A question about defining 'Atheist'

[FatAndFaithless]

There is a bit of confusion for myself as a theist in trying to understand the definition of atheism. I've seen a few assertions throughout various threads and I have a few statement/questions for clarification.

1. I've heard some say it's not that the atheist has a belief in no-god, but rather a rejection of the proposition that God exists. How are these two positions different?

2. If an atheist accepts that there is a difference between rejecting the belief in the existence of deities and asserting they do not exist (asserting the former not the latter), does that differ from the assertion that God does exist, but he/she rejects belief in God?

3. If you assume the reliability of the law of the excluded middle, then logically speaking there are only two possibilities: God exists or God does not exist. By definition, there cannot be 'maybe God exists.' (I want to clarify here that I'm not proposing a person can't be in a process of inquiry where they are testing the truth of one or both of these propositions and so are 'wondering if God exists', but rather there is no logical conclusion that 'maybe God exists') Given only two possibilities, is assigning a truth value to the proposition 'God exists' of false, does that necessitate assigning a 'true' truth values to the proposition 'God does not exist'? In other words, if you reject the propostion 'God exists' does that necessitate you conclude the proposition 'God does not exist'?

4. Also involving the law of excluded middle, is the position of 'agnostic' (maybe there is a God) logically sound?

5. Does the law of excluded middle allow for a neutral position (maybe God exists) with which to begin logical inquiry?

6. It seems that the rejection of the proposition 'God exists' is a postion the atheist takes. If you reject the proposition that 'God exists' are you required to defend this position?

7. If I as a theist were to reject the proposition that 'there is no-god', would I have to defend this position?

8. Atheism is to Biblical Christianity as agnosticism is to deism. Is this an accurate relation of terms?

9. What label would you prefer to describe your worldview/religion? Please provide a definition and/or brief explanation.

Thanks in advance to those who participate.

Some of your questions kind of meld together, but I'll try my best to give succint answers to each.

1. I've heard some say it's not that the atheist has a belief in no-god, but rather a rejection of the proposition that God exists. How are these two positions different?

Some atheists do believe there are no Gods, but that's not the definition of atheism, and I'll try to illustate with an example. The best for this (which answers some of your later questions) is the jar of jellybeans example.

I have a jar with an unkown number of jellybeans inside it. There are only two possibilities: 1) The number of beans is even or 2) the number of beans is odd. Lets say that even = god exists, and odd = god does not exist. If someone asserts to me that the number of beans is even (god exists), I would reject their claim until they could provide evidence for their assertion. That is not the same thing as me asserting the number of beans is odd (no God exists). Simply rejecting someone's claim is not the acceptance of the other.

2. If an atheist accepts that there is a difference between rejecting the belief in the existence of deities and asserting they do not exist (asserting the former not the latter), does that differ from the assertion that God does exist, but he/she rejects belief in God?

Not exactly sure what you're looking for here. One can't assert something exists and then not believe in that something. Strange wording.

3. If you assume the reliability of the law of the excluded middle, then logically speaking there are only two possibilities: God exists or God does not exist. By definition, there cannot be 'maybe God exists.' (I want to clarify here that I'm not proposing a person can't be in a process of inquiry where they are testing the truth of one or both of these propositions and so are 'wondering if God exists', but rather there is no logical conclusion that 'maybe God exists') Given only two possibilities, is assigning a truth value to the proposition 'God exists' of false, does that necessitate assigning a 'true' truth values to the proposition 'God does not exist'? In other words, if you reject the propostion 'God exists' does that necessitate you conclude the proposition 'God does not exist'?

See the jellybean example, rejecting one claim based on insufficient evidence is NOT the assertion of the opposite claim.

4. Also involving the law of excluded middle, is the position of 'agnostic' (maybe there is a God) logically sound?

I'm not sure you understand that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive and in the vast majority of cases are used together (and with christianity, by the way). Agnosticism is simply not claiming to know something. I'm an agnostic atheist, as in I do not believe the claim that God exists, but I do not claim to know that for certain, because I don't think it's possible to know at this point in time. Agnostic is a term concerning the epistemological question, and atheism/theism answers the theological quesiton.

5. Does the law of excluded middle allow for a neutral position (maybe God exists) with which to begin logical inquiry?

Again, slightly strange wording here, especially if you're using an inaccurate definition of agnosticism. I'd be happy to answer if you can reword it a bit.

6. It seems that the rejection of the proposition 'God exists' is a postion the atheist takes. If you reject the proposition that 'God exists' are you required to defend this position?

No. The burden of proof in any discussion is on the claimant, the one who asserts something as true. If you say that God exists, you are making an assertion about reality, and that requires evidence. If I simply say that I am unconvinced of your claim, and therefore I do not accept it, that's the end of my part of the discussion.

7. If I as a theist were to reject the proposition that 'there is no-god', would I have to defend this position?

No. See previous. If someone came to you and made the claim about reality that no Gods exist, they would have to provide evidence for their claim. If you say that you are not convinced by their evidence, that's the end of your part of the discussion. If someone were to claim to me, an atheist, that no gods exist, I would still ask for evidence. It's the claimant that has the burden of proof.

8. Atheism is to Biblical Christianity as agnosticism is to deism. Is this an accurate relation of terms?

No. Again you're using an incorrect definition of Agnosticism. Atheism applies to any theistic claim, regardless of creed or religion or anything else (and I would say that atheist also applies to deism, as it is a God claim, and we simply don't use the word "a-Deist"). Agnosticism is, again, a modifier of a belief which discusses knowledge.

9. What label would you prefer to describe your worldview/religion? Please provide a definition and/or brief explanation.

Agnostic atheist, for reasons above. I do not accept the claims about your (or any) God, and I don't claim to know they don't exist.