Atheist and non-theist

[Beto]

I would be interested in reading how people here differentiate the terms. To some I probably shouldn't be part of both usergroups. I'd like to know their opinion as to why.

[Furrowed Brow]

I would be interested in reading how people here differentiate the terms. To some I probably shouldn't be part of both usergroups. I'd like to know their opinion as to why.

I would say that the atheist accepts the definition of God, as do theists, even if this acceptance leads to their rejecting of His existence. Whilst this may also be the case for the non-theist, nontheism also encompasses those who do not accept in the first place the definition of God, on the grounds that the word 'God' itself is meaningless (eg. unverifiable, unfalsifiable). This belief has been called igtheism.

Interesting.

[center]igtheism: "there is a God" is meaningless.[/center]
I certainly think the notion "god" is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. In this sense it is meaningless. So that makes me looks like an igtheist. But I'd go further too. I think the word makes sense when taken in the context of what the later Wittgenstein might call its language game. But as soon as an attempt is made to extend it meaning to incorporate metaphysics or a higher ontology, or in any way invoke a reality beyond language, then not only is the word meaningless as defined above, but it also literally lacks sense. We might as well equate the word/concept "God" with "&^*)!". We can't verify or falsify &^*)! because it don't make any sense. Thus I cannot be a non theist that leaves room for a non cognitive God, because the concept "non cognitive God" is also a nonsense. Now feed into that mix the complete lack of any personal feelings or subjective sense that there is something higher and you are left with a far stronger position than igtheism for which the best word I have is atheism.

[center]atheism: "there is a god" is nonsensical + no personal sense of God
= there is no meaningful or sensible correlate to the word "God".
Nor a subjective expereince that correlates a concept of God. Thus there is no God.[/center]

[bernee51]

I would be interested in reading how people here differentiate the terms. To some I probably shouldn't be part of both usergroups. I'd like to know their opinion as to why.

I would say that the atheist accepts the definition of God, as do theists,

Which definition of god? It is the function of theists to define god not atheists.

...even if this acceptance leads to their rejecting of His existence.

I can accept the existence of a god concept and reject the existence of an extant god.

Whilst this may also be the case for the non-theist, nontheism also encompasses those who do not accept in the first place the definition of God, on the grounds that the word 'God' itself is meaningless (eg. unverifiable, unfalsifiable). This belief has been called igtheism.

Indeed...any god that can be understood is no god. How to define the ineffable?

Are you claiming that is is possible to be both a theist and a non-theist?

[Beto]

I would be interested in reading how people here differentiate the terms. To some I probably shouldn't be part of both usergroups. I'd like to know their opinion as to why.

I would say that the atheist accepts the definition of God, as do theists, even if this acceptance leads to their rejecting of His existence. Whilst this may also be the case for the non-theist, nontheism also encompasses those who do not accept in the first place the definition of God, on the grounds that the word 'God' itself is meaningless (eg. unverifiable, unfalsifiable). This belief has been called igtheism.

We know there are many definitions for "God". Maybe as many as there are religious people. Like bernee points out, it's not up to me to define an "inherently" subjective experience, so I must accept every definition of "God" for what it's worth. It's just that, to me, all the ones I encountered so far are logically fallacious, and nonsensical.

I guess this is why I consider myself both atheist and non-theist. If these are the terms, I am non-theist because I find theism wholly illogical and nonsensical, and atheist towards every single definition of "God" I know. Kinda makes sense. But under these terms my position would be contrary to what McCulloch wrote. I would say all non-theists are atheists, but not all atheists have to be non-theists, because "atheist" could refer to one, or more definitions of "God". Perhaps being "non-theist" means one is "atheist" towards every known definition.

It all depends on how one understands "atheist". Some just consider the etymology of the word and already regard "atheism" as "non-theism", others make a distinction between being atheist toward different definitions of "God". Does anyone have a different perspective?