From atheism to tentative agnosticism

[Inigo]

This doesn't really belong in the introduction section, by the way, and creating two threads devoted to the same question is generally discouraged.
[b]

Then ask me the relevant questions in the relevant section. I started a thread devoted to discussing atheism and morality for precisely this reason. Here I merely introduced myself and my concerns.

If someone asks me questions in this thread, however, it seems sensible for me to answer them here rather than elsewhere. Perhaps you could ask your questions again in the philosophy section in the thread titled atheism and morality and I will answer each one.

You say (not sure how to quote here) "Fine, but expect to be called out on unconventional and frankly unrealistic uses of basic terminology."

You seriously think I'm the one using the term unconventionally? If a god exists then atheism is false, is it not?

you say regarding my use of theist (to mean the Judaeo Christian god) "Not wrong, but rather parochial. Believers in J/C God = theists, however theists =not necessarily= J/C God believers."

So you would use 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the Greek gods would you? Or Thor? Really? Odd. I don't think I'm going to understand a lot of what you say.

I said that I thought it would be unusual for someone who believed in, say, Thor to describe themselves as an 'atheist'. You say "Such a believer could be quite entitled to call themselves an atheist about gods they consider fictional. Interestingly and on the same point, it seems the early xtians were among the first to be referred to as atheists by the Romans, because they didn't believe in the Roman gods."

Well, anyone is 'entitled' to call themselves whatever they want. The point, though, is that it would be grossly misleading - it would invite misunderstanding - to call oneself an 'atheist' if one believed in Thor or the Roman gods or some such. If you declare yourself an atheist most people are going to think you mean you don't believe in the existence of any gods, aren't they? that's because whatever you say you mean by the word 'atheist' most people understand it to mean 'the belief that no gods exist'.

You say "If those two Horsemen and their companions used the term in anything like the way you did in this paragraph, they would be called out on it as well. Atheism, quite simply, is not the view that no theistic god exists; rather it is the disbelief that they do exist. Neither does the term apply to "supernatural agencies of any kind" - that would be scepticism (or skepticism if you really must), of which atheism is a specialised subset."

I'm afraid you are the one using the term in a quite ludicrous fashion
Tell me, if everyone - everyone in the world - believes that god exists, but in fact god does not exist, is atheism true or false?
It is 'true' isn't it? So atheism's truth does not depend upon anyone having any beliefs at all.

you then say, in response to my point that none of this tedious semantic stuff really matters, "Unless you are basing your interpretation of reality on a faulty first principle, obviously".

But you know what I mean by 'atheism' because I have told you. And I am arguing that morality provides some reason to think atheism is false.
You can use 'atheism' to mean 'tuesday' if you wish, but I am using it to mean the view that no gods exist.