I've heard quite commonly, that if you're not a theist, you're an atheist, and vice versa. I've also been told there is no in between, as you either believe something, or you don't, but is that necessarily so? I'm not speaking of agnosticism (defined by one's ability to know whether god exists, which is a different question). 

What if I'm not certain that I believe in one or the other? I mean, I'm only certain of the experiences that I have. Beyond that, I have no certainty.

Is it because "belief" is an experience, and "lack of belief" another experience, that people say these things?
I don't exactly know why there is no middle position, when my experience would accurately be described as "uncertain of belief".
I at times feel as though I am an atheist, and at one point in my life I was a theist, but now, I am completely uncertain of my beliefs.
I don't know if my belief reflects that of theism or atheism, because I don't know if I have enough information to believe in anything, despite this, I manage to maintain some beliefs, such as: 

The belief in an outside world, the belief in other minds, and the belief in a stable, quantifiable universe. 

I'm sorry if this was winding and confusing, but this is the state of affairs in my brain. 
I'm also sorry if this has been asked before, and I've accidentally overlooked it.

What are your thoughts on this?

You're  one of us - you're an atheist. Deal.

There is some debate as to definitions.

Lacking a belief just means you're not convinced. You're either convinced that there is a god, or you're not yet convinced. To me, that covers everybody. It doesn't mean you're convinced there isn't a god. If you're undecided, then clearly you are not yet convinced.

We can only go by what people say, they may have trouble even interpreting their own state of mind. But I don't see how you can be anything other than convinced or not yet convinced.

I use the courtroom analogy. Someone is on trial for murder. Either you are convinced they are guilty, or you are not yet convinced they are guilty. Theist, or atheist. You may be convinced they are not guilty, that is a subset of not being yet convinced they are guilty. That amounts to strong atheism. The default position is you don't believe or disbelieve a claim, which is (weak) atheism.

I don't buy the idea that a lack of belief "is a belief". I think that is simply wrong. I know that I am unconvinced. I know the evidence is not sufficient for me, I don't simply believe it. To say otherwise it to say I don't know what my own beliefs, or lack of beliefs, are. If I have to have beliefs about my beliefs, I also have to have beliefs about those beliefs, and so on. If I don't "know" this, I don't know anything.

I could have a belief that the evidence is objectively lacking in support of theism. That is a different proposition, one which I do happen to additionally hold.

lol, I mean, I've identified as an atheist for some time, and everyone is cool with it. I just don't feel like that describes fully what's going on inside my head, because I just don't know, nor do I know if I can know if I believe in god or not some times.

That can go on forever though, can't it? or am i just making it unnecessarily difficult?

Thanks Rob, for the well thought out reply, as always.

I'm curious though, isn't convincing usually contingent on certainty? Whereas belief is not?

[Lots of edits!]

You're welcome

No, I'd say certainty (in any useful sense) does not exist. We can only have evidence that puts things beyond reasonable doubt. If you wait until you are certain, you would never hold any beliefs about anything or be able to act.

If you literally go from being convinced (having an active belief there is a god) one day to not having that belief the next day, then you are alternating between theist and atheist. If reasonable doubt exists at all times, you are an atheist. If you just have a few moments of weird brain states, I think it would be silly to say you're not an atheist because of those.

If you honestly don't know what your beliefs are, or are not, then you don't know if you're an atheist or a theist. How it would be technically decided which you are is a difficult question. I'd say if there is confusion, you're an atheist, simple as that. But it's not up to me to assess everyone's own brain and criteria.

I'd say "knowing" is a subset of belief, of which you have an increased degree of certainty. This is somewhat arbitrary, for sure. But if "know" means "100% certainty" then such a thing does/should not exist. Or rather, you can be 100% "certain" and still be wrong. Just for example, belief could be 85% sure something is true whereas know might be 99%. Strength of beliefs will vary. Some people will qualify that their "belief" is not based on hard evidence, and as such not even be happy with it themselves. Like I believed I had the correct answer to a puzzle, but I knew I didn't have the evidence to explain to other people why. Until I found that evidence, I was not happy with my belief.

Definitions are a problem here, and are not totally fixed. They change between different people, and even in different contexts. I'm not putting forward my use of terminology as definitive. It just needs to be agreed for each discussion! Informally, you could say knowledge is based on certainty while belief is not, but in reality that's a simplification.

[Edit/addition-o-rama!]

(October 2, 2015 at 4:47 am)robvalue Wrote: ... To say otherwise is to say I don't know what my own beliefs, or lack of beliefs, are.....

...But if "know" means "100% certainty" then such a thing does/should not exist....

[Edited]
that is precisely what I am saying I feel, and the only knowing I have is that of direct experiential phenomena ie: sensory experience.

I only know that there is experience, everything else is uncertain. So I still feel as though you are right, and atheism may in fact be my present condition, but I am uncertain!

How on earth does one gain certainty about a belief? If one has a lower degree of certainty about belief than of other things, like direct experience.

In other words, how can I make the belief the set, when the certainty of experience is in fact the set. My belief is a subset, and secondary to my experience. I'm not even sure I'm making sense any more. Or if I've gone off track. Lol

Of course, once you get down to it, we aren't certain of anything except that "we" are experiencing "something". We can't be certain what "we" actually are, or what the "something" actually is. That's as far as certainty can possibly go. I am not certain anything I experience is real, I'm not even convinced it is. I just have to assume it is, and get on with it.

After this, we're down to beliefs. Very strong beliefs we would consider knowledge on an individual level; as a society, we consider knowledge to be that which can be demonstrated objectively beyond reasonable doubt and individual beliefs about it are irrelevant. So the "pool of knowledge" is different to what we individually claim we know. It doesn't really matter what we claim to know, if we can't demonstrate it to others.

I wouldn't worry too much. It sounds like you're generally an atheist. Atheist totally includes all the "doubt" areas. It is 2 of the 3 positions:

Are you convinced there is a god? Y/N
Are you convinced there is no god? Y/N

Y = theist
N, N, = weak atheist (uncertain/undecided/unknowable!)
N, Y = strong atheist

It could well be that you do have moments of theism, though. It's hard for me to say without looking into your brain Beliefs do change, and there's nothing in theory to stop them changing rapidly between two different things.

Could you convince someone that it's reasonable to believe in god? Is there enough objective evidence? If not, then you can be fairly sure your belief is not grounded in logic but rather in emotion. For one thing, can you even define god in such a way that it's possible to distinguish it from nothing at all?

[Plenty more edits! ]

Further thoughts:

Saying you're not sure if you're an atheist or a theist is a perfectly acceptable answer. That's not the same as actually refusing to answer the question of belief, which "just agnostic" is guilty of. Reading our own brains can be hard sometimes. There is no duty to identify as one or the other. I suppose it's possible for different parts of the brain to hold different beliefs, so you could technically be both.

I'm not sure how much this is bothering you, but my advice is to ask yourself, does it matter if there is a god? What difference would it make to anything? We have absolutely no evidence it is interacting or even interested in us, if there is one. To me, it would make no difference at all if it were proved tomorrow. The fact that I'm an atheist is simply a reaction to the evidence. I'd carry on as I do now regardless.

(October 2, 2015 at 5:28 am)robvalue Wrote: Further thoughts:

Saying you're not sure if you're an atheist or a theist is a perfectly acceptable answer. That's not the same as actually refusing to answer the question of belief, which "just agnostic" is guilty of. Reading our own brains can be hard sometimes. There is no duty to identify as one or the other. I suppose it's possible for different parts of the brain to hold different beliefs, so you could technically be both.

I'm not sure how much this is bothering you, but my advice is to ask yourself, does it matter if there is a god? What difference would it make to anything? We have absolutely no evidence it is interacting or even interested in us, if there is one. To me, it would make no difference at all if it were proved tomorrow. The fact that I'm an atheist is simply a reaction to the evidence. I'd carry on as I do now regardless.

This.

It used to bother me quite a bit, and still pops up from time to time, but it has been an idle curiosity as of late.
Unfortunately, there are moments when the "dread of the question" comes back to haunt me, something demands I know, perhaps an intolerance to uncertainty of some kind.

I think that's because it could be the most important question, or the most banal, unimportant question. I just don't know what the consequences are.
It's all quite confusing to me, this idea of belief.

I think hesitism would suite the sensation between experiencing disbelief and belief.

From the "haesitō", which is to be uncertain.

I wonder if that will catch on.

Edit: I'm not sure if that's the correct etymology, haha.
But I think it is, so we'll go with that.

Regarding the previous post:
Do you mean, in a sense, two different knowledge theories? One for the external world, and one for the internal world?