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 29 by 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.

It isn't about trying to 'divide atheists'. It is about coming up with a categorical system which best reflects the actual reality, so that confusion created through vague and misleading descriptions are dealt with.

Clearly, one of those misleading ideas which have sprung from the use of such descriptive as 'strong' and 'weak' are that these represent strength of position. They do not.

What they are supposed to represent is attraction.

This is why the OP describes agnostics as maybe the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

That is clearly derogatory in that it sees the agnostic position as one of weakness of character - some kind of laziness.

I have witnessed that kind of non-critical thinking from the mouths of so-called 'strong atheists'. It is about informing such, that the word 'critical' when used with the word 'thinking' isn't about how better one can criticize another position through belittling techniques.

The word for that is "bullying".

[wiploc]

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?

When we talk theism vs atheism, belief is our topic.

It seems like a potentially vague term; how validly can it even be used as a binary state to begin with?

You either believe or you don't.

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.

We're just telling you what we mean by the word. Don't assume we have ulterior motives.

The actual motive, in my case, at least, is clarity of communication.

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.

I've read that the two basic functions of thinking are generalization and differentiation. We either clump things together, recognizing their similarities, or separate them apart, recognizing their differences. If so, then binary thinking is fundamentally important.

You either stopped at that light or you didn't. You either need to wear a mask or you don't. You are either a theist or you're not.

I don't believe you can get thru a day without 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.

You can still have your three categories:

A. Theists believe that gods do exist.
B. Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
C. Weak atheists (what you call "agnostics") don't believe either way.

Regardless of whether you call group C "weak atheists" or "agnostics," we still have to deal with the distinction based on what people think they know:

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

In your preferred system, the word "agnostic" refers to both categories C and Y. So people are endlessly having to interrupt their conversations to say, "No, I was talking about the other kind of agnostic," or, "Yes, I was talking about that kind of agnostic." It's tiring.

And it goes on for years, never getting better.

What makes it better is having separate labels for the two categories.

-

"Fancy new terminology"? If you look in the OED, you'll find that calling all non-theists "atheists" is an ancient practice.

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.

That could be useful in some circumstances. I've been known to say that I have a "lightly held belief" that a historical Jesus was somehow involved in the origins of Christianity.

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?

Many. Very many.

And if you change the name of category C to "Agnostics," the answer remains the same.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by wiploc]

You either believe or you don't.

The evidence supports there is a 3rd option.

"Suspending belief"

That is the Grey-Area to your black and white/either-or present calibrated statement.

The idea "You either believe or you don't" is fallacy.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by wiploc]

Regardless of whether you call group C "weak atheists" or "agnostics," we still have to deal with the distinction based on what people think they know:

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

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

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 grow-up atheists...

[Mithrae]

"Fancy new terminology"? If you look in the OED, you'll find that calling all non-theists "atheists" is an ancient practice.

I don't have the OED handy, but Wikipedia suggests quite the opposite; that its Greek origins were as a pejorative term for rejection of (or by) the 'true' gods, even being applied against Christians. Same with its earliest known usages in the early modern period in French and in English, and the earliest recorded non-pejorative self-applications of the term likewise were cases of active disbelief:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
  In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". . . .
  
  The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[134] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[135] and again in 1571.[136] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[137] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[138] and appears in English about 1587.[139] . . . .
  
  Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[16] Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[146] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[45]

Baron d'Holbach's rhetorical point aside, as far as I can find the earliest outline of ideas such as 'implicit' atheism and 'weak' atheism occur in the 1970s from philosophers such as Antony Flew and George H. Smith. The weak/strong distinction seems like a potentially useful one - for use among those who reject belief in gods - to easily clarify whether or not they also express a positive belief that there are no gods. But there seems to be no reason for indulging the invention of 'implicit' atheism, as far as I can tell, besides the tendency noted above of stacking the stats in favour of one's own position. I would find it equally irrational and objectionable to label babies as theists.

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.

We're just telling you what we mean by the word. Don't assume we have ulterior motives.

The actual motive, in my case, at least, is clarity of communication.

I didn't say anything about your personal motives, but I've seen too many threads and posts on this forum over the years trying to claim atheism as some kind of 'default position' to think that this novel, convoluted and lop-sided categorization scheme has been promoted so vigorously - almost exclusively by avowed atheists - out of a mild objective interest in semantics and communication.

If someone on the street asks whether you believe in God and you tell them that you're agnostic, do you really expect them to ask "Ah, so are you an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?" No, of course not; in common usage 'agnostic' is a position between or distinct from atheism and theism, easily visualized as a single scale of belief or disbelief in god. The two-part system of neat boxes which you're describing confuses communication rather than aiding it, without adding anything of value that I can see.

Why is 'belief' so important as to be a primary classification tool?

When we talk theism vs atheism, belief is our topic.

It seems like a potentially vague term; how validly can it even be used as a binary state to begin with?

You either believe or you don't.

It's like trying to introduce an exobiology classification on the basis that "You either believe there is life in nearby star systems or you don't." Yes, at one end of the scale there is a state of 'belief' and somewhere down the line there is a state where belief is absent, but that doesn't justify the assumption that there is some kind of clear demarcation between the two and nor does it support the validity or utility of that question as the primary classification tool to begin with. Applying binary classification to a probabilistic question seems like a fool's errand from start to finish; so inasmuch as we do need and use particular labels for the sake of convenience, they should simply and clearly fall along that scale (eg. strong atheists, weak & agnostic atheists, agnostics, agnostic theists and theists).

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 32 by wiploc]

Regardless of whether you call group C "weak atheists" or "agnostics," we still have to deal with the distinction based on what people think they know:

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

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

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 grow-up atheists...

There are plenty of us. Clearly there is some major flaw/flaws in the steps that have led to this conclusion.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by wiploc]

Regardless of whether you call group C "weak atheists" or "agnostics," we still have to deal with the distinction based on what people think they know:

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

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

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 grow-up atheists...

There are plenty of us. Clearly there is some major flaw/flaws in the steps that have led to this conclusion.


Tcg

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....

[Tcg]

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

I wouldn't try to tell you that you are anything other than what you claim to be. 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.

Oddly, some view atheists as being on some mission to bolster the number of atheists by forcing that identity on others. It's as if we are all Gomez Addams monitoring the tickertape to make sure we don't fall behind in some global accounting system. It's one of the most humorous misconceptions I've ever encountered.


Tcg

[Mithrae]

I wouldn't try to tell you that you are anything other than what you claim to be. 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.

Oddly, some view atheists as being on some mission to bolster the number of atheists by forcing that identity on others. It's as if we are all Gomez Addams monitoring the tickertape to make sure we don't fall behind in some global accounting system. It's one of the most humorous misconceptions I've ever encountered.

It would be humorous if it were not so common to see that type of approach in other arenas. I can hardly glance at single thread on my political forum without seeing someone commenting to the effect that most Americans/most people agree with such-and-such a position and it's only Trumpists/leftists/whatever who are the aberrant minority. Religious folk likewise emphasize on occasion the fact that so many people believe in God; that believing in God is simply normal. The perception of atheism as a radical stance held by only a tiny fringe minority has been held historically and continues to be held by some folk today - not least by Americans with their "in God we trust" and prior decades' demonization of "godless commies" and a recent president's "I'm not sure atheists should be considered citizens": So there would seem to be an obvious incentive there for some atheists to engage in the same kind of numbers-boosting antics that we see from all kinds of other groups. Is there some reason to imagine that atheism confers any kind of immunity from such temptation?

But more to the point, while such an approach would obviously be quite limited in numerical/demographic terms, we certainly have seen (including often on this forum) attempts to paint atheism as the norm or 'default' and theism as an aberration in chronological terms, via a definition (and dubious assumption) claiming that we're all born atheists.

Seems to me that the most natural and sensible approach when talking about folks' stance on gods would be to accept the common usage of 'agnostic' as being a position between or somewhat distinct from theist and atheist; and if we ever need to talk about everyone else who haven't identified or given any thought to their stance on gods, we could use the category "everyone else." Instead we see the proposal from Wiploc and others in various threads that we put both neutral agnostics and 'everyone else' into an atheist category. What would you call that, if not padding the numbers or stacking the stats?



It really would be interesting to see a survey of self-identified weak atheists answering roughly what probabilities they would assign to A) the existence of a god who spoke to some ancient Hebrews/Christian or caused some of the phenomena attributed to it and B) the existence of any kind of intelligent creator. Granted my perspective is skewed by interactions mostly with atheists whose interests include spending many hours arguing against religion and gods' existence on debate forums, but I'd be quite surprised if the numbers strayed above 30% for either question. In other words I suspect that most self-identified weak atheists hold a suspicion that gods don't exist similar to if not stronger than my suspicion that they do... they just don't quite reach the level of "believing" (let alone incurring any perceived burden of proof by asserting!) that there are no gods. In fact if memory serves I've seen some 'weak' atheists propose that gods' existence is less than 1% likely in their view.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 32 by wiploc]

You either believe or you don't.

The evidence supports there is a 3rd option.

"Suspending belief"

That is the Grey-Area to your black and white/either-or present calibrated statement.

The idea "You either believe or you don't" is fallacy.

I certainly agree that there is ground between the theists and the strong atheists. But I don't see how there can be ground between theists and weak atheists, or between strong atheists and weak atheists.

"Suspending belief," might describe someone who used to be a theist but then became a weak atheist. (Or who used to be a strong atheist and is now a weak atheist.)

In any case, I don't understand your post; it doesn't make sense to me.

Perhaps you can elaborate?