Is it logical for a Theological Noncognitivist to identify as an atheist?

[Longhorn]

Still implicitly atheist. As long as you lack active belief in a deity, including an instance where you don't understand what a deity is, you're an atheist.

[Simon Moon]

Belief is defined by cognitive scientists as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true.

By definition, there are only 2 choices:

Accepting the proposition or premise that at least one god exists as being true = theist.

Not accepting the proposition or premise that at least one god exists as being true = atheist.

If you don't accept the former, then you are the latter, no matter what one wants to label themselves as.

[IanHulett]

Still implicitly atheist. As long as you lack active belief in a deity, including an instance where you don't understand what a deity is, you're an atheist.

Then I suppose it makes sense to change my "religious views" back to "agnostic atheist."

[robvalue]

Atheism can also be defined as "lacking a belief in gods". By that definition, we are certainly atheists.

The prefix a- means without, or lacking, right? It's not an active position (as I see it) it's the lack of another active position. Of course it can optionally be made into an active position.

That's how I see it, anyhow. But as Pyrrho says, it comes down to exactly how you define words. Probably 75% of people in the world, including many atheists, don't even understand what atheist means anyway. (Atheists denying they are atheists, for one thing.) So I wouldn't worry too much, atheist is a good enough description for almost any conversation. Only when your discussion partners show a detailed understanding of the subject will it become necessary to clarify.

[Pyrrho]

Atheism can also be defined as "lacking a belief in gods". By that definition, we are certainly atheists.

That is not a definition an igtheist would accept. According to igtheism, that has an undefined term in the definition, and is therefore meaningless.

Think about it. You are not going to say you don't believe in Säugetieren if you don't know what "Säugetieren" means, are you?

The prefix a- means without, or lacking, right? It's not an active position (as I see it) it's the lack of another active position. Of course it can optionally be made into an active position.

That's how I see it, anyhow. But as Pyrrho says, it comes down to exactly how you define words. Probably 75% of people in the world, including many atheists, don't even understand what atheist means anyway. (Atheists denying they are atheists, for one thing.) So I wouldn't worry too much, atheist is a good enough description for almost any conversation. Only when your discussion partners show a detailed understanding of the subject will it become necessary to clarify.

It only matters if one wishes to communicate one's exact position to others. Otherwise, one need not know what term(s) most accurately describe one. But if one does wish to communicate one's exact position with others, then having the right terms is extremely useful. Or is if the other person understands the terms. Otherwise, it will require explanation.

[robvalue]

You make a good case. However, atheist itself is a pre-emptive stance to any particular God question, and in reality may be incorrect. (I call the sun god!)

So I can say I pre-emptively lack the belief in something that hasn't been described properly to me, with the proviso that I may already believe in it under a different name.

I think to say otherwise is to make atheism itself meaningless, replacing it with "probably/conditionally atheist" or something like that.

You're right, exact meaning is important. What I was saying is when you're dealing with someone who doesn't understand basic arithmetic, there's not much point explaining the finer details of infinite geometric progressions.

[ignoramus]

What if the god I believe in is made of titanium, am I still a theist?
Or does a theist have to subscribe to one of the many prepackaged off the shelf deals?

[FatAndFaithless]

What if the god I believe in is----

Then yes, you're a theist.

[ignoramus]

So to unravel it down to a granular level, does a "god" need to be a creator? our creator? the universe's creator? waffle creator? appearances on toast only?
What is the lowest common denominator for a definition of a god?

[robvalue]

In my opinion, there isn't one. That's the problem.

If someone says that to them God is an apple, who has the authority to say that they aren't allowed to say this?

Many people say the universe or nature is God, and that doesn't imply that God created those things.

This is the problem, as I was saying above. I'm pre-emptively atheist, but I'm a theist in respect to things that clearly exist but some person declares is a god. Since it's an imaginary concept in the first place, imagination has no particular bounds nor any overlap necessarily.

If someone does happen to be talking about a creator, I wish they'd just call it a creator. Many people have a compulsion to hand a load of awards for "best at..." over to this creator before they've even established it exists. Considering what a clusterfuck of a world we live in, I think people have really low standards.