The default position...

[Deathbydefault]

Theist
Atheist
Lack

I sent each of those links to their corresponding google results.
Do your own research with definitions and linguistics.

Many of you seem to be confusing something extremely simple.

 

[Pudding]

The default is the absence of a position. The Weak/Implicit/Negative/Agnostic Atheist says "I don't say I know God(s) exist and I don't say I know God(s) don't exist. I don't believe God(s) exist and I don't believe God(s) don't exist. I have taken no positions."

Thanks for further explaining it, i'm not sure my opinion about it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I sent each of those links to their corresponding google results.

Maybe you should consider not relying on an elementary school child's misunderstanding of language (let alone the actually important issues).

 

[Bunyip]

Is not believing that god does not exist the same as believing God does exist then?

LOL Not believing God does not exist? You mean believing God exists right?
Why not write it that way? Or are you trying to obfuscate?

 

[Bunyip]

You're talking about language, but I'm actually addressing a logical position. It is logically reasonable to say "I don't believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd" while still holding the position of not believing the number of grains of sand in the ocean is even. Do you agree? If they do not believe either way, it is still a perfectly logical position to state "I don't believe it is odd", even if they also don't believe it's even, right? That is still a factually correct and logical position.

Yes, it is a logical position - but deliberately misleading. Why not just say that you don't know?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion imagine a conversation between a person and Bunyip:

Person: I don't believe God exists.
Bunyip: Oh so you believe God doesn't exist.
Person: No, I mean I don't believe God exists but I don't believe he doesn't exist either. I believe neither.
Bunyip: But not believing God exists is the same as believing he doesn't exist! It's just a different way of saying the same thing!
Person: No, I just told you I believe neither that God exists nor that he doesn't. What's wrong with you?

LOL To which Bunyip would respond; "I think you need to see a psychiatrist, that is a truly insane position."

 

[ArtieE]

LOL To which Bunyip would respond; "I think you need to see a psychiatrist, that is a truly insane position."

So according to you all weak atheists are insane? Any person who says "I don't believe God exists but I won't go so far as to state that I believe he doesn't exist either because I have nothing to support that" is insane?

 

[Bunyip]

So according to you all weak atheists are insane? Any person who says "I don't believe God exists but I won't go so far as to state that I believe he doesn't exist either because I have nothing to support that" is insane?

That is not weak atheism, but yes - that person is having difficulty with basic English.

 

[ArtieE]

That is not weak atheism, but yes - that person is having difficulty with basic English.

That is weak atheism and you are the one having difficulty with basic English.

If
not believing God exists = believing God doesn't exist
then
not knowing God exists = knowing God doesn't exist

So if weak atheists are insane are agnostics who don't know if God does or doesn't exist also insane? Because if they say they don't know if God exists that's the same as saying that they know God doesn't exist?

 

[Curious George]

LOL Not believing God does not exist? You mean believing God exists right?
Why not write it that way? Or are you trying to obfuscate?

Great, so it is your opinion that since babies do no believe God does not exist they do believe God does exist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, it is a logical position - but deliberately misleading. Why not just say that you don't know?

We're not debating what people say, we're debating logical positions. What people say is unimportant - the discussion is about whether or not is it possible to DISBELIEVE proposition X while also disbelieving proposition Y when X and Y are mutually exclusive propositions (such as "God exists" and "God does not exist"). If you agree that it is a logical position, then you must concede that not believing X does not entail belief in Y, and thus the statement "I don't believe X" does not necessitate belief in Y. There is nothing "deliberately misleading" about that statement, it is a simple statement of fact when stating a belief with regards to a specific position.

It's no more deliberately misleading that somebody asking you "Do you own a motorbike, yes or no?" and saying "No" rather than saying "I have a scooter". The question that was asked of you was not about whether you owned a scooter, it was about whether you owned a motorbike. In case of God, the question theism and atheism address is "Do you believe in God, yes or no?" not "Do you believe there isn't a God, yes or no?". It deals with your position with regards to a specific prong to a two-pronged issue, and answering one question with a "No" does not entail answering the other with as "Yes". You are responding to a specific question that deals with a single prong of an argument.

 

[Bunyip]

We're not debating what people say, we're debating logical positions. What people say is unimportant - the discussion is about whether or not is it possible to DISBELIEVE proposition X while also disbelieving proposition Y when X and Y are mutually exclusive propositions (such as "God exists" and "God does not exist"). If you agree that it is a logical position, then you must concede that not believing X does not entail belief in Y, and thus the statement "I don't believe X" does not necessitate belief in Y. There is nothing "deliberately misleading" about that statement, it is a simple statement of fact when stating a belief with regards to a specific position.

It's no more deliberately misleading that somebody asking you "Do you own a motorbike, yes or no?" and saying "No" rather than saying "I have a scooter". The question that was asked of you was not about whether you owned a scooter, it was about whether you owned a motorbike. In case of God, the question theism and atheism address is "Do you believe in God, yes or no?" not "Do you believe there isn't a God, yes or no?". It deals with your position with regards to a specific prong to a two-pronged issue, and answering one question with a "No" does not entail answering the other with as "Yes". You are responding to a specific question that deals with a single prong of an argument.

I'm only really interested in the dialogue - the practical sense, not logic per se. I'm interested in what people think and mean - not so much the intricacies of formal logic.

 

[Bunyip]

Great, so it is your opinion that since babies do no believe God does not exist they do believe God does exist?

Quite the opposite - and I have said so several times.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I was under the impression that we were including classifications.
The "do you have a God belief" question comes with a classification system, that should be obvious.
If you do have a God belief then you are a theist, if not then you are an atheist.
There isn't a way to escape these types of classifications, what you believe details what you are.
You can't say "I don't have a God belief but I'm still a theist", it doesn't quite work that way.

I've said it earlier in the thread but what you are is what you will classify as.
It's a 'whether you like it or not' situation, similar to bullying sometimes.
If you are bad with people, overly technical, and have no fashion sense then you would be a geek.
If you are well liked and sought after by many people then you are popular.

If someone doesn't like being called what they are then that would be their issue.
I've been called many names myself, some true and many false, but I dealt with it.
I don't exactly enjoy getting called "abnormal" or "creepy" but by definition I am.
That's just the way our world works.

If someone can't handle being classified as an atheist then that's on them.
They can have the definition changed.
Until then that is what they are, and like I said, this is a 'whether you like it or not' situation.
I wont call you something you don't want to be called ( unless you're a bigot ), but that wont change what you are...

You guys make me question this a lot but I keep coming back to the same answer.
"Life isn't so pretty as to be the way you want it to be, deal with the hand you're dealt and move on."

[Morning Rant has been concluded]

 

[Curious George]

Quite the opposite - and I have said so several times.

Well certainly if they lack the capacity to believe they cannot believe the proposition God does not exist is true.

If they cannot believe such a proposition then they do not believe it. If they do not believe God does not exist, according to you, they then believe God does exist. Of course this is a contradiction, because babies cannot believe. Thus, with this proof by contradiction, the statements cannot be equal.

 

[Curious George]

I was under the impression that we were including classifications.
The "do you have a God belief" question comes with a classification system, that should be obvious.
If you do have a God belief then you are a theist, if not then you are an atheist.
There isn't a way to escape these types of classifications, what you believe details what you are.
You can't say "I don't have a God belief but I'm still a theist", it doesn't quite work that way.

I've said it earlier in the thread but what you are is what you will classify as.
It's a 'whether you like it or not' situation, similar to bullying sometimes.
If you are bad with people, overly technical, and have no fashion sense then you would be a geek.
If you are well liked and sought after by many people then you are popular.

If someone doesn't like being called what they are then that would be their issue.
I've been called many names myself, some true and many false, but I dealt with it.
I don't exactly enjoy getting called "abnormal" or "creepy" but by definition I am.
That's just the way our world works.

If someone can't handle being classified as an atheist then that's on them.
They can have the definition changed.
Until then that is what they are, and like I said, this is a 'whether you like it or not' situation.
I wont call you something you don't want to be called ( unless you're a bigot ), but that wont change what you are...

You guys make me question this a lot but I keep coming back to the same answer.
"Life isn't so pretty as to be the way you want it to be, deal with the hand you're dealt and move on."

[Morning Rant has been concluded]

Not sure if you understood what I said about the default position, but since we can change the default to either rejection or acceptance, I would assert that calling anything less than strong atheists as atheists is semantics. Inability is excluded by sets, ignorance with capability could theoretically go either way. But, I certainly would be able to understand any use of the word atheist. I think that when speaking about atheism it is important to understand both sides, so if one is making a point regarding atheism then it is advisable to modify the term with a description. Usually including the phrase "lack belief" or using the phrase "asserts God does not exist" is enough to signal the audience to which definition you are referring.

While I am an atheist some would term me a strong atheist. If they use the latter terminology, I assume they accept the idea of weak atheism.

Usually, implicit vs. Explicit atheism is not important enough to make a point so signal language is not needed.

Cheers.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Maybe you should consider not relying on an elementary school child's misunderstanding of language (let alone the actually important issues).

I take you off ignore for 1 page and this is the first thing I see, lol.
Back to being ignored you go

Oh, maybe you shouldn't rely on insults that come from frustration to win an argument with someone who doesn't care about you enough to pay attention.
I know I don't get the last word in this, but on my screen I will, and that's all that matters.

Cheers.

 

[lstan135]

Legion imagine a conversation between a person and Bunyip:

Person: I don't believe God exists.
Bunyip: Oh so you believe God doesn't exist.
Person: No, I mean I don't believe God exists but I don't believe he doesn't exist either. I believe neither.
Bunyip: But not believing God exists is the same as believing he doesn't exist! It's just a different way of saying the same thing!
Person: No, I just told you I believe neither that God exists nor that he doesn't. What's wrong with you?

Haha. It is just like a person saying: I don't think my parents exist but I also don't think they did not exist. Then where did I really came from? The dust bin?

 

[ArtieE]

I think that when speaking about atheism it is important to understand both sides, so if one is making a point regarding atheism then it is advisable to modify the term with a description. Usually including the phrase "lack belief" or using the phrase "asserts God does not exist" is enough to signal the audience to which definition you are referring.

Person: "Do you believe God exists?"
Weak atheist: "No I don't."
Person: "Do you believe God doesn't exist then?"
Weak atheist: "No I don't. I don't know what to believe".

Person: "Do you believe God exists?"
Strong atheist: "No I don't".
Person: "Do you believe God doesn't exist then?"
Strong atheist: "Yes I do".

 

[Curious George]

Person: "Do you believe God exists?"
Weak atheist: "No I don't."
Person: "Do you believe God doesn't exist then?"
Weak atheist: "No I don't. I don't know what to believe".

Person: "Do you believe God exists?"
Strong atheist: "No I don't".
Person: "Do you believe God doesn't exist then?"
Strong atheist: "Yes I do".

Lol.

Artie, do you think I lack an understanding about the difference between a "strong atheist" and a "weak atheist?"

Have I used a term incorrectly? It is not that people do not understand these terms, although some do not. However some people recognize that implicit atheism adds no value and weak atheism is essentially a position of not believing one proposition over the other. We can show that their is a similar stance to this weak atheism where one accepts both propositions instead of rejecting them. Therefore defining those who reject "God exists" and reject "God does not exist" as "atheist" is a matter of semantics.

So, knowing this, and wanting to communicate some information about atheism, I am suggesting that it is important to signal to your audience your definitions. That is all. I am not asking for clarification, I need none. I am offering advice that is sound. Advice that essentially says be aware that not everyone will see the definitions as you do. Therefore, signal what definitions you are using.