Don't marry an Atheist.

[jluv]

Not considering yourself atheist doesn't mean that you aren't an atheist.

If you do not actively believe there is a god, you're an atheist. If you actively believe there is a god, you are a theist.

If you don't want to take the label, that's fine. That doesn't make it inaccurate.

Then what would be the label for someone who believes there is no god?

Atheist, right? That's not my belief.

Shouldn't there be a term to differentiate between someone who doesn't actively believe there is a god and someone who actively believes there is not a god? They are definitely two different things.

[Maddhattter]

Really? I thought athiests actively believed that there is no god.

I don't actively believe there is a god. Therefore I would not answer "yes" to the question.

I also don't actively believe that there is no god. Therefore, I wouldn't consider myself an atheist.

Not considering yourself atheist doesn't mean that you aren't an atheist.

If you do not actively believe there is a god, you're an atheist. If you actively believe there is a god, you are a theist.

If you don't want to take the label, that's fine. That doesn't make it inaccurate.

[jluv]

By definition if you do not actively believe in a god/s, then you are an atheist. That doesn't mean that you've no religious affiliation. So, the question is "Do you believe in a god/s?". If your answer is anything other than "Yes", then you are an atheist.

Really? I thought athiests actively believed that there is no god.

I don't actively believe there is a god. Therefore I would not answer "yes" to the question.

I also don't actively believe that there is no god. Therefore, I wouldn't consider myself an atheist.

[racrguy]

I've met you, you're a white guy. I do, and I'm sure you do, know some REALLY stupid white people that we would wish not to associate with. Do wish to not have the label of "white" even though you are?

Trust me, there are atheists that I'd rather not be lumped in with either (gnostic atheists), but it comes with the territory, and you have to differentiate yourself from those by explaining things. I do not view all christians as hateful bigots like the WBC, even though they are christians.

Labels aren't a bad thing, if used correctly.

Case in point: may I direct your attention to post 99 and onward.

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48478&page=3

[racrguy]

DO EET! Just so long as you remember that I claimed WBC first.

You can't argue the authority of firsties!

Bullshit! State your reasoning why I should adhere to the firsties doctrine.

[Maddhattter]

How about I go with the whipping majority, the Roman Catholic Church?

DO EET! Just so long as you remember that I claimed WBC first.

You can't argue the authority of firsties!

[racrguy]

Hell, I've met some agnostic atheists that are dumb as rocks and stopped believing for bad reasons. Though I would, definitely, want to distance myself from all gnostic atheists.



I already used WBC in this thread! Get your own whipping minority!

How about I go with the whipping majority, the Roman Catholic Church?

[Maddhattter]

Trust me, there are atheists that I'd rather not be lumped in with either (gnostic atheists), but it comes with the territory, and you have to differentiate yourself from those by explaining things.

Hell, I've met some agnostic atheists that are dumb as rocks and stopped believing for bad reasons. Though I would, definitely, want to distance myself from all gnostic atheists.

I do not view all christians as hateful bigots like the WBC, even though they are christians.

Labels aren't a bad thing, if used correctly.

I already used WBC in this thread! Get your own whipping minority!

[Maddhattter]

I just don't want to be labeled the same as those dolts.

I think this sums up the entire reason why people try not to label themselves as an atheist.

Good points on the difference between belief claims and knowledge claims, and it does help to keep than in mind when interpreting racrguy's chart. I still hold that I was not inaccurate. I was not as specific, but following currently used definitions, it was still accurate!

I would argue that you were still inaccurate, just not wrong. My go to analogy for this is if you're a sniper. If you hit a person and it makes a kill shot, you technically did your job. However, if you were aiming for the head and you hit them in the neck, you're still inaccurate. However, boiled down, this is just a semantic argument. I don't think he meant that you are wrong, just that you missed the mark a little bit.

However, as people who believe there is no god/s are atheists as well as those who do not believe in a god/s, you are still technically correct. Which, as we all know, is the best kind of correct.

I need to think about this stuff more.

Well, no matter what you come up with, I'm always willing to discuss.

[racrguy]

I just don't want to be labeled the same as those dolts.

I've met you, you're a white guy. I do, and I'm sure you do, know some REALLY stupid white people that we would wish not to associate with. Do wish to not have the label of "white" even though you are?

Trust me, there are atheists that I'd rather not be lumped in with either (gnostic atheists), but it comes with the territory, and you have to differentiate yourself from those by explaining things. I do not view all christians as hateful bigots like the WBC, even though they are christians.

Labels aren't a bad thing, if used correctly.

[racrguy]

None of that makes me inaccurate, which is what you claimed. At worst I was still fairly general in my revised "answers", but I even mentioned that at the beginning of the post.

But the whole point of my initial response was to specify to Maddhatter that just because one may not say "yes" to his question, that does not automatically mean they are an Atheist.

Me saying you're inaccurate doesn't mean that I'm saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying there is some information you have either omitted or didn't know about. The inclusion of such information may change your statements.

Think of beliefs as an activity. Think of the atheist/theist question being that of playing basketball.

Are there varying degrees of playing basketball, or are you either playing/not playing the game?

If you are playing the game, you are a theist. If you are not playing the game, you are an atheist. Even if you are unsure as to whether or not you want to play the game, you are still not participating the game, therefore are an atheist. Atheism/theism is an either/or proposition, a true dichotomy. One cannot be neither.

There's no need to capitalize atheism, it's not a proper noun.

[Chili]

This is where I'll outright disagree with you. The definition is as follows:

ag·nos·tic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. (Emphasis mine)

The site accepts that broadly it can be used to denote being non-committal about believing or not believing, however, it's definition is that of a knowledge claim, not a belief claim.

However, if you do not believe in a god/s then you are not a theist. You would, therefore, be an atheist. Exactly how something that is without morals is amoral.

Did you miss this part of my post?

"Although still a little broad"

I just don't want to be labeled the same as those dolts.

Good points on the difference between belief claims and knowledge claims, and it does help to keep than in mind when interpreting racrguy's chart. I still hold that I was not inaccurate. I was not as specific, but following currently used definitions, it was still accurate!

I need to think about this stuff more.

[Chili]

Etymology is important.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)

theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (see theo-) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]

The adjective is first recorded 1870.

gnostic (adj.)
"relating to knowledge," 1650s, from Greek gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "known, perceived, understood," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know).

All from: http://www.etymonline.com/

None of that makes me inaccurate, which is what you claimed. At worst I was still fairly general in my revised "answers", but I even mentioned that at the beginning of the post.

But the whole point of my initial response was to specify to Maddhatter that just because one may not say "yes" to his question, that does not automatically mean they are an Atheist.

[Maddhattter]

how can you possibly know if a god does or does not exist?

Theism and atheism are belief claims.

Gnosticism and agnosticism are knowledge claims.

How could they? I have no idea how one could demonstrate that no god/s exist. However, there are people on both sides that claim knowledge.

[Maddhattter]

That chart is someone's opinion based on their phraseology.

Or they are operating via a separate source of definitions. This is why, to be as honest as possible, we need to start drawing logical lines and make every definition as inclusive as possible.

Clearly you can get down into minutia, but I'm operating based on the following simple definitions from merriam-webster.com:

the·ism - belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

I think all we really need here, for the purposes of our conversation is the following:

the·ism - belief in the existence of a god or gods

It removes the Abrahamic bias and leaves us with a functional definition.

I think we can agree on this definition.

athe·ist - one who believes that there is no deity

So, if I were to state that an atheist is "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:", how do we determine who's definition is more accurate?

Should we use the definition that the group uses to define itself? That would be the one I provided.

Should we use the most inclusive definition, so that we have a greater change of being right? That would be the definition I provided.

I'll note that I'll not claim that no atheists believe that no god exists. That would be like claiming that no square is a rectangle. However, I'm arguing that not all atheists believe that no god exists. That's the definition that atheists generally use and it's the most inclusive definition.

ag·nos·tic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

This is where I'll outright disagree with you. The definition is as follows:

ag·nos·tic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. (Emphasis mine)

The site accepts that broadly it can be used to denote being non-committal about believing or not believing, however, it's definition is that of a knowledge claim, not a belief claim.

However, if you do not believe in a god/s then you are not a theist. You would, therefore, be an atheist. Exactly how something that is without morals is amoral.