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.

[Tcg]

There's nothing wrong with the word atheist, it doesn't need to be retired. If I'm engaging with conversation with someone and they state any religious belief I would continue asking questions to find more specifically what they believe in. So if someone says "I'm an atheist" I would still continue to ask probing questions to see exactly what that atheism entails. I realize that there are plenty of spiritual practices that don't involve belief in a god so there's no reason to assume when the word atheist is said that that's the end of it and there's no other questions I need to ask.

By all means. Non -theist is just a synonym for atheists, pretty much. Apart from that other things like anti religious or secularist can be things that may apply or not. It's better just to ask whether a particular atheist goes along with some spiritual - type practice or not.

This may be a conclusion based on limited data, but it seems to me that the term non-theist is used by those who want to distance themselves from the often-maligned term atheist. If there is a distinction between the two, I'm not aware of it.

I stick to the term atheist in an effort to redeem it from all the misrepresentations and prejudices against the term and those it applies to. Probably a losing effort given that some theists find new ways to malign it on a seemingly daily basis. The most recent I've read on this forum is that it is a mental condition. Wow! Talk about missing (and probably intentionally so) the point.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

There's nothing wrong with the word atheist, it doesn't need to be retired. If I'm engaging with conversation with someone and they state any religious belief I would continue asking questions to find more specifically what they believe in. So if someone says "I'm an atheist" I would still continue to ask probing questions to see exactly what that atheism entails. I realize that there are plenty of spiritual practices that don't involve belief in a god so there's no reason to assume when the word atheist is said that that's the end of it and there's no other questions I need to ask.

By all means. Non -theist is just a synonym for atheists, pretty much. Apart from that other things like anti religious or secularist can be things that may apply or not. It's better just to ask whether a particular atheist goes along with some spiritual - type practice or not.

This may be a conclusion based on limited data, but it seems to me that the term non-theist is used by those who want to distance themselves from the often-maligned term atheist. If there is a distinction between the two, I'm not aware of it.

I stick to the term atheist in an effort to redeem it from all the misrepresentations and prejudices against the term and those it applies to. Probably a losing effort given that some theists find new ways to malign it on a seemingly daily basis. The most recent I've read on this forum is that it is a mental condition. Wow! Talk about missing (and probably intentionally so) the point.


Tcg

Quite possible. I find the term 'agnostic' is sometimes used for non - belief in a god, but not to admit to being and Atheist. I prefer to stump up to the name 'atheist', as anything of a Rebranding effort (1) smacks of evasiveness, and atheists have to play with a straight bat on a very sticky wicket, doncherknow.

(1) I thought it was a sound decision of Boeing not to sell the 737 Max under some other name as it was a PR bomb waiting to go off. Much better to say 'The Max is now as safe as any other aircraft' and deliver it under that name.

[neverknewyou]

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.

An agnostic is one that cannot possibly know even if he/she wanted to, due to lack of feasible explanations.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

An agnostic is one that cannot possibly know even if he/she wanted to, due to lack of feasible explanations.

In that sense, then technically we are all agnostic because, as the Theist apologists often argue, Nobody can be 100% sure. Which is why the term is unhelpful to apply to a different question: belief. Or Buy -in or crediting a hypothesis. Thus, given that there is always a degree of doubt, the amount of doubt or the amount of confidence on a sliding scale of how much one doubts or credits the claim is based on the evidence. This (I think) is the idea behind a strong or weak atheist on the Dawkins scale - how convinced they are by the evidence against the god -hypothesis , just as a strong or weak theist is convinced by whatever argument is being advanced, conditioned by what particular god -claim is being made.

It's what we debate here and I haven't seen any decent arguments for a god - not even the Turin shroud, which at best only shows a real Jesus, which probability I have never denied ever since I credited what Tacitus had to say about him.