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]

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]

The addition of the idea of 'weak' and 'strong' atheist appears to be for the purpose of stacking the stats, but these 'branches' are unnecessary/false as atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods so there is no 'weak' or 'strong' in the lack of that. One lacks something or one does not lack something. One does not say "I mostly lack belief in gods" and remains atheist, because to be an atheist one simply has to - totally - lack belief in gods.

[Tcg]

One lacks something or one does not lack something.

Exactly. It is binary.

One does not say "I mostly lack belief in gods" and remains atheist, because to be an atheist one simply has to - totally - lack belief in gods.

This is also correct. All atheists totally lack belief in god/gods. The difference is that in addition to lacking belief in god/gods, a strong atheist possess the belief that god/gods don't exist.

There is no stacking of the stats, as humorous as that concept is, because all atheists lack belief in god/gods. For some to also possess belief that god/gods don't exist adds nothing to the total number of atheists.

It's a shame too because if it did I could increase the amount of my weekly bonus check from "Atheists United to Dominate the World."


Tcg

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 21 by William]

[Replying to post 22 by Tcg]

When Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach wrote in 1772 that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God" it seems to have been more a case of fighting for recognition, contrary to some biblical passages, that atheism is not a perverse, unnatural or "criminal" state of being. Even in the 21st century I suppose there are still some religious parents who could benefit from a reminder that without their indoctrination efforts their own children might grow up as atheists too. But worthy as such considerations might be in some circumstances, it's obviously more of a rhetorical/propaganda point than a useful semantic or philosophical one: There's a pretty major and obvious distinction between having no concept or understanding of gods (which characterizes embryos, fish, rocks and so on), and the state of understanding but not believing (which characterizes 100% of self-identified atheists), a major distinction which the 'lack of belief' definition tries to gloss over. Atheists tend to be annoyed, quite rightly, when religious folk try to paint unwanted labels onto them ("You're just angry at God"), so there's obviously cause for concern about the push among some atheists to put their own label onto others, onto people who can't comprehend what they're talking about or even onto agnostics who explicitly do not consider themselves atheists ("Oh no, you really are, you just don't understand what atheism means in my definition"). I'd hazard a guestimate of around 50-80% confidence that a god of some kind exists, and don't mind the labels agnostic or agnostic theist, but proponents of the 'lack of belief' definition would be trying to tell me that I'm an atheist because that vague/binary term isn't one which I would use to describe my views

Weak atheist can be a useful term for those who identify themselves as such, who reject belief in gods but don't claim a positive belief that there are no gods - there may even be some imperceptible difference between 'weak atheist' and 'agnostic atheist' for all I know. But when used as a would-be category for "everyone else" it does look more like stacking the stats in a similar way that religious and political movements sometimes do.

[Zzyzx]

.
Are babies born believing in gods or do they lack belief in gods?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 24 by Zzyzx]

It seems quite likely that babies do indeed hold some conception of an all-powerful provider/caregiver (or more precisely one without any identified limits). The mother-goddess archetype is so ubiquitous and powerful as to have a profound influence even within 'monotheistic' Catholicism. But - if you really think it's important - we can probably say with some confidence that embryos share with fish, rocks and so on the characteristic of lacking any concept of gods: Or at least, we can say that with confidence soon as we prove that they do not have an incorporeal soul from their Pre-Conception Existence

[Zzyzx]

.
Basis of mother-goddess?

The sucking reflex is probably one of the most important reflexes your newborn has. It is paired with the rooting reflex, in which a newborn searches for a food source. When he finds it, the sucking reflex allows him to suck and swallow the milk. https://www.verywellfamily.com/sucking-reflex-290104

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by Mithrae]

Yes. The idea that all babies are born atheists may indeed have been a reaction to religious persecution way back when - as a means of presenting an argument which might appear at face value to be valid.

Perhaps all babies are born non-theists, and from there move into their various chosen positions of atheist and theist and agnostic, once they develop enough in order to make those choices.

One could argue that atheists are 'strong non-theists' and agnostics are 'weak non-theists' or 'weak theists' depending on where they sit percentage-wise in relation to the question of Creation/Creator.

One of the other arguments I used to see a lot from strong non-theists was that theists were atheists in relation to belief in other religions gods. Thankfully that fallacy seems to have been left behind as an argument. Perhaps too, the 'everyone is born an atheist' argument will end up the same way.

Theists who do not believe in the ideas of other religions gods, are still theists.

I think understanding that all atheists are strong non-theists allows for there to be weak non-theist and weak theist agnostics and tidies things up in relation to that, because a 'weak atheist' as an agnostic, cannot also be a 'weak theist' as an agnostic.

So we have strong non-theists and strong theists and weak agnostics (who can be theist or non-theist), which really denotes scale of attraction rather than strength or weakness of position.

Non-theist itself is a neutral position, as it does not encourage either a strong or weak attraction.

[William]

.
Are babies born believing in gods or do they lack belief in gods?

The best way to find out is to ask babies and see what they say.

Do this enough times to build up some serious data, and settle with whatever answer is most expressed.

[Zzyzx]

.

Theists who do not believe in the ideas of other religions gods, are still theists.

With all the effort to divide Atheists, to be consistent let's divide Theists too.

1. Strong Theist (fanatic) -- believes only one god exists, their favorite
2. Medium Theist (mainline) -- allows that other gods may exist but is doubtful and demeaning
3. Weak Theist (liberal) -- respects the belief of others may have in competing gods

[Zzyzx]

.

Are babies born believing in gods or do they lack belief in gods?

The best way to find out is to ask babies and see what they say.

Do this enough times to build up some serious data, and settle with whatever answer is most expressed.

That sounds like something a Theist would propose as being rational.

If babies (lacking ability to speak yet) are asked if they believe in gods and do not say anything, is that indication they do not believe in gods?