Am I still an atheist if I believe in a higher being?

[vixene]

So I'm either a weak atheist or a deist :o

Yes.  As a practical matter, which of those you are may not ever make any difference in your life.  Or it could, depending on what else you might believe.

Also, it may not matter for you whether you are even sure which one applies to you.  When I went from being a devout Christian to eventually becoming a strong atheist, in between at some points I was unsure of what I thought.  But I did not need to label myself anything in particular, and I realized I did not need to have a label for myself.  I did not need to tell anyone exactly what it was that was going on in my mind.

But as a technical matter, if you believe that there is a god that started the universe and then has left it alone ever since, then you are a deist.  If you do not believe in any god, then you are an atheist.  At least a weak atheist.  If you have the belief that there is no god, then you are a strong atheist.

If you are not sure whether you believe in a god or not, then you are not sure whether you are an atheist or not.  But if you lack belief one way or another on the existence of god, then you are a weak atheist.

Thank you for a very detailed answer, muchos gracias!

[ignoramus]

Vix, calling yourself an agnostic atheist (or just atheist) is what 99.9% of us are.
No strong stance or anything ... we don't believe because we don't have proof but we're always open minded like all clear thinkers and lovers of logic.

The problem here is that the Xtians will translate that definition for you and TELL you what you believe (or don't believe). And then demand YOU prove that God doesn't exist!
This is where you politely tell them to fuck off!

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ok, here we go...

If you lack belief in any gods, you are an atheist. This doesn't mean you have to believe that god does not exist. It simply means that you do not have a positive belief that he does exist. That seems like an odd distinction, but it's important, and the reason is "Burden of Proof."

Others kind of kicked you in the stomach with this, but I'm going to be the nice guy here (for once...don't get used to it...I'm an asshole).

You mentioned a common argument earlier: "You can't prove that god doesn't exist."

You're right. Nobody can prove that god does not exist. Here's the problem with that:

Nobody can prove that Santa Claus does not really exist. Nobody can prove that Darth Vader does not really exist. Nobody can prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. Nobody can prove that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

What I'm getting at here is the idea of "Burden of Proof." The thing is, it's impossible to prove that ANYTHING does not exist, no matter how absurd or unlikely. The existence of something is a non-falsifiable claim because no matter how much evidence we find of something not being there, the other side can always turn around and say "Well, you just haven't found it yet." Conversely, the NON-existence of something is easily falsifiable because all it takes is one scrap of definite evidence that something does, in fact, exist, and the statement immediately becomes false.

Because of this fact, the NON-existence of a thing is ALWAYS the "null hypothesis," or h0. This means that it is the default position of belief until it is disproven by evidence. This doesn't mean that the thing in question definitely does not exist; rather, it simply means that there is no warrant or justification for believing it exists until evidence shows up. This means the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making a positive claim for the existence of something. A position of non-belief does not require evidence but can be unseated by it.

[vixene]

Vix, calling yourself an agnostic atheist (or just atheist) is what 99.9% of us are.
No strong stance or anything ... we don't believe because we don't have proof but we're always open minded like all clear thinkers and lovers of logic.

The problem here is that the Xtians will translate that definition for you and TELL you what you believe (or don't believe). And then demand YOU prove that God doesn't exist!
This is where you politely tell them to fuck off!

If only I could be so free to respond to christians in such a manner

Ok, here we go...

If you lack belief in any gods, you are an atheist. This doesn't mean you have to believe that god does not exist. It simply means that you do not have a positive belief that he does exist. That seems like an odd distinction, but it's important, and the reason is "Burden of Proof."

Others kind of kicked you in the stomach with this, but I'm going to be the nice guy here (for once...don't get used to it...I'm an asshole).

You mentioned a common argument earlier: "You can't prove that god doesn't exist."

You're right. Nobody can prove that god does not exist. Here's the problem with that:

Nobody can prove that Santa Claus does not really exist. Nobody can prove that Darth Vader does not really exist. Nobody can prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. Nobody can prove that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

What I'm getting at here is the idea of "Burden of Proof." The thing is, it's impossible to prove that ANYTHING does not exist, no matter how absurd or unlikely. The existence of something is a non-falsifiable claim because no matter how much evidence we find of something not being there, the other side can always turn around and say "Well, you just haven't found it yet." Conversely, the NON-existence of something is easily falsifiable because all it takes is one scrap of definite evidence that something does, in fact, exist, and the statement immediately becomes false.

Because of this fact, the NON-existence of a thing is ALWAYS the "null hypothesis," or h0. This means that it is the default position of belief until it is disproven by evidence. This doesn't mean that the thing in question definitely does not exist; rather, it simply means that there is no warrant or justification for believing it exists until evidence shows up. This means the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making a positive claim for the existence of something. A position of non-belief does not require evidence but can be unseated by it.

Again, thanks for the detailed response. I guess I'm back to being an atheist [emoji5]

[Napoléon]

[Homeless Nutter]

Again, thanks for the detailed response. I guess I'm back to being an atheist [emoji5]

You shouldn't worry too much about labels. 

The rule of thumb I use is - when I'm in a mood to argue with theists, I tell them I'm an atheist, preferably "strong" - because that p*sses them off the most. 

When I don't feel like arguing, or there are too many theists around to risk a fist-fight - I present myself as an agnostic, because religious people see that as a sort of capitulation ("Oh, so you don't know if god exists - that means I'm right no matter what.") and leave me be. 

And calling yourself a deist almost guarantees they'll consider you as being on "their side", in a similar way they see members of competing  theistic religions, as somehow confirming their own faith, through belief in any god at all (however flawed that line of reasoning is) - and being in opposition to atheism.

[vixene]

Again, thanks for the detailed response. I guess I'm back to being an atheist [emoji5]

You shouldn't worry too much about labels. 

The rule of thumb I use is - when I'm in a mood to argue with theists, I tell them I'm an atheist, preferably "strong" - because that p*sses them off the most. 

When I don't feel like arguing, or there are too many theists around to risk a fist-fight - I present myself as an agnostic, because religious people see that as a sort of capitulation ("Oh, so you don't know if god exists - that means I'm right no matter what.") and leave me be. 

And calling yourself a deist almost guarantees they'll consider you as being on "their side", in a similar way they see members of competing  theistic religions, as somehow confirming their own faith, through belief in any god at all (however flawed that line of reasoning is) - and being in opposition to atheism.

In the real world, I don't really care for labels because I tend not to get into heated discussions with people regarding religious topics. But online, it seems unless you have an established label to fall back on, you're instantly dismissed or your contribution isn't seen as valid. But meh.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]
But online, it seems unless you have an established label to fall back on, you're instantly dismissed or your contribution isn't seen as valid. But meh.

Well, actually - on the internet you get instantly dismissed and validity of your contributions and opinions are undermined, because that's what people (most of them - idiots anyway) do on the internet. ;P

[Mr.wizard]

You shouldn't worry too much about labels. 

The rule of thumb I use is - when I'm in a mood to argue with theists, I tell them I'm an atheist, preferably "strong" - because that p*sses them off the most. 

When I don't feel like arguing, or there are too many theists around to risk a fist-fight - I present myself as an agnostic, because religious people see that as a sort of capitulation ("Oh, so you don't know if god exists - that means I'm right no matter what.") and leave me be. 

And calling yourself a deist almost guarantees they'll consider you as being on "their side", in a similar way they see members of competing  theistic religions, as somehow confirming their own faith, through belief in any god at all (however flawed that line of reasoning is) - and being in opposition to atheism.

In the real world, I don't really care for labels because I tend not to get into heated discussions with people regarding religious topics. But online, it seems unless you have an established label to fall back on, you're instantly dismissed or your contribution isn't seen as valid. But meh.

Labels are useful when regarding these religious topics, because it allows the debates to progress much easier. For example, if you described yourself as a Christian and I used Jesus in many references regarding your stance on a topic and then you said "well I really don't believe in Jesus", then we have to start over from square one and spend a good deal of time figuring out what you believe.

[Whateverist]

Hello and welcome, Vixen.

In the early part of this thread your considerations for whether gods exist seem to center on creation.  But I don't think that is what really keeps the god question open for you, is it?  I mean thoughts about cosmic origins are well and good but really, what position are we in to 'intuitively feel' that a god did it?  Of course you may be one of those people who really just think a lot about cosmic origins and have correspondingly strong hunches.

Frankly I just wish theists (and we) could just drop the creator role from the hodgepodge definition of gods.  No closure is ever coming to that question.  Screw it.

Same goes for an 'after life'.  You don't get a definitive answer until you're dead.  In the meantime we'll go on thinking there will be no answer realized because we'll be fucking dead.  Meanwhile the fundies will go on cackling "oh you'll find out, you'll find out alright!"  Afterlife is probably just a naive intuition that arises in a social organism thay continues to feel the presence of deceased loved ones.  But that isn't essential to the god question either.

I think people who've been brought up to be religious hang on to the god idea because they feel His presence the same way they do their dead relatives.  Something comes up and one imagines they know what the dead relative -or God- would have thought or said.  If you don't talk yourself out of it, that 'naive intuition' of the presence of the Other will likely continue.

Now, if that is all there is to it, does god belief do any harm?  I don't think so.  Without the creator role or afterlife doorman role, what would cause any cognitive dissonance?  On the other hand, given this diminished definition, does god belief do you any good?  Apparently most theists don't think so.  I just strongly disagree, not that I personally indulge.