no god.

And then I was confused, because bobb has just said that if you don't answer yes to the statement "Do you believe in god(s)?" then you are an atheist... and now both I and kara have read it that way... and bobb has turned around and said that is not what he's saying, though he keeps reiterating that a lack of belief in god(s) is the definition of atheist... which in turn means that you will not answer yes to that question...

There are two underlined statements where he claims anything other than "yes" is "no," and then two where he disavows that claim.  I have no idea what to make of this at this point.

* MP-Ryan throws up his hands in exasperation.

My dear atheist friends, this discussion would be much less painful if all of your arguments were internally-consistent.  No offense, bobb, I know this is going on forever but I seriously have no idea what to make of this when you state something and then immediately state the opposite in the same post.

[MP-Ryan]

Can I take a moment to observe from a mostly-outside perspective that you guys have now spent more than a dozen pages arguing about nothing, in both the literal and figurative senses?

Don't you find it a welcome break from arguing about tangible things that require sourcing?  Here we all get to demonstrate how a bunch of rational, reasonably intellectual people with sound reasoning skills can act like complete and utter idiots when philosophy rears its ugly equivocating head.

Like I said somewhere in the two-thread mess:  when philosophy is the discussion, everyone loses.

[SypheDMar]

I haven't been on HLP for two days, so I apologize for not chiming in any sooner. I think the graph karajorma is beautifully made. It explains my beliefs on what atheism, theism, and agnosticism is.

The misunderstandings seem to be clearing up at this point as well. I hope that the misunderstandings can be resolved. MP-Ryan, Bob is still saying the same thing. "Lack of faith = atheist". Contrast with "No god = atheism". The former means that anyone who is nonreligious is atheist, even some categories of agnosticism (see kara's graph). The latter defines a narrow subset of atheism.

Can I take a moment to observe from a mostly-outside perspective that you guys have now spent more than a dozen pages arguing about nothing, in both the literal and figurative senses?

You mean like Socrates? It's fun.

[MP-Ryan]

MP-Ryan, Bob is still saying the same thing. "Lack of faith = atheist". Contrast with "No god = atheism". The former means that anyone who is nonreligious is atheist, even some categories of agnosticism (see kara's graph). The latter defines a narrow subset of atheism.

Believe me, I get that.  What has thrown me here is that he actually did say that if you can't answer "yes" when someone poses the question "Is there (a) god(s)?" then you are an atheist, which is not true at all.

The notion that atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) is one I am completely on board with.  It's the earlier statement that I take issue with, because it automatically lumps all agnostics into atheism, whereas the lack of belief in god(s) does not.  In point of fact, it's the earlier statement that I've taken issue with all along.  I've repeatedly said or given examples to illustrate that agnostics generally have neither lack of belief in god(s) nor belief in god(s).

[AdmiralRalwood]

There are two underlined statements where he claims anything other than "yes" is "no," and then two where he disavows that claim.  I have no idea what to make of this at this point.

That you misread what he said?

He didn't say "anything other than a 'yes' is a 'no'", he said "anything other than a 'yes' makes you an atheist". If you're saying "being an atheist means saying 'no' to the question of whether or not gods exist", that means you're still using the incorrect definition of atheism Bobb has complained about in his past... three? posts now.

To make it absolutely explicit, you have admitted to not being a theist. By definition, this makes you an atheist. Please stop arguing about it, kthx.

[Herra Tohtori]

For the interests of this thread, are the following definitions agreeable? These are the definitions I've been using for some time now, so


All theists believe in at least one god.

All atheists have no belief in any god.

     Some atheists believe it might still be possible for there to be gods, but they have no active belief in any particular god. [weak atheism]

     Some atheists believe it is impossible for there to be gods. [strong atheism]


Reasoning for either sub-type of atheists can vary.


Gnostics believe there's a spiritual world that is more important than material world.

Agnostics acknowledge there is at least a possibility that a spiritual world exists, but tend to think that material world is more important than something we have no reliable information on.



If some formulation of grammatical details is disagreeable, I can maybe work on it, but for now I really must sleep.

[MP-Ryan]

There are two underlined statements where he claims anything other than "yes" is "no," and then two where he disavows that claim.  I have no idea what to make of this at this point.

That you misread what he said?

He didn't say "anything other than a 'yes' is a 'no'", he said "anything other than a 'yes' makes you an atheist". If you're saying "being an atheist means saying 'no' to the question of whether or not gods exist", that means you're still using the incorrect definition of atheism Bobb has complained about in his past... three? posts now.

Maybe that's my bad for using yes and no without further clarification, but I meant precisely that he was saying anything other than a "yes" to the question "Is there a god(s)?" makes one an atheist...

To make it absolutely explicit, you have admitted to not being a theist. By definition, this makes you an atheist. Please stop arguing about it, kthx.

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.  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.

[Bobboau]

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."

you said that I said "anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no". which was not my position.

what i said that had anything like the phrase "anything other than an explicit "yes" is..." was that anything other than a yes means you are an atheist, because "atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god." atheists do not necessarily answer "no", they just don't answer yes, much like what you do.

how do you read this:
"not answering "yes" is not necessarily answering "no"."
and then pull from that the meaning:
"anything other than "yes" is "no,""
?

I'm not even going to try to touch the first one until I understand this. because in my mind the first part is a direct refutation of the second, maybe I'm just high or something and don't know it.

[MP-Ryan]

For the interests of this thread, are the following definitions agreeable? These are the definitions I've been using for some time now, so


All theists believe in at least one god.

All atheists have no belief in any god.

     Some atheists believe it might still be possible for there to be gods, but they have no active belief in any particular god. [weak atheism]

     Some atheists believe it is impossible for there to be gods. [strong atheism]


Reasoning for either sub-type of atheists can vary.


Gnostics believe there's a spiritual world that is more important than material world.

Agnostics acknowledge there is at least a possibility that a spiritual world exists, but tend to think that material world is more important than something we have no reliable information on.



If some formulation of grammatical details is disagreeable, I can maybe work on it, but for now I really must sleep.

If 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.

So hell yes I agree with these definitions.

[MP-Ryan]

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."

you said that I said "anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no". which was not my position.

It's what you implied in the originally-quoted post.  You created two categories:  yes, and anything other than yes (which is the implied 'no').  Part of this is my fault because that's what I should have captured my critique of it as, rather than using the word 'no' which has created all kinds of confusion on this page.

[Bobboau]

I was very specifically NOT implying 'no'.

I went so far out of my way to say 'not yes' as opposed to 'no' why wouldn't I have just said yes and no if that was my intention? am I intentionally obfuscating?

[Herra Tohtori]

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.


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.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

I was very specifically NOT implying 'no'.

OK, then kindly reconcile that with the following (which I understand to be your position):

"Is there (a) god(s)?" -> "Yes" -> theist.
"Is there (a) god(s)?" -> Anything other than "yes" -> atheist.

You - not me - maintained earlier that this is a two option state:  either theist or atheist.  If "yes" means theist and "anything other than yes" means atheist - in your view - then "anything other than yes" is an implied no because you're framing this as a binary choice.

Now, if you are not framing this as a binary choice and recognize that there is an option where "anything other than yes" can place a person into categories other than atheist, then I agree that there is not an implied "no."  However, if you're still framing this as a binary choice, you're going to have to give a better explanation of how the no is not implied (realizing that I understand the premise that a lack of belief in god is not the same as saying there is no god and have since it was first mentioned).

If it's unclear above, I'm trying to get you to reconcile how you can believe there are more than two types of answer to the question, yet only two possible camps people can be lumped into.  Herra gets this.  I'm not sure that you and possibly kara do.  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.