The default position...

[leibowde84]

That's the conclusion I reached as well, thank you for clarification

Their use of the word "atheistic" seems to strengthen our argument that "atheism" is an extremely general term merely refering to the absence of "theism", though.

 

[ArtieE]

Whatever happened to the word 'agnostic'. The word 'atheist' has too strong a connotation for many in modern parlance.

The word agnostic describes a person who doesn't know. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe. Two different concepts.

 

[George-ananda]

The term "agnostic" is still there, so I'm not sure what you mean. It merely represents a more specific situation, just like "deism" is a subcategory of "theism".

Are you saying 'agnosticism' is a subcategory of 'atheism'. Technically, you might make an argument but they words have different meaning in colloquial speech.

Theist: Believes God exists
Agnostic: Is not sure if God exists
Atheist: Does not believe God exists

This is the colloquial use of the words.

 

[leibowde84]

The word agnostic describes a person who doesn't know. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe. Two different concepts.

I would strongly argue that anyone who claims to "know" anything about God is merely expressing a deeply held belief. I think an agnostic is more someone who has not made a decision to believe either way. They are undecided.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Their use of the word "atheistic" seems to strengthen our argument that "atheism" is an extremely general term merely refering to the absence of "theism", though.

I agree, it does help with that.
Also the clarification of atheism helps to establish many of it's sub-categories, such as my apatheism.
Very useful information.

 

[leibowde84]

Are you saying 'agnosticism' is a subcategory of 'atheism'. Technically, you might make an argument but they words have different meaning in colloquial speech.

Theist: Believes God exists
Agnostic: Is not sure if God exists
Atheist: Does not believe God exists

This is the colloquial use of the words.

So, according to your definition, does an agnostic believe that God exists? Yes or no?

 

[ArtieE]

I would strongly argue that anyone who claims to "know" anything about God is merely expressing a deeply held belief.

He may have had personal experiences that has made him 100% sure that God exists, that he knows God exists.

I think an agnostic is more someone who has not made a decision to believe either way.

That would be an agnostic atheist, not just an agnostic.

 

[George-ananda]

So, according to your definition, does an agnostic believe that God exists? Yes or no?

An 'agnostic' would be uncomfortable with either answer. An 'atheist' would be comfortable with the 'No' answer....that's an important difference. Anyway, I 'get' your technical argument but that doesn't change the colloquial use of words.

 

[ArtieE]

So, according to your definition, does an agnostic believe that God exists? Yes or no?

An agnostic just says he doesn't know whether God exists or not. He says nothing about what he believes. If pressed as to his beliefs he might go on to say that he's an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

An 'agnostic' would be uncomfortable with either answer. An 'atheist' would be comfortable with the 'No' answer....that's an important difference. Anyway, I 'get' your technical argument but that doesn't change the colloquial use of words.

Here is how Merriam Webster's Dictionary, the most commonly used English Dictionary, defines the terms:

Theism: Belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Curious George]

Weak atheism is the view that there is no sufficient reason to believe in God. To say there is no sufficient reason to believe in God is to commit to the view that God does not exist. That's my point. The only difference between weak and strong atheism is the degree of conviction. What you're describing as implicit atheism, the idea of a non-committal atheism, is the very thing I'm rejecting as an incoherent word game.


If I retract my use of agnostic and replace it with implicit atheism "the lack of belief" would that clear things up?

As much as I dislike the term implicit atheism, I understand what is meant by the term and accept that as a possible state as well.

For one could be without ability to believe and therefore would be an "implicit atheist." While I would suggest that such a person can hardly be defined as an atheist, I understand what is meant by the term and would have to agree that it is a possible stance.

I agree that many atheists try to label themselves as non committal when at any moment in time, they have likely committed to a position. As I have said before, such a position of fence sitting is razor thin if possible on such a pivotal subject. I think the focus of this group of people would be on knowledge and discussing how such knowledge is unobtainable or they would be actively pursuing knowledge about the possibility or lack of possibility.

I think you hit the nail on the head by saying that people position themselves in argumentation different from their actual belief. The default position, which is certainly possible says that the belief that either proposition is true or false is equal. Very few actually fall in this category. But they likely do not want to have to put forward evidence for their beliefs so they assume the default position when they actually believe one of the two, "God exists" or "God does not exist" is more likely. The dishonesty that you perceive here comes from these people who have somehow translated believing that either proposition has an equal chance of being true or false, to believing there is any possibility of either proposition being true or false.

This is not what belief is...and semantic games aside ignores the different degrees on conviction one may have. However, I am reluctant to call people "dishonest" despite any previous statement (including those in this post) because it is possible that those who see the potential for other truths may just be so out of touch with their own beliefs that they cannot pinpoint how they believe. I don't think this is dishonesty and I think that at least some who argue that they are in a default position are arguing from this lack of self awareness. But, based on semantic maneuvering I would conclude some are certainly posturing.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Here is how Merriam Webster's Dictionary, the most commonly used English Dictionary, defines the terms:

Theism: Belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Lack, as in, to be without, for clarification.

If you are without a belief in God you may be defined as agnostic specifically.
However, you would also be defined as an atheist.

 

[George-ananda]

Here is how Merriam Webster's Dictionary, the most commonly used English Dictionary, defines the terms:

Theism: Belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I already said I 'get' your technical argument in my previous post.

 

[leibowde84]

Lack, as in, to be without, for clarification.

If you are without a belief in God you may be defined as agnostic specifically.
However, you would also be defined as an atheist.

According to the definition, "lack" means to "be without" in this context.

 

[Curious George]

Some people have not studied the actual definition in detail. Most people don't have a clue what implicit atheism actually is.

Many are willfully ignorant and refuse to accept the current definition.

I don't think Shadow knows the full definition.

I don't think I am willfully ignorant...But I do refuse to accept the term as significant, excepting to further discussion. I know what you mean by the term implicit atheist but fail to see the logical distinction such that this term is necessary or relevant.

 

[Deathbydefault]

According to the definition, "lack" means to "be without" in this context.

Ah crap I forgot the ' ' for be without.

Nice fail on my part.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree that many atheists try to label themselves as non committal when at any moment in time, they have likely committed to a position. As I have said before, such a position of fence sitting is razor thin if possible on such a pivotal subject. I think the focus of this group of people would be on knowledge and discussing how such knowledge is unobtainable or they would be actively pursuing knowledge about the possibility or lack of possibility.

That's agnostics.

 

[Curious George]

That's agnostics.

Yes the default position is agnostic because they do not know. But the default position deals with belief. I would suggest that only agnostics can hold the default position.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes the default position is agnostic because they do not know. But the default position deals with belief. I would suggest that only agnostics can hold the default position.

When you talk about theism/atheism everybody are atheists before they become theists or strong atheists. If you talk about gnosticism/agnosticism everybody are agnostics before they say they know God exists or God doesn't exist.

 

[Curious George]

When you talk about theism/atheism everybody are atheists before they become theists or strong atheists. If you talk about gnosticism/agnosticism everybody are agnostics before they say they know God exists or God doesn't exist.

Nope