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.

[William]

My reasoning is correct as far as I have mapped it out.

Perhaps you might like to explain your claim regarding these major flaws you see in my reasoning....

I already have. You claim there are no grown-up atheists. There are in fact many of us. If your reasoning leads to a conclusion that denies this reality, it is flawed in at least one, but perhaps many ways.


Tcg

I see. You took my original words out of context in order to then come to that conclusion.

Perhaps you misunderstood the original.

I will try again.

If the premise is that all babies are atheists, then there are therefore no real atheists, apart from babies, because everyone shifts from that position, regardless of what labels they wish to assign to themselves and everyone else.

Essentially...there are no grown-up atheists...

I was not arguing that there are not those grownups who call themselves atheists. I was arguing that in order that the premise is true, there should be no grownups calling themselves atheists.

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by Tcg]

The clear explanation that atheists are those who lack belief in god/gods is to help others understand what it means to be an atheist not to force those confused about this clear explanation to identify as an atheist.

The point being, the definition doesn't bring clarity when folk try to claim that all babies are atheists, and that premise - as has been shown - leads to the confusion.

Oddly, some view atheists as being on some mission to bolster the number of atheists by forcing that identity on others.

It appears to be that way because of the 'all babies are atheists' and 'all agnostics are weak atheists'.

One can understand how such claims can be seen to appear to be fudging the numbers.

When people tell me they are atheist, am I supposed to respond with 'strong or weak' as if I am asking them what type of coffee they prefer.

If they tell me they are 'weak' I can reply "Oh - you are agnostic not atheist".

If they tell me they are 'strong' I can say "Oh, you are non-theist, not theist".

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by wiploc]

Ultimately lacking belief in gods as "atheist" is only relevant to ignorance if it is accepted that babies are all born ignorant.

Again, you've lost me. I don't understand the above sentence. I suspect you left out words.

If one accepts the premise that all babies are atheists and if one accepts that all babies are ignorant then one accepts that all atheists are ignorant.

If you want to call one of the categories "ignorant," it would be the agnostics, category Y.

Not if the premise is that all babies are atheists.

I don't know why you say that. I'm an atheist.

What I wrote was "There are therefore no real atheists, apart from babies, because everyone shifts from that position, regardless of what labels they wish to assign to themselves and everyone else."

You accept - for now - that you are an 'atheist'. That is what you label yourself as being.

Yet, you also accept that you are no longer a baby, because you have shifted from that position of ignorance.

Yet, here you are referring to yourself as an atheist, even though you have obviously shifted from that position.

What you are is a non-theist, if indeed you are strongly attracted to the belief that you do not exist within a creation and therefore there is no creator.

Otherwise you are either theist, agnostic theist or agnostic non-theist .

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Mithrae]

Out of interest, how many babies have you asked whether they are theists or not, as William perhaps facetiously suggested in post #28?

Yes I was being waggish in the face of the slightly absurd question from
Zzyzx in post#24...

Obviously we cannot conduct such experiment with babies as they have not yet developed their abilities to communicate with language.

By the time they do so, they will have also developed their ability to grasp theist notions and will shift accordingly from a position of ignorance (premise being that of 'atheist') to something more appropriate to their growth and will choose a position which aligns with their thinking on such matters.

Based upon the premise "All babies are atheists" hey are no longer babies. They are no longer atheists.

[William]

I don't really get this weak and strong atheist stuff. To me it's a bit like describing some women as weakly non-pregnant or strongly non-pregnant.

They either are or they are not.

The clarity of identifying as a non-theist is more sensible (than strong/weak atheist) as it aligns with the fact of human maturing to the point where the individual has made a choice based upon information which comes their way and how they interpreted said information.

[William]

Perhaps a slightly less broad definition of atheist such as "one who expresses a lack of belief in gods" would be linguistically and functionally viable? I'm sure there are at least some folk who consider gods' existence a 50/50 proposition - who most folk would ordinarily consider agnostic - who nevertheless identify themselves as atheists. In fact for my first year or so on the forum I myself joined the atheist usergroup as a 'weak atheist,' though even then I doubt I would have considered gods' existence to be below 30 or 40% probability. Even if only a relatively small number, that at least establishes a beach-head, so to speak, of self-identification among that group. Granted, there's still plenty of neutral agnostics who might not like being considered atheists - though at that point perhaps it really is a matter of mere semantics - and theistic agnostics who don't "believe" in god for whom the atheist designation would be obviously inappropriate. But at least such a definition would avoid the gross conflation of lacking belief with lacking any concept - the glossing over of understanding and intention - along with any strange assumptions about the unknowable mental stance of infants.

An agnostic is neutral by their position, even if they lean toward theism or non-theism by the persuasion of the argument of the interpreted evidence.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 42 by wiploc]

Babies are weak atheists.

But isn't that what agnostics are referred to as?

Category A is people who believe that gods do exist.

Category B is people who believe that gods do not exist.

Category C is everybody else.

Babies are in category C. Some people call members of category C weak atheists. Some call them agnostics. So the answer to your question is yes, many people call babies agnostics.

If we look at gnosticism/agnosticism, babies qualify as agnostics there too.

It's just nice to be able to distinguish, to know whether the label refers to category C or category Y. This is why many of us call people in category C weak atheists.

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by wiploc]

Babies are weak atheists.

But isn't that what agnostics are referred to as?

Category A is people who believe that gods do exist.

Category B is people who believe that gods do not exist.

Category C is everybody else.

Babies are in category C. Some people call members of category C weak atheists. Some call them agnostics. So the answer to your question is yes, many people call babies agnostics.

If we look at gnosticism/agnosticism, babies qualify as agnostics there too.

It's just nice to be able to distinguish, to know whether the label refers to category C or category Y. This is why many of us call people in category C weak atheists.

Lets imagine that I call myself a Theist Agnostic...or Agnostic Theist if one prefers that way of saying it.

In regard to your understanding of 'weak' and 'strong', what does that actually mean for you and how you place me in your particular model of a category system?

Position wise, how do you interpret my position, in relation to your position

[Danmark]

Lets imagine that I call myself a Theist Agnostic...or Agnostic Theist if one prefers that way of saying it.

I suppose you could call yourself anything you want; dog boy, animal plant, or vegetable mineral. Not sure what that demonstrates... other than being hopelessly confused.

[William]

[Replying to post 56 by wiploc]

Babies are in category C. Some people call members of category C weak atheists. Some call them agnostics. So the answer to your question is yes, many people call babies agnostics.

If we look at gnosticism/agnosticism, babies qualify as agnostics there too.

The problem with this model is that it can easily be interpreted that these are ignorant positions inferring that of all the positions, only the non-theist position has matured.

Indeed, often that appears to be the attitude of the non-theist which comes through...that they - through their position - are the best way forward in terms of why these positions exist in the first place. Because of that argument.

Gnosticism, btw, is not a position which should be included in the main list as it is generally known as a branch of theism. Just another additional potential confusion that the model you are arguing for, offers.

As an Antagonistic Theist, I see no valuse in that. Your model does not seem to have a place for me or my kind....yet here we are - existing.