Agnostics

[Excited Penguin]

To be fair, we do usually have an idea of what is meant by 'God'. It's fair to go with the 'usual definition' unless they say otherwise. If they mean God as 'whatever began this iteration of the universe, even if it was a quantum vacuum fluctuation' rather than God as 'supernatural person who created the universe', they should say so because they are using a nonstandard definition. That said, the definition of 'supernatural' is problematic in itself. The real differences I run into when other people use the word 'God' isn't the basic definition, it's all the baggage they tack on in addition, which sometimes seems to be different for every believer.

I asked a perfectly reasonable question of agnostics - that they tell me whether they believe in the existence of something which they would call God themselves. I think that's a pretty good question, leaving no ambiguity, to determine whether one is a theist or an atheist.

There simply isn't a state between the two. You either believe in a god or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist. Now you can dislike a word, but that doesn't make it wrong as a description of who you are.

[Mister Agenda]

I disagree that we are all born atheists. the construction of 'atheist' isn't 'a-theist' or 'not a theist', it's 'athe-ist', a person concerned with 'athe', no god. Rocks, babies, and dogs aren't atheists; because they are not people capable of concerning themselves with the existence or nonexistence of God(s). A baby truly has no opinion one way or the other, and both atheism and theism are opinions on the reality of supernatural deities. In other words, I don't believe 'implicit atheism', absence of theism without conscious rejection of it, is a useful or accurate term. May as well call it implicit theism because the person has no conscious rejection of atheism. Such a person is a blank slate on the matter until they've been exposed to the idea. Implicit nontheism would be a better term, they're not a theist, but as I said, 'not a theist' is not all there is to atheism. There's a little bit more: not accepting theism.

That is simply inacurate. Lack of belief is an acceptable form of atheism. Lack of knowledge of existence of belief is perfectly compatible with atheism as well.

Certainly, I lack belief in God myself rather than expressing certainty in the nonexistence of any kind of God or god (I am a gnostic atheist regarding the tri-Omni version and literal Biblical version, however). Lack of knowledge of existence of belief renders atheism not even an opinion, and I think it is at least that.

But I'm aware that my opinion doesn't represent the majority here. I don't think it's splitting hairs to observe that a rock isn't a person and that the suffix 'ist' can't apply to a rock, though. A rock does fit the definition of 'atheist' that you give though: it does lack knowledge of existence of belief.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ah yes I forgot. You're right you did tell me that.

I wasn't trolling EP, I just have a shitty memory. Oh and I hope you enjoy my Mafia game

[Excited Penguin]

That is simply inacurate. Lack of belief is an acceptable form of atheism. Lack of knowledge of existence of belief is perfectly compatible with atheism as well.

Certainly, I lack belief in God myself rather than expressing certainty in the nonexistence of any kind of God or god (I am a gnostic atheist regarding the tri-Omni version and literal Biblical version, however). Lack of knowledge of existence of belief renders atheism not even an opinion, and I think it is at least that.

But I'm aware that my opinion doesn't represent the majority here. I don't think it's splitting hairs to observe that a rock isn't a person ant that the suffix 'ist' can't apply to a rock, though. A rock does fit the definition of 'atheist' that you give though: it does lack knowledge of existence of belief.

Atheism is not an opinion. Far greater minds than yours or mine agree with me on that, if "mere" logic doesn't convince you. Atheism is the description of a non-state, it is the default position - it is natural. Where there is lack of theistic belief within an intelligence, you have atheism. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just something to describe all the people in the world who don't believe in Gods. Do we need the word? Yes, it's unfortunate but we need it. Why?  Simply because theists are the majority.

[Excited Penguin]

Ah yes I forgot. You're right you did tell me that.

I wasn't trolling EP, I just have a shitty memory. Oh and I hope you enjoy my Mafia game

Ok, I'm sorry as well then.

[Edwardo Piet]

No problem

Seriously my memory sucks.

No problem

Seriously my memory sucks.

[Excited Penguin]

That is simply inacurate. Lack of belief is an acceptable form of atheism. Lack of knowledge of existence of belief is perfectly compatible with atheism as well.

Certainly, I lack belief in God myself rather than expressing certainty in the nonexistence of any kind of God or god (I am a gnostic atheist regarding the tri-Omni version and literal Biblical version, however). Lack of knowledge of existence of belief renders atheism not even an opinion, and I think it is at least that.

But I'm aware that my opinion doesn't represent the majority here. I don't think it's splitting hairs to observe that a rock isn't a person ant that the suffix 'ist' can't apply to a rock, though. A rock does fit the definition of 'atheist' that you give though: it does lack knowledge of existence of belief.

A rock doesn't fit the description of atheists, since atheists can only be people. Atheism, in turn, refers to only people as well, but that is something you have to figure out on your own, 'cause the dictionary doesn't spell it out that only an intelligence can disbelieve something, can lack information on a subject, and so on.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Atheism" derives from "Atheos" I'm pretty sure...?

[Excited Penguin]

"Atheism" derives from "Atheos" I'm pretty sure...?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84...#Adjective

Here you can see that one of its meanings is secular, godless - which is what all the agnostics and the non-believers and everything in between are. It's what a non-theist is.

[Mister Agenda]

To be fair, we do usually have an idea of what is meant by 'God'. It's fair to go with the 'usual definition' unless they say otherwise. If they mean God as 'whatever began this iteration of the universe, even if it was a quantum vacuum fluctuation' rather than God as 'supernatural person who created the universe', they should say so because they are using a nonstandard definition. That said, the definition of 'supernatural' is problematic in itself. The real differences I run into when other people use the word 'God' isn't the basic definition, it's all the baggage they tack on in addition, which sometimes seems to be different for every believer.

I asked a perfectly reasonable question of agnostics - that they tell me whether they believe in the existence of something which they would call God themselves. I think that's a pretty good question, leaving no ambiguity, to determine whether one is a theist or an atheist.

There simply isn't a state between the two. You either believe in a god or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist. Now you can dislike a word, but that doesn't make it wrong as a description of who you are.

I generally agree, one is either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist...but the term 'agnostic' is popularly viewed as a halfway position between belief and lack of belief, and maybe there should be a term for someone who truly has no opinion either way or is undecided or vacillates. It doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg if someone calls themselves an agnostic. Maybe a little conversation will reveal that they are an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist; but it might reveal they are an 'agnostic agnostic': so on the edge of belief that it's reasonable for them to claim that they neither believe nor lack belief. It IS a binary condition, but it's possible to 'flicker' so much between belief and nonbelief that just plain agnostic is a useful word. Like a switch in the middle position will be 'off' or 'on', but so close to being 'either' that it's okay to say it's in the middle. But I'm a splitter, not a lumper, on this topic.