Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?

[exchemist]

It's a dichotomy, but it's not false, since "atheist" really just means "someone who isn't a theist."

What then is an agnostic?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you can't explain your spiritual experiences, then presumably you aren't explaining them with a god or gods, so how would they relate to the question of whether you're a theist or not?

Because it's something I can't explain. It's possible either way. I don't know. You might as well ask me to explain the flight controls of an airplane. I'm pretty much about as equally ignorant.

I listened to an interview where he talked about his beliefs and the term "atheist." I didn't get the impression that he accepted anything theistic or supernatural as true: Episode 289 - Neil deGrasse Tyson

He doesn't reject spiritual experiences (and possible some other things he is rather vague about), but he does reject the label atheist for himself (he is very insistent and adamant that first and foremost he is a scientist and things like atheist or agnostic really aren't that important to him).

It only "must" be defined in order to be a theist.

It has to be defined because there are numerous concepts of what and who a god is. And, as I pointed out, this strict atheist/theist dichotomy does not translate to all cultures. It's simply not understood as we understand, and due to different understandings about things such as "god" the terms gets used differently in some cultures.

"Close to" isn't "is." You must either think that "the cosmic harmony" either is "god" or falls short of the mark, no?

They seem to fit many descriptions of various types and qualities of various gods or other "mystical" forces. As does electricity, which basically makes all things possible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What then is an agnostic?

The answer tends to depend on when the question is asked, to whom it is asked, and where it is asked.

 

[oldbadger]

I stumbled across this statement whilst puttering around teh interwebz.

"There is, however, no "not atheist nor theist". Anyone who actively believes there is a god is a theist. Anyone who does not (even if they consider the question "unknowable" or the like), is an atheist. There is not any neither theist nor atheist, everyone is one or the other."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-b...a-person-who-is-neither-religious-nor-atheist

Is this true? Does one have to be either an atheist or a theist? If so, why? If not, what other options are there? Do you know anyone who is neither?

Not true.
I've been caught in the middle of this for yonks.
I'm not a Theist because I do not believe in an interested or aware God.

Atheists won't let me in their club because I am a Deist.

So........ Deists fall in the gap in the middle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einstein specifically stated "I am not an atheist." That basically means one cannot rightly claim him as one.

Not so. Read those quotes in context. And you could be wrong even without doing so. The meanings of words can change over time. The definition of atheism clearly has changed.

 

[exchemist]

Not true.
I've been caught in the middle of this for yonks.
I'm not a Theist because I do not believe in an interested or aware God.

Atheists won't let me in their club because I am a Deist.

So........ Deists fall in the gap in the middle.

Like Einstein and Spinoza, perhaps.

 

[exchemist]

View attachment 36758

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

Though why any of us should take seriously the word of superficial bloke like Dawkins, with an obvious agenda, on something like this, rather mystifies me.

 

[exchemist]

The answer tends to depend on when the question is asked, to whom it is asked, and where it is asked.

The reason I ask is that it seems to me there is a move to co-opt all the people who, when I was younger, would have regarded themselves as agnostic, into the "atheist" camp, in order to boost their numbers. Dawkins and co do this, I suspect as part of their campaign to belittle religious belief.

 

[Heyo]

What then is an agnostic?

There are at least three very different definitions for agnostic. The classical definition of "believer in the unknown god", the modern, colloquial definition of "doesn't know if a god exists" and Huxley's definition of "you don't even know what a god is". But once that is sorted out, the definitions are precise enough for most discussions.

 

[exchemist]

There are at least three very different definitions for agnostic. The classical definition of "believer in the unknown god", the modern, colloquial definition of "doesn't know if a god exists" and Huxley's definition of "you don't even know what a god is". But once that is sorted out, the definitions are precise enough for most discussions.

Indeed.

That being so, it seems to me to be procrustean and wrong to try to force everybody into being either theist or atheist, as if they are the only two allowed states.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I stumbled across this statement whilst puttering around teh interwebz.

"There is, however, no "not atheist nor theist". Anyone who actively believes there is a god is a theist. Anyone who does not (even if they consider the question "unknowable" or the like), is an atheist. There is not any neither theist nor atheist, everyone is one or the other."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-b...a-person-who-is-neither-religious-nor-atheist

Is this true? Does one have to be either an atheist or a theist? If so, why? If not, what other options are there? Do you know anyone who is neither?

I agree with the statement.
It's a binary position.

You either believe (= accept the claim as true) or you do not.

The question is "do you believe god exists?"
If your answer is affirmative, then you are a theist.
Any answer other then affirmative makes you an atheist.

It's rather simple: you either accept the claim or you do not.

If you answer "i don't know", then you're not accepting the claim as accurate.
So you're not a believer. Not a theist.
You are without belief. An atheist.

As an analogy, I always give the concept of symmetry.
A shape is either symmetrical or it isn't.
If it isn't, then it is asymmetrical.

If a shape isn't symmetrical, it doesn't matter what other properties it has. Whatever other name you can give it - it's still an asymmetrical shape.

Symmetry is either present or it isn't.
Just like belief is either present or it isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Surely that's a false dichotomy, isn't it? What is an agnostic?

(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge, not to beliefs.
(a)theism pertains to beliefs.

These aren't mutually exclusive positions. If anything, one is a qualifier of the other.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't believe gods exist, but don't claim to know for sure (as gods are unfalsifiable concepts - [dis]proving them is impossible anyway).

 

[exchemist]

I agree with the statement.
It's a binary position.

You either believe (= accept the claim as true) or you do not.

The question is "do you believe god exists?"
If your answer is affirmative, then you are a theist.
Any answer other then affirmative makes you an atheist.

It's rather simple: you either accept the claim or you do not.

If you answer "i don't know", then you're not accepting the claim as accurate.
So you're not a believer. Not a theist.
You are without belief. An atheist.

As an analogy, I always give the concept of symmetry.
A shape is either symmetrical or it isn't.
If it isn't, then it is asymmetrical.

If a shape isn't symmetrical, it doesn't matter what other properties it has. Whatever other name you can give it - it's still an asymmetrical shape.

Symmetry is either present or it isn't.
Just like belief is either present or it isn't.

But, unlike with an inanimate object, you are dealing here with people's thinking on a tricky and tenuous subject. You are trying, in effect, to bully them all into taking a firm position, which a sizeable proportion of them may be unwilling to do.

 

[Heyo]

I agree with the statement.
It's a binary position.

For theism/atheism to be binary positions you have to show that they are positions first. You can define atheism on theism as "not theism" but without being circular you have to define theism.
Defining theism as "believes in god or gods" doesn't cut it without defining god. So theism is still not a position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For theism/atheism to be binary positions you have to show that they are positions first.

They are positions on the claim(s) of theism, in particular the claim that a personal god exists.

A theist believes the claims / accepts them as true.
An atheist does not.

You can define atheism on theism as "not theism" but without being circular you have to define theism.
Defining theism as "believes in god or gods" doesn't cut it without defining god. So theism is still not a position.

This is just playing semantic games imo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But, unlike with an inanimate object, you are dealing here with people's thinking on a tricky and tenuous subject. You are trying, in effect, to bully them all into taking a firm position, which a sizeable proportion of them may be unwilling to do.

The terms themselves are already generic / generalized terms.
So I'm speaking in generic / generalized terms also.

There's a claim of theism.
Believing the claim is theism.
Not believing the claim is atheism.

That's what the words mean.

How that works in practice is another thing. Sure, a doubting person can switch labels a couple dozen times a day.
Doesn't change what the words mean though.

 

[Augustus]

There's a claim of theism.
Believing the claim is theism.
Not believing the claim is atheism.

That's what the words mean.

The problem is that the words also mean other things.

People can have their preferred usages, but they can't expect that everyone else accepts their personal preference as the One True Definition.

 

[exchemist]

The terms themselves are already generic / generalized terms.
So I'm speaking in generic / generalized terms also.

There's a claim of theism.
Believing the claim is theism.
Not believing the claim is atheism.

That's what the words mean.

How that works in practice is another thing. Sure, a doubting person can switch labels a couple dozen times a day.
Doesn't change what the words mean though.

You continue to demand that everybody either "believes" or does not "believe". This is not the state in which many people find themselves. Such people may not have made up their minds, or they may be inclined to believe some of the time and inclined not to, at others, in a Schrödinger's Cat sort of way.

You cannot bully people into being tidy thinkers, just to suit a simple scheme of logic that you like.

 

[McBell]

You continue to demand that everybody either "believes" or does not "believe". This is not the state in which many people find themselves. Such people may not have made up their minds, or they may be inclined to believe some of the time and inclined not to, at others, in a Schrödinger's Cat sort of way.

You cannot bully people into being tidy thinkers, just to suit a simple scheme of logic that you like.

Except it is not a demand.
It is the way it is.
Your not liking it has absolutely no bearing on the truth of it.
You are either a theist or an atheist.
There is no in between.
You can be one then the other then the other then the other every minute of every day, but you are one or the other at any given time.

You cannot bully others into your favourite fantasy if they do not wish to attend.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The reason I ask is that it seems to me there is a move to co-opt all the people who, when I was younger, would have regarded themselves as agnostic, into the "atheist" camp, in order to boost their numbers. Dawkins and co do this, I suspect as part of their campaign to belittle religious belief.

I suspect as much. It's like we've made progress in so many areas in acknowledge life isn't binary, except in this area we've went backwards and now suddenly we must be one or the other. Even though it doesn't really work like that for everyone.