Oh yay, this issue.

I choose "agnostic atheist" as my go to term since it lays out my positions on both belief and what can be known and unknown. In terms of the logical conclusions I have reached when it comes to gods and my psychological proclivity, I am a full on atheist, I simply see no evidence to believe in their existence and regard them as human inventions. From an epistemological perspective though, I'm agnostic, since as a puny mortal being with only a limited scope of possible knowledge and perspectives, I could be wrong.

I call myself an Agnostic Atheist because agnostic only means without knowledge. But makes no point about what they are agnostic about. I may be talking about leprechauns for all anyone knows when I just call myself agnostic.

So I throw the atheist on the end. Also known as a "weak" atheist. A strong atheist is when you make the positive claim that god does not exist. I can't honestly make that statement.

The general public thinks of an Atheist as what a strong atheist is. And they think of Agnostic what an agnostic atheist is.

Around other atheists, I say I'm atheist or agnostic atheist. Around theists I say I'm agnostic. They take the term atheist as an attack on them a lot of times, even if you're just minding your own business.

I just don't want to deal with their shit all the time. So yeah, I'm an "agnostic", Mr. Mormon. Now go screw off.

I'd consider myself strong agnostic atheist-antitheist or weak gnostic atheist-antitheist. "Ermagerd, but how can you know that gods don't exist". Well, I don't but when asked if I believe in unicorns I don't say "hmm, maybe they exist" I just say "they don't exist". No evidence = doesn't exist. Unless of course I talk with theists. Then I say that "a possibility that invisible unicorn may be walking around here is the same as the one where your god/s exist"

(June 13, 2013 at 1:39 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(May 30, 2013 at 4:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: Computers have no ability to believe, not do they think at all.

You are forgetting the electric monk.

Quote:“The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder... Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/150267-t...dishwasher

Been years since I read it but isn't there a delux version of the electro-monk. The difference being that the delux version believes things they don't even believe in Salt Lake City.

(June 13, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I think muddying the water by saying inanimate objects hold a position (eg atheism) is rather odd.

I mean, a rock could be a theist, whose to say?

I think it's quite easy to bracket out inanimate objects when it comes to defining an atheist as some who lacks a belief in deities, as I describe myself.

I think your point is that while inanimate objects may technically be atheist, it's pointless to talk about them in that way. Simlarly, saying everyone is a-unicornist is pointless, because so few people give a shit about the question of whether unicorns exist. So there's always that subtext, there: atheism is WORTH talking about because it's set against a context of religious idiocy. It shows a willingness to stand up against a moral majority based on a fairy tale.

The thing that annoys me about this debate is that it is settled, automatically, by the specific question being asked, and by the context in which the question is asked. There doesn't HAVE to be a definition of atheism that always applies. Agnosticism and atheism don't HAVE to be about different things. For example, if someone asks me, "Hey dude, do you believe some kind of God or gods exist?", I'll say I don't know, but I consider it perfectly possible. In that case, while atheists might want to crow on that I'm atheist by default since I haven't formulated an active belief system, I think that's really rude, because the agnostic label is sufficient in describing my position, and describes it more meaningfully. If you ask me, "Do you believe there is some mind in the universe that is so far beyond human comprehension that it would make sense to call it a god?" I'd answer yes, I not only feel it's possible, but it's very likely that somewhere in the universe such small-g gods exist. If someone asks me "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior? Do you believe in God?" I'll tell them that I don't believe in fairy tales, and they have five seconds before I release the hounds. In this case, I'm both atheist and antitheist.

Attempting to define me with the word atheism fails due to the fact that my answer varies depending on the context in which I have to identify myself. Until the context is established, I'm simultaneously BOTH atheist and theist. And in this case, where the context is not defined to my satisfaction, pure agnosticism is a more sensible position: I believe in gods under some definitions, and I disbelieve in others. I'm agnostic except in contexts where the word "God" is defined sufficiently well for me to identify whether that definition is part of my world view.

But religious people want to know if you're an atheist. According to their bible, you're then an agent of Satan.

(June 14, 2013 at 3:54 pm)little_monkey Wrote: But religious people want to know if you're an atheist. According to their bible, you're then an agent of Satan.

When I was a kid I got atheist/satanist/communist all scrambled together. I thought it all meant the same thing.

Raising a kid in a religion like that should be considered child abuse.

It seem like Dr. Tyson's objection to the label Atheism isn't really a philosophical objection to asserting that there is no god but rather just the desire to have a less controversial position because it's too much of a pain in the ass to deal with Theists who are on Atheist bashing quests. If society were to move beyond that then no doubt he'd be labeling himself what he virtually admits in that video to being.

(June 1, 2013 at 12:02 am)whatever76 Wrote: I appreciate your clarification, but I think they are answering the same question: Does God exist?

Atheist: No.
Theist: Yes.
Agnostic: I don't know.

You seem to have missed the point of what Simon Moon was saying. The question you just asked was about knowledge (does God exist?). Now, an atheist may answer "no" to this question, and a theist may remark "yes", but the definitions of both atheist and theist do not require them to do so, because atheism is not "knowing there is no God", and theism is not "knowing there is a God". Both atheism and theism are defined in terms of belief.

So whilst your above scenario is perfectly reasonable (you can either know there is a God, know that God does not exist, or not know one way or the other), it's not addressing the belief question:

Do you believe in God?

Atheist: No
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: ...

An agnostic can answer this question either way, because belief does not have to be based on knowledge of the thing you are believing (or not believing) in. I can believe that there it is raining outside even if I have no direct knowledge that it is (but I may have based my belief on other things, like someone I trust telling me it is raining, etc.)

I've already covered how I think the belief question is binary; that you either believe something to be true or you do not. There is no middle ground. One who has no actual formed beliefs one way or the other, by default will not believe even if they aren't aware that they don't believe.

FYI, I answer the two questions this way:

Does God exist?

Tiberius: I don't know.

Do you believe in God?

Tiberius: No.

(June 15, 2013 at 10:36 am)Tiberius Wrote: Do you believe in God?

Atheist: No
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: ...

Like to use that on a t-shirt.