Atheist, agnostic, or non theist?

[Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

"Non theist" recognizes 'theism' is a vague term that can mean different things. For the purposes of this debate 'theism' represents the classic belief in a god or gods who are personal, formed in the image of man, or that man was formed by in 'his image.' The 'theist' believes in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and 'knows' us personally, a 'God' who walks with us and talks with us; a god in the fashion of the 'God' in Job who walks with Satan and communes with Job.

The non theist finds the concept of this god of popular theism absurd and of obvious human creation, while still being open to a higher power beyond human description.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

I think that the problem with your reasoning has to do with these confused definitions.

An intellectually lazy individual might express "Gee...I dunno." but such folk are spread throughout theism, non-theism and Agnosticism and so cannot honestly be seen a reliable description for Agnostic.

Thus any definitions to do with atheism and theism, based upon or following this description of Agnostic are just as likely in error.

Even the fact that this subject comes up for debate reasonably frequently, tells us that.

I liked that definition. The gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist, and the agnostics dunno.

It's perfect.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

I think that the problem with your reasoning has to do with these confused definitions.

An intellectually lazy individual might express "Gee...I dunno." but such folk are spread throughout theism, non-theism and Agnosticism and so cannot honestly be seen a reliable description for Agnostic.

Thus any definitions to do with atheism and theism, based upon or following this description of Agnostic are just as likely in error.

Even the fact that this subject comes up for debate reasonably frequently, tells us that.

I liked that definition. The gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist, and the agnostics dunno.

It's perfect.

I appreciate the attempted humor in your reply wilpoc, but cannot see wherein the OP that 'gnostics' are mentioned as a separate position from Theism.
My own post was simply made to correct what appears to be purposeful misinformation.

[wiploc]

I appreciate the attempted humor in your reply [wiploc], but cannot see wherein the OP that 'gnostics' are mentioned as a separate position from Theism.

I don't think they're mentioned in the OP at all.

If you capitalize "Gnostic," it refers to a theistic religion. If you don't capitalize, it refers anyone (theistic or not) who "knows" whether gods exist.

My own post was simply made to correct what appears to be purposeful misinformation.

And my post defended the position, which should be obvious, that agnostics are the ones who don't know.

[William]

I appreciate the attempted humor in your reply [wiploc], but cannot see wherein the OP that 'gnostics' are mentioned as a separate position from Theism.

I don't think they're mentioned in the OP at all.

If you capitalize "Gnostic," it refers to a theistic religion. If you don't capitalize, it refers anyone (theistic or not) who "knows" whether gods exist.

My own post was simply made to correct what appears to be purposeful misinformation.

And my post defended the position, which should be obvious, that agnostics are the ones who don't know.

That was not the misinformation I have been referring to Wiploc. I was pointing out that Danmark's misinformed reasoning has to do with these confused definitions.

An intellectually lazy individual might express "Gee...I dunno." but such folk are spread throughout theism, non-theism and Agnosticism and so intellectually laziness cannot honestly be seen a reliable description for Agnostic.

Thus any definitions to do with atheism and theism, based upon or following this description of Agnostic are just as likely in error.

Even the fact that this subject comes up for debate reasonably frequently, tells us that.

[AgnosticBoy]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

If Jesus was a messianic figure because he brought back a pure righteousness that's uncorrupted by tradition and legalism, then Huxley is the messiah of reason. He laid out the straight path of reason by freeing it from dogma and beliefs. People don't follow the straight path when they are unwilling to let go of their unproven ideologies (idols).

Repent by not continuing to make unsubstantiated claims against agnostics. Repent!

[Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

If Jesus was a messianic figure because he brought back a pure righteousness that's uncorrupted by tradition and legalism, then Huxley is the messiah of reason. He laid out the straight path of reason by freeing it from dogma and beliefs. People don't follow the straight path when they are unwilling to let go of their unproven ideologies (idols).

Repent by not continuing to make unsubstantiated claims against agnostics. Repent!

Your entire premise of some great divide between agnostics and atheists is flawed, deeply flawed. Both doubt this fairy tale nonsense of an anthropomorphic god. They atheist simply stands up and says, 'It's too ridiculous to give much consideration.' The absolute agnostic does not defend the wacky notion, but says "gee, I dunno. Maybe there are fairies and goblins, but I see no evidence."

For example, to be agnostic about evolution or whether the Earth is spherical is absurd. Are you 'agnostic' about the moon being made of green cheese? A flat Earth, or one 6000 years old, or the God portrayed in the Bible are not just highly improbable, they are absurd.

[William]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

If Jesus was a messianic figure because he brought back a pure righteousness that's uncorrupted by tradition and legalism, then Huxley is the messiah of reason. He laid out the straight path of reason by freeing it from dogma and beliefs. People don't follow the straight path when they are unwilling to let go of their unproven ideologies (idols).

Repent by not continuing to make unsubstantiated claims against agnostics. Repent!

Your entire premise of some great divide between agnostics and atheists is flawed, deeply flawed. Both doubt this fairy tale nonsense of an anthropomorphic god. They atheist simply stands up and says, 'It's too ridiculous to give much consideration.' The absolute agnostic does not defend the wacky notion, but says "gee, I dunno. Maybe there are fairies and goblins, but I see no evidence."

For example, to be agnostic about evolution or whether the Earth is spherical is absurd. Are you 'agnostic' about the moon being made of green cheese? A flat Earth, or one 6000 years old, or the God portrayed in the Bible are not just highly improbable, they are absurd.

As is evident, certain atheists make the positive claims, which is unlike agnostics, who make neither positive nor negative claims.

Sure "I lack belief in gods" should be a neutral position. Clearly with some atheists, it is not.

Even that stories within the bible regarding the nature of The Creator seem absurd, do not amount to evidence that we exist in a universe which was not created, and that is what differentiates atheists from agnostics.

All in all I understand that calling oneself an 'atheist' is no more - probably less - relevant than calling oneself a 'male' or 'female'.

Some atheists seem to want to elevate atheism to some kind of 'best' position...so what if you lack belief in gods?

As soon as an atheist proceeds to explain why they lack belief in gods, it becomes apparent that it is not because they are agnostic...

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 17 by William]

Are you 'open minded' or 'agnostic' about the existence of invisible unicorns? Goblins? The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster?

“Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.�

― Emmett F. Fields

"Agnosticism, (from Greek agn�stos, “unknowable�), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism

In the popular view agnosticism has incorrectly come to have a narrow definition about mere skepticism about religious belief and rejection of tradition Christian beliefs.

[wiploc]

As is evident, certain atheists make the positive claims, which is unlike agnostics, who make neither positive nor negative claims.

Agnostics make claims. Strong agnostics tend to say that theists and strong atheists are all wrong, that nobody will ever know whether gods exist, and that anybody who disagrees with strong atheism is stupid or perverse.

Sure "I lack belief in gods" should be a neutral position.

There's no "should" to it.

Weak atheists and strong atheists both lack belief in gods. Strong atheism isn't neutral.

Let's coin a term, NSA (not strong atheist) for everyone who is either a theist or a weak atheist. These people (including the theists) lack belief in the nonexistence of gods. Would you say NSA should be a neutral position?

Clearly with some atheists, it is not.

Right. Many people who lack belief in gods are not neutral about it.

Even that stories within the bible regarding the nature of The Creator seem absurd, do not amount to evidence that we exist in a universe which was not created, and that is what differentiates atheists from agnostics.

No, it's not.

Atheists lack belief in the existence of gods.

Agnostics don't know whether gods exist.

Most atheists are agnostic. I don't know whether most theists are agnostic. My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. I assume that means she was agnostic. She believed that gods exist, but she didn't know for sure.

It can be illuminating to look at the edge cases, agnostics who are not atheists, and atheists who are not agnostic.

Many theists are agnostic without being atheist. They believe that gods exist, but they don't know that for sure.

A few atheists aren't agnostic. I met one in Houston in the seventies. He insisted that science had proven that gods don't exist. He was a gnostic theist.

Some atheists seem to want to elevate atheism to some kind of 'best' position...so what if you lack belief in gods?

Pretty common with all positions, don't you think?

As soon as an atheist proceeds to explain why they lack belief in gods, it becomes apparent that it is not because they are agnostic...

That's not true.

[Mithrae]

If you want a simple normalized database (everybody fits in a category, and nobody fits in more than one category), then consider doing it like this:

A. Theists are people who believe that gods do exist.
B. Strong atheists are people who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

You don't have to use those labels, but those are good categories.
Then we can have another simple normalized database if we want to talk about knowledge instead of belief:

The gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
The agnostics (everybody else) don't know whether gods exist.

Why is 'belief' so important as to be a primary classification tool? It seems like a potentially vague term; how validly can it even be used as a binary state to begin with? I can see why some Christians might think that belief is an important distinction between the saved and the unsaved, and I've seen some atheists promoting a 'lack of belief' definition with a view to claiming babies and the like for the atheist fold. But tribalistic tendencies such as those aside, I don't think it's very useful or helpful to encourage a theist/atheist kind of binary thinking. Recognizing agnosticism as a kind of middle way between theism and atheism, which I suspect most folk still do, at least lends itself towards a simple three- or even five-point evaluation of folks' views (agnostic, agnostic theist or atheist, and unqualified theist/atheist) without trying to introduce fancy new terminology. Though personally I think it'd be great if people got into the habit of estimating their confidence in a conclusion in percentile terms, not that it makes much difference from a five-point scale (~20%) except at the low and high ends. I wonder how many "weak atheists" would allow even a 5 or 10% possibility for the existence of a god who spoke to some ancient Hebrews/Christians or caused some of the phenomena attributed to it?