A question about defining 'Atheist'

[orangebox21]

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.

[ShaMan]

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

Why must I have a label at all?

[Confused Ape]

The simplest definition is a lack of belief in deities because this includes all deities, not just the Christian God. Individuals can then go on to give their personal views.

My views - There's plenty of evidence that people have subjective experiences which they interpret as deities but I lack belief that deities exist as objective realities.

[Dystopia]

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?

It's really a distinction that doesn't bother me. I'd say an atheist can simply lack belief in any gods (maybe that's what you meant in the first part of question 1 'belief in no-god') or disbelieve the existence of gods. I can be wrong but I think actively not believing in gods (taking as a proposition 'god doesn't exist) is the same as rejecting the proposition that god exists. If I don't believe, I reject the proposition

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?

I think both are more or less similar, it's a conceptual problem. It's just as valid as theists accepting belief in god and god not existing

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'?

Yes, from a belief perspective/proposition, not from a knowledge proposition

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

Agnosticism is a knowledge proposition, an agnostic doesn't think 'maybe there is a god', an agnostic claims to not know if a god exists. An agnostic can be an atheist or a theist, in my case I'm in an agnostic atheist, I lack belief in any gods but I don't claim to know if they exist or not with absolute certainty

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

The only option that is close to your proposal is agnostic theism, but I don't think it's possible to believe maybe god exists, either you believe or you don't

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?

If someone accuses me of a crime, that person is the one who needs to prove I practiced it. The one who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof

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

No, but you could make your arguments for losing faith, nothing wrong with that, it's advisable

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

No, this doesn't make any sense... Why are you even relating knowledge with personal belief? I can be an agnostic while being an atheist, deist or theist

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

Agnostic atheist, but I don't promise in the future I won't sweep to gnostic atheism. Regarding religions I sometimes sweep to gnostic atheism, I can use the evidence such as contradiction in holy books or contradictory characteristics in gods to prove religions are unreliable. As for simple theism or deism without any specific religion I can't prove a god doesn't exist, therefore I am an agnostic atheist

[Whateverist]

Your timing could hardly be better. I put up a poll today to clarify what it is the users of these forums believe about gods. You can find it here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-27276.html

I didn't design it to be just for atheists though. So, feel free to add your own positions.

[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.

[Nine]

It really depends, I find it silly that people keep needing it defined. Labels are just convenient and rarely perfect. The general idea is atheists don't believe in god(s). Some believe they don't exist, others just aren't convinced, some just don't give a fuck. Its just easier to share this label than make hundreds of slight variations. Special snowflakes are individual and nice but they're all fucking snowflakes in the end.

[ShaMan]

How about... "I am that I am"? If it's good enough for God, then it's good enough for me

[FatAndFaithless]

How about... "I am that I am"? If it's good enough for God, then it's good enough for me

[Whateverist]

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?

IMO, belief in no god requires more confidence than I have that we all have in mind the same idea of 'god'. When it comes to gods as separate entities that create universes and so on, those I do not believe in. But I think the gods people actually believe in and relate to, don't have to be understood in such an absurd way. So I reserve judgement unless there is adequate opportunity to clarify what sort of gods I disbelieve in.

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

The excluded middle does not apply because non-belief does not have to lie anywhere on the disbelief/belief spectrum. Disbelief and non-belief are two separate questions. While disbelief entails non-belief the opposite need not be true.

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, if you listed every belief that anyone anywhere has ever believed, I would not need to justify my my rejection of any of them. As they are my beliefs, I decide when the standard has been met.

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

I don't see why. You also do not need to defend your position that you do believe in god(s). You set the standard for what is worthy of belief in your 'house'. You just have to please yourself then.

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

I would say I am a non-believer in gods who nonetheless accepts that gods exist for believers, because I think gods are generated by the psyche. Phenomenologically speaking, gods have a similar status to our personal identities. They are both things produced in our brains which -at least so far- elude a nuts and bolts explanation. However I disbelieve any descrption of a god which seeks to concretize or objectivize their status.