Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

[Tcg]

.
I recently heard this definition of atheism:

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists."

I think it is clearer than the one I usually espouse which is that atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. The only issue I have with is its singular nature. Perhaps, Atheism is the condition of not believing that any gods or deities exist, would be better.

Is this a good definition?


Tcg

[Kylie]

Then since you seem to be able to grasp the concept that "knowledge" doesn't need to mean "things you can provide irrefutable proof for," I fail to see why you are so insistent that a believer can't KNOW that God exists.

I'm not, actually.

Philosophers define 'knowledge' as a justified true belief without any defeaters. So, if God exists, then people with a justified belief that God exists do, in fact, have knowledge. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then people with a justified belief that God does not exist have knowledge.

The overarching point I'm trying to make in our discussion is that, when it comes to controversial issues like God's existence -- on which reasonable people can disagree -- it's not useful to categorize the various positions in terms of "knowledge." Instead we should categorize the positions simply in terms of belief, which is what we normally do with controversial topics.

I would have hoped that it would be obvious by know that a believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists consider themselves to have knowledge, and an unbeliever who has what they consider a justified belief that God does not exist would also consider themselves to have knowledge.

So, if someone says that they "know that God exists" because they "just feel that it must be true," would you classify them as a "gnostic theist" because they used the word "know" in this loose sense?

If they claim that what they have is knowledge, yes.

But that's the thing: Is "just feeling that it must be true" a straight-forward claim to having knowledge?

Let me remind you, again, that in your first post (which you have not retracted) you said "just feeling that it must be true" is not what you meant by "knowledge." I think you were right the first time.

My response to the previous part covers this.

As I've repeatedly said, this is NOT about conforming to some strict interpretation of what "knowledge" is.

Okay, but at some point your scheme has to define what it means by "gnostic."

The chart you posted above describes a "gnostic theist" as someone who is "100% certain there is a God." But, if pressed, would our hypothetical person here who "just feeling that it must be true" actually say they are 100% certain? What if they're only 99% certain? Are they now an "agnostic theist," even though they uttered the magic word "know"?

It seems to me that your scheme is fraught with these kinds of difficulties. It's not measuring knowledge objectively, on that we both agree. But I also don't think it can consistently measure subjective claims to knowledge. Rather, it's taking people's varied expressions of psychological conviction and misleadingly labeling those as "knowledge" or "100% certainty."

Again, my response in the first part of this post covers it.

A believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic theist.

A non-believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God doesn't exist considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic atheist.

If you are just as sure that there is no God as you are that there isn't an elephant in your front yard, then that is a pretty high level of certainty! There is no good reason, then, for you to not accept the proposition that God doesn't exist.

Yes there is, because as I have said so often I'm losing count, there's a big difference between "I have no belief there is a God," and "I have belief there is no God."

I agree there is a difference between those two things. But that cannot, in itself, be the reason you won't affirm a proposition. Your comment here is little more than a non-sequitur, then.

If you agree that there is a difference between them, why are you insisting we ignore that difference?

You are demanding I say, "Meh, close enough,"

On the contrary, if your description above truly reflects your perspective, you have way more than enough.

Let's back up here a second:

I believe that there are no elephants in my front yard. I'm looking out my front window right now, in fact, and can see for myself that there are no elephants. Do you believe that there are no elephants in your front yard?

(Note: I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain, but simply whether you believe there are no elephants in your yard. Also, I'm not "demanding" you do anything. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in your argument.)

I would say that "there are elephants in my yard" is a belief that I lack. However, that does not mean that "there are NO elephants in my yard" is a belief I hold. I can not currently see my yard, so I do not have access to the information I require to claim a reasonable knowledge.

That doesn't make sense.

Both people don't believe in God, right? So surely they would be classified as "atheist" in your scheme. Neither claims to know that God does not exist, right? So then they must be "agnostic atheist" in your scheme. In other words, your scheme "just lumps them together under the same umbrella."

Even if we accept your (frankly rather labored) explanation here that these two positions somehow fall on the axes themselves, and so don't get assigned any of the four labels, that would mean that your scheme has no description (no label) for these positions, and so doesn't "describe" them at all, let alone "easily."

Hence why I said they would be in the CENTER, and not off on the THEIST or ATHEIST sides.

Sorry, but this comment is nonsensical as a rebuttal to my critique here.

I don't see how. Such a person would not be on the theist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be likely, and they are not on the atheist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be unlikely. Thus, a person who considers the existence of God to be unknowable would be right in the middle.

I think the issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold is an important one. As I've said, I think there's a big difference between an [a]theist who is an atheist because they were never raised to be a believer and an atheist who is an atheist because they used to be a believer and then critically examined the arguments for and against and gave up their faith.

Okay, but your scheme doesn't capture this distinction either.

It comes closer than your suggestions.

Well, no. Your scheme doesn't describe people as being "raised an atheist" or "former believer," or what have you. So quite clearly it's not capturing this distinction at all.

Neither does yours, and yet if you are criticizing my scheme for not clarifying this, you obviously think it's an important component.

In any case, my scheme was only designed to reflect a person's CURRENT position. Why do you suddenly claim that their past should now be considered?

[oldbadger]

No! No! ..the Bager has morphed into ...a Gnostic agnostic.

Well?......... so.....?
Come on.... Gnostic is all about the mystical, the spiritual, isn't it?

You don't need a degree in gnostic awareness to understand that you've been dead before and will be again....... it's simple stuff, and it's simple stuff that rings all the bells.

But I like the idea.........
Intellectual: What are you, actually?
Badger: Gnostic-ignostic, mate.
A baffled intellectual moves away to the next group.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah, I get it. Like the atheist says 'I don't do religion' rather than use the term 'atheist' which can draw a crowd of the Faithful baying for atheist blood. Retreat under a smokscreen; good tactics.

[oldbadger]

Ah, I get it. Like the atheist says 'I don't do religion' rather than use the term 'atheist' which can draw a crowd of the Faithful baying for atheist blood. Retreat under a smokscreen; good tactics.

Real faithful don't bay for atheist blood, they wanna save ya. You're mixing up the local vicar with Dracula!

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah, I get it. Like the atheist says 'I don't do religion' rather than use the term 'atheist' which can draw a crowd of the Faithful baying for atheist blood. Retreat under a smokscreen; good tactics.

Real faithful don't bay for atheist blood, they wanna save ya. You're mixing up the local vicar with Dracula!

Kidding and possibly not kiddin' I don't believe that theists ever care about 'Saving' an atheist. It is more about removing someone who does not belong to their party, and removing pesky doubts and questions. Converting them is the best but deleting them (one way or another) will do. And I can already come up with the justifications for an atheist dying on the hands of theist deconversion squads before he could repent and be saved, so I'm sure they can...In the past I had a lot of Theist (or anti -atheist, at least) accusations of atheists wanting to load Christians into cattle trucks and ship them all off to prison camps and (I may hypothetically be wrong, though in practical terms I'm always right) I saw this as not just a polemical canard (with or without curry sauce) but a betrayal of their intent by Projection; it showed what they would do with atheists if they ever got the power.

[oldbadger]

Kidding and possibly not kiddin' I don't believe that theists ever care about 'Saving' an atheist. It is more about removing someone who does not belong to their party, and removing pesky doubts and questions. Converting them is the best but deleting them (one way or another) will do. And I can already come up with the justifications for an atheist dying on the hands of theist deconversion squads before he could repent and be saved, so I'm sure they can...In the past I had a lot of Theist (or anti -atheist, at least) accusations of atheists wanting to load Christians into cattle trucks and ship them all off to prison camps and (I may hypothetically be wrong, though in practical terms I'm always right) I saw this as not just a polemical canard (with or without curry sauce) but a betrayal of their intent by Projection; it showed what they would do with atheists if they ever got the power.

I only have to think of the JWs who have door-knocked to introduce their faith throughout my life to know that for many Christians, evangelising is at the very heart of their being.
As far as deletion goes I can think of instances where (particular) theism has tried to delete all but itself including any other theist outsiders.
As far as deletion goes I've been reading about the treatment of Muslims in China and JWs in Russia.

Self righteous judgement finds its home in so many different minds and hearts, T.

[historia]

Philosophers define 'knowledge' as a justified true belief without any defeaters. So, if God exists, then people with a justified belief that God exists do, in fact, have knowledge. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then people with a justified belief that God does not exist have knowledge.

The overarching point I'm trying to make in our discussion is that, when it comes to controversial issues like God's existence -- on which reasonable people can disagree -- it's not useful to categorize the various positions in terms of "knowledge." Instead we should categorize the positions simply in terms of belief, which is what we normally do with controversial topics.

I would have hoped that it would be obvious by know that a believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists consider themselves to have knowledge, and an unbeliever who has what they consider a justified belief that God does not exist would also consider themselves to have knowledge.

But, in that case, the person who believes in God because she "just feels that it must be true" ought to be classified as an "agnostic theist," since just having feelings does not properly constitute having a justified belief.

And yet, just a few posts ago you classified this same person as a "gnostic theist," even though before that you said "just feeling that it must be true" is not what you meant by knowledge.

And that demonstrates my point. This person hasn't changed their view regarding the proposition of God's existence, yet they can easily flip back and forth between categories in your scheme depending on how you or I or they define knowledge itself. That means your scheme is not consistently measuring people's beliefs, since two people with the same attitude or opinion on God's existence can wind-up in different categories.

The chart you posted above describes a "gnostic theist" as someone who is "100% certain there is a God." But, if pressed, would our hypothetical person here who "just feeling that it must be true" actually say they are 100% certain? What if they're only 99% certain? Are they now an "agnostic theist," even though they uttered the magic word "know"?

It seems to me that your scheme is fraught with these kinds of difficulties. It's not measuring knowledge objectively, on that we both agree. But I also don't think it can consistently measure subjective claims to knowledge. Rather, it's taking people's varied expressions of psychological conviction and misleadingly labeling those as "knowledge" or "100% certainty."

Again, my response in the first part of this post covers it.

A believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic theist.

A non-believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God doesn't exist considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic atheist.

So the chart and your earlier comments suggesting knowledge entails being 100% certain are wrong, then?

It would be helpful to me, and possibly other readers of our discussion, if you could explicitly retract old, abandoned definitions when introducing new ones.

You are demanding I say, "Meh, close enough,"

On the contrary, if your description above truly reflects your perspective, you have way more than enough.

Let's back up here a second:

I believe that there are no elephants in my front yard. I'm looking out my front window right now, in fact, and can see for myself that there are no elephants. Do you believe that there are no elephants in your front yard?

(Note: I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain, but simply whether you believe there are no elephants in your yard. Also, I'm not "demanding" you do anything. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in your argument.)

I would say that "there are elephants in my yard" is a belief that I lack. However, that does not mean that "there are NO elephants in my yard" is a belief I hold. I can not currently see my yard, so I do not have access to the information I require to claim a reasonable knowledge.

Feel free to go to your front yard to take a look -- I'll wait.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonable knowledge." And, again, I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain.

Are you saying it's unreasonable to believe there are no elephants in your front yard after looking and seeing no elephants in your front yard (and likely being nowhere near an elephant)?

That doesn't make sense.

Both people don't believe in God, right? So surely they would be classified as "atheist" in your scheme. Neither claims to know that God does not exist, right? So then they must be "agnostic atheist" in your scheme. In other words, your scheme "just lumps them together under the same umbrella."

Even if we accept your (frankly rather labored) explanation here that these two positions somehow fall on the axes themselves, and so don't get assigned any of the four labels, that would mean that your scheme has no description (no label) for these positions, and so doesn't "describe" them at all, let alone "easily."

Hence why I said they would be in the CENTER, and not off on the THEIST or ATHEIST sides.

Sorry, but this comment is nonsensical as a rebuttal to my critique here.

I don't see how. Such a person would not be on the theist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be likely, and they are not on the atheist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be unlikely.

Ah, interesting. I've been reliably informed that an atheist is someone who "lacks belief in God." But you're defining an atheist here as someone who thinks God's existence is unlikely. Before I comment further, do you want to change that definition?

Thus, a person who considers the existence of God to be unknowable would be right in the middle.

So they don't get assigned one of the four labels and your scheme can't describe them at all, then?

I think the issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold is an important one. As I've said, I think there's a big difference between an [a]theist who is an atheist because they were never raised to be a believer and an atheist who is an atheist because they used to be a believer and then critically examined the arguments for and against and gave up their faith.

Okay, but your scheme doesn't capture this distinction either.

It comes closer than your suggestions.

Well, no. Your scheme doesn't describe people as being "raised an atheist" or "former believer," or what have you. So quite clearly it's not capturing this distinction at all.

Neither does yours, and yet if you are criticizing my scheme for not clarifying this, you obviously think it's an important component.

In any case, my scheme was only designed to reflect a person's CURRENT position. Why do you suddenly claim that their past should now be considered?

I'm afraid you're simply confused here.

Just following the quoted text above, you can see that you introduced this criticism. You said why a person holds their belief is important, and that there is a big difference between someone raised an atheist and someone who was raised a believer but became an atheist.

In my subsequent replies, I'm simply pointing out that this is an odd point to raise when your scheme doesn't draw this distinction either. This is just a non-sequitur, then.

[William]

[Replying to historia in post #477]

Ah, interesting. I've been reliably informed that an atheist is someone who "lacks belief in God." But you're defining an atheist here as someone who thinks God's existence is unlikely. Before I comment further, do you want to change that definition?

This.



And worse, the confusion as to the definition of atheism, has even been said to be the fault of non-atheists.

[Kylie]

Philosophers define 'knowledge' as a justified true belief without any defeaters. So, if God exists, then people with a justified belief that God exists do, in fact, have knowledge. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then people with a justified belief that God does not exist have knowledge.

The overarching point I'm trying to make in our discussion is that, when it comes to controversial issues like God's existence -- on which reasonable people can disagree -- it's not useful to categorize the various positions in terms of "knowledge." Instead we should categorize the positions simply in terms of belief, which is what we normally do with controversial topics.

I would have hoped that it would be obvious by know that a believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists consider themselves to have knowledge, and an unbeliever who has what they consider a justified belief that God does not exist would also consider themselves to have knowledge.

But, in that case, the person who believes in God because she "just feels that it must be true" ought to be classified as an "agnostic theist," since just having feelings does not properly constitute having a justified belief.

And yet, just a few posts ago you classified this same person as a "gnostic theist," even though before that you said "just feeling that it must be true" is not what you meant by knowledge.

And that demonstrates my point. This person hasn't changed their view regarding the proposition of God's existence, yet they can easily flip back and forth between categories in your scheme depending on how you or I or they define knowledge itself. That means your scheme is not consistently measuring people's beliefs, since two people with the same attitude or opinion on God's existence can wind-up in different categories.

No, that is not my position.

Like you said, a person who believes in God because she "just feels that it must be true", I would classify them an agnostic theist, since they are not making claims to KNOW that God exists.

Feeling that something is true and knowing that something is true are two different things. I can KNOW that something is true, even I feel like it should be wrong.

The chart you posted above describes a "gnostic theist" as someone who is "100% certain there is a God." But, if pressed, would our hypothetical person here who "just feeling that it must be true" actually say they are 100% certain? What if they're only 99% certain? Are they now an "agnostic theist," even though they uttered the magic word "know"?

It seems to me that your scheme is fraught with these kinds of difficulties. It's not measuring knowledge objectively, on that we both agree. But I also don't think it can consistently measure subjective claims to knowledge. Rather, it's taking people's varied expressions of psychological conviction and misleadingly labeling those as "knowledge" or "100% certainty."

Again, my response in the first part of this post covers it.

A believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic theist.

A non-believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God doesn't exist considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic atheist.

So the chart and your earlier comments suggesting knowledge entails being 100% certain are wrong, then?

It would be helpful to me, and possibly other readers of our discussion, if you could explicitly retract old, abandoned definitions when introducing new ones.

A person can believe that they KNOW something and still be wrong. A person can believe they KNOW the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean they are right.

As I've repeatedly said, I am using it as a measure of their own position. It is NOT ever meant to be an objective measure of whether their position is objectively true or not.

You are demanding I say, "Meh, close enough,"

On the contrary, if your description above truly reflects your perspective, you have way more than enough.

Let's back up here a second:

I believe that there are no elephants in my front yard. I'm looking out my front window right now, in fact, and can see for myself that there are no elephants. Do you believe that there are no elephants in your front yard?

(Note: I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain, but simply whether you believe there are no elephants in your yard. Also, I'm not "demanding" you do anything. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in your argument.)

I would say that "there are elephants in my yard" is a belief that I lack. However, that does not mean that "there are NO elephants in my yard" is a belief I hold. I can not currently see my yard, so I do not have access to the information I require to claim a reasonable knowledge.

Feel free to go to your front yard to take a look -- I'll wait.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonable knowledge." And, again, I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain.

Are you saying it's unreasonable to believe there are no elephants in your front yard after looking and seeing no elephants in your front yard (and likely being nowhere near an elephant)?

Ah, but if I go and check, I would be gathering objective proof. This can not be done when it comes to the existence of God.

Again, as I've said countless times, the gnostic measure is a measure of the person's subjective opinion. It does NOT reflect the objective factualness of what they are saying.

A person whop genuinely believes that vaccines cause harm would be a gnostic anti-vaxxer. The term GNOSTIC reflects their position, not the validity of their beliefs.

How many times do I need to make this clear?

That doesn't make sense.

Both people don't believe in God, right? So surely they would be classified as "atheist" in your scheme. Neither claims to know that God does not exist, right? So then they must be "agnostic atheist" in your scheme. In other words, your scheme "just lumps them together under the same umbrella."

Even if we accept your (frankly rather labored) explanation here that these two positions somehow fall on the axes themselves, and so don't get assigned any of the four labels, that would mean that your scheme has no description (no label) for these positions, and so doesn't "describe" them at all, let alone "easily."

Hence why I said they would be in the CENTER, and not off on the THEIST or ATHEIST sides.

Sorry, but this comment is nonsensical as a rebuttal to my critique here.

I don't see how. Such a person would not be on the theist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be likely, and they are not on the atheist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be unlikely.

Ah, interesting. I've been reliably informed that an atheist is someone who "lacks belief in God." But you're defining an atheist here as someone who thinks God's existence is unlikely. Before I comment further, do you want to change that definition?

Why do you think the two are mutually incompatible?

I am an atheist. I lack a belief in God. I think it is unlikely that God exists.

I lack a belief in God BECAUSE OF THE FACT that I think God is highly unlikely to exist.

Thus, a person who considers the existence of God to be unknowable would be right in the middle.

So they don't get assigned one of the four labels and your scheme can't describe them at all, then?

If you are so bothered by it, please feel free to assign numbers for the horizontal and vertical axes.

A person in the exact center would be 0,0, for example.

I think the issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold is an important one. As I've said, I think there's a big difference between an [a]theist who is an atheist because they were never raised to be a believer and an atheist who is an atheist because they used to be a believer and then critically examined the arguments for and against and gave up their faith.

Okay, but your scheme doesn't capture this distinction either.

It comes closer than your suggestions.

Well, no. Your scheme doesn't describe people as being "raised an atheist" or "former believer," or what have you. So quite clearly it's not capturing this distinction at all.

Neither does yours, and yet if you are criticizing my scheme for not clarifying this, you obviously think it's an important component.

In any case, my scheme was only designed to reflect a person's CURRENT position. Why do you suddenly claim that their past should now be considered?

I'm afraid you're simply confused here.

Just following the quoted text above, you can see that you introduced this criticism. You said why a person holds their belief is important, and that there is a big difference between someone raised an atheist and someone who was raised a believer but became an atheist.

In my subsequent replies, I'm simply pointing out that this is an odd point to raise when your scheme doesn't draw this distinction either. This is just a non-sequitur, then.

Please feel free to extend the chart into the third dimension so you can track the way a person's beliefs change over time with a line that snacks throughout a 3D space.

[TRANSPONDER]

Philosophers define 'knowledge' as a justified true belief without any defeaters. So, if God exists, then people with a justified belief that God exists do, in fact, have knowledge. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then people with a justified belief that God does not exist have knowledge.

The overarching point I'm trying to make in our discussion is that, when it comes to controversial issues like God's existence -- on which reasonable people can disagree -- it's not useful to categorize the various positions in terms of "knowledge." Instead we should categorize the positions simply in terms of belief, which is what we normally do with controversial topics.

I would have hoped that it would be obvious by know that a believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists consider themselves to have knowledge, and an unbeliever who has what they consider a justified belief that God does not exist would also consider themselves to have knowledge.

But, in that case, the person who believes in God because she "just feels that it must be true" ought to be classified as an "agnostic theist," since just having feelings does not properly constitute having a justified belief.

And yet, just a few posts ago you classified this same person as a "gnostic theist," even though before that you said "just feeling that it must be true" is not what you meant by knowledge.

And that demonstrates my point. This person hasn't changed their view regarding the proposition of God's existence, yet they can easily flip back and forth between categories in your scheme depending on how you or I or they define knowledge itself. That means your scheme is not consistently measuring people's beliefs, since two people with the same attitude or opinion on God's existence can wind-up in different categories.

No, that is not my position.

Like you said, a person who believes in God because she "just feels that it must be true", I would classify them an agnostic theist, since they are not making claims to KNOW that God exists.

Feeling that something is true and knowing that something is true are two different things. I can KNOW that something is true, even I feel like it should be wrong.

The chart you posted above describes a "gnostic theist" as someone who is "100% certain there is a God." But, if pressed, would our hypothetical person here who "just feeling that it must be true" actually say they are 100% certain? What if they're only 99% certain? Are they now an "agnostic theist," even though they uttered the magic word "know"?

It seems to me that your scheme is fraught with these kinds of difficulties. It's not measuring knowledge objectively, on that we both agree. But I also don't think it can consistently measure subjective claims to knowledge. Rather, it's taking people's varied expressions of psychological conviction and misleadingly labeling those as "knowledge" or "100% certainty."

Again, my response in the first part of this post covers it.

A believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God exists considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic theist.

A non-believer who has what they consider a justified belief that God doesn't exist considers themselves to have knowledge, and this person would be a gnostic atheist.

So the chart and your earlier comments suggesting knowledge entails being 100% certain are wrong, then?

It would be helpful to me, and possibly other readers of our discussion, if you could explicitly retract old, abandoned definitions when introducing new ones.

A person can believe that they KNOW something and still be wrong. A person can believe they KNOW the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean they are right.

As I've repeatedly said, I am using it as a measure of their own position. It is NOT ever meant to be an objective measure of whether their position is objectively true or not.

You are demanding I say, "Meh, close enough,"

On the contrary, if your description above truly reflects your perspective, you have way more than enough.

Let's back up here a second:

I believe that there are no elephants in my front yard. I'm looking out my front window right now, in fact, and can see for myself that there are no elephants. Do you believe that there are no elephants in your front yard?

(Note: I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain, but simply whether you believe there are no elephants in your yard. Also, I'm not "demanding" you do anything. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in your argument.)

I would say that "there are elephants in my yard" is a belief that I lack. However, that does not mean that "there are NO elephants in my yard" is a belief I hold. I can not currently see my yard, so I do not have access to the information I require to claim a reasonable knowledge.

Feel free to go to your front yard to take a look -- I'll wait.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonable knowledge." And, again, I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain.

Are you saying it's unreasonable to believe there are no elephants in your front yard after looking and seeing no elephants in your front yard (and likely being nowhere near an elephant)?

Ah, but if I go and check, I would be gathering objective proof. This can not be done when it comes to the existence of God.

Again, as I've said countless times, the gnostic measure is a measure of the person's subjective opinion. It does NOT reflect the objective factualness of what they are saying.

A person whop genuinely believes that vaccines cause harm would be a gnostic anti-vaxxer. =The term GNOSTIC reflects their position, not the validity of their beliefs.

How many times do I need to make this clear?

That doesn't make sense.

Both people don't believe in God, right? So surely they would be classified as "atheist" in your scheme. Neither claims to know that God does not exist, right? So then they must be "agnostic atheist" in your scheme. In other words, your scheme "just lumps them together under the same umbrella."

Even if we accept your (frankly rather labored) explanation here that these two positions somehow fall on the axes themselves, and so don't get assigned any of the four labels, that would mean that your scheme has no description (no label) for these positions, and so doesn't "describe" them at all, let alone "easily."

Hence why I said they would be in the CENTER, and not off on the THEIST or ATHEIST sides.

Sorry, but this comment is nonsensical as a rebuttal to my critique here.

I don't see how. Such a person would not be on the theist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be likely, and they are not on the atheist side since they do not hold the existence of God to be unlikely.

Ah, interesting. I've been reliably informed that an atheist is someone who "lacks belief in God." But you're defining an atheist here as someone who thinks God's existence is unlikely. Before I comment further, do you want to change that definition?

Why do you think the two are mutually incompatible?

I am an atheist. I lack a belief in God. I think it is unlikely that God exists.

I lack a belief in God BECAUSE OF THE FACT that I think God is highly unlikely to exist.

Thus, a person who considers the existence of God to be unknowable would be right in the middle.

So they don't get assigned one of the four labels and your scheme can't describe them at all, then?

If you are so bothered by it, please feel free to assign numbers for the horizontal and vertical axes.

A person in the exact center would be 0,0, for example.

I think the issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold is an important one. As I've said, I think there's a big difference between an [a]theist who is an atheist because they were never raised to be a believer and an atheist who is an atheist because they used to be a believer and then critically examined the arguments for and against and gave up their faith.

Okay, but your scheme doesn't capture this distinction either.

It comes closer than your suggestions.

Well, no. Your scheme doesn't describe people as being "raised an atheist" or "former believer," or what have you. So quite clearly it's not capturing this distinction at all.

Neither does yours, and yet if you are criticizing my scheme for not clarifying this, you obviously think it's an important component.

In any case, my scheme was only designed to reflect a person's CURRENT position. Why do you suddenly claim that their past should now be considered?

I'm afraid you're simply confused here.

Just following the quoted text above, you can see that you introduced this criticism. You said why a person holds their belief is important, and that there is a big difference between someone raised an atheist and someone who was raised a believer but became an atheist.

In my subsequent replies, I'm simply pointing out that this is an odd point to raise when your scheme doesn't draw this distinction either. This is just a non-sequitur, then.

Please feel free to extend the chart into the third dimension so you can track the way a person's beliefs change over time with a line that snacks throughout a 3D space.

Good work. I agree with your post. It's difficult when in quote mode to see what was the last response, but you were right in defusing the attempt to say that not believing in a god and it being unlikely there was a god was somehow two different positions. The former is dependent upon the latter and that upon consideration (for the 'thinking atheist') of the case for a god failing. The non -belief is the end belief position that defines atheism. Theists persistently try to ferret out sub -categories or different wordings and contributory factors, apparently in an effort to make it look like atheism is in disarray. It is actually their understanding of what atheism is that is in disarray. As you said at the end, "there is a big difference between someone raised an atheist and someone who was raised a believer but became an atheist."" These differences are as irrelevant as someone who does not believe in the God -claim and never bothers about it and someone who does not beleive the God -claim and spends time on a forum debating it - they are bot atheists that hold a common position of non -belief in any god -claim (including the Bible -god claim). They are still atheist with a common definition of non -belief.

This is very simple and logically sound, yet theists persist in trying to introduce differences that are irrelevant (if they are true) in some effort to show (as some have let slip) that atheism is invalid or illogical, is made up of conflicting sects or even does not exist at all. You do a nice job of rebutting such an attempt.