Your definition for "atheist/theist" and its subcategories

[ArtieE]

Atheist: Anyone who does not use or know any conception of deity, or that does not profess to believe in the actual existence of any entities that would qualify as such.

Does not need any justification, reason, or even consistence through time; it is possible and entirely valid to alternate between atheism and theism on a whim or even by throwing a coin.


Agnostic atheist: An atheist who does not know for certain whether there is anything that might qualify as a deity.


Gnostic atheist: An atheist who somehow, presumably intuitively or mystically, knows for a fact that there are no deities.

A stance that appears a lot more difficult than it truly is, because "deity" is such a deeply personal concept that one may easily understand it in entirely impossible ways.

Implicit atheist: The most natural and frequent form of atheist, succintly described as "one who lacks belief in the existence of any deities". Includes not having thought or met the idea of deity as well.


Explicit atheist: Somewhat rare and perhaps even self-contradictory, it is best described as the active rejection of some form of belief in deities.

It is rare because people usually don't bother to hold deity-conceptions that they do not feel attracted towards.


Weak atheist: An atheist who does not take the idea of theism seriously enough to bother to decree it wrong.


Agnostic weak atheist: An atheist who does not know for a fact that there are no deities.


Strong atheist: Someone who says for a fact that there are no deities.


Agnostic strong atheist: Perhaps a contradictory stance, although I professed it in the past. Someone who says that there is no certainty about the existence of deities, yet claims that there are none nevertheless.


Gnostic strong atheist: Probably an technically irrational if very reasonable and certainly pragmatical stance, it is that of those who say that they know for sure that there are no deities.


Theist: Anyone who arbitrarily decrees the existence of some conception of deity, and then professes to believe in the actual existence of one or more entities that would qualify as such.

Does not need any justification, reason, or even consistence through time; it is possible and entirely valid to alternate between atheism and theism on a whim or even by throwing a coin.

Does not require any supernaturalism beliefs, either.


Agnostic theist: Someone who believes in the existence of at least one deity, yet realizes that it is ultimately an arbitrary belief.


Gnostic theist: Someone who believes in the existence of at least one deity and feels to know that for a fact.






If I may, apatheism and ignosticism are worthy additions to this glossary. Among the most useful terms of this whole family, as a matter of fact, despite being so little known.

A list for those who don't have a headache and want one.

 

[ArtieE]

I admit that i cannot figure out how to rebut your post.

You're not alone having problems with those posts.

You're just demonizing the term atheist and force the burden of proof to atheist (weak atheist) who don't believe no god exist, make a stereotype atheist and generalize it to all atheists.
I'll leave to any other people who can find a way to deal with you.

Don't even try to understand. Just stick with your original list.

 

[Curious George]

I have to wonder why the OP creates ten (!!!) terms for atheism and yet only lists three for theism.

Theists don't engage in 100 page post about what is or is not theism.

 

[Quintessence]

So it's a semantic dispute. Fair enough.

Ideologies are practiced as long as they are practical.

And there's the rub - I'm not sure I would say theism or atheism (being the extremely broad categories they are) are in any way practical.

 

[Quintessence]

Theists don't engage in 100 page post about what is or is not theism.

I made a thread about that once. It spectacularly failed to take off, in spite of it being a topic that should be able to carry on for that long. I know I've had run ins with folks on the forums who would take the perspective that "theism" only means classical monotheism, and that the sort of theology I adhere to is "not theism."

 

[Willamena]

And there's the rub - I'm not sure I would say theism or atheism (being the extremely broad categories they are) are in any way practical.

That's it is practical merely means that someone finds it of some use.

It doesn't have to be you or I.

 

[psychoslice]

It does matter.

Yes it does matter, if you know that is, and of course having proof.

 

[psychoslice]

It's not necessarily the case that if you know a thing you can prove it. Proving means being able to convince another of the truth, and there's an enormous gap between what one person understands and what another person can be taught of that understanding.

Now understanding something that means something to you is your own understanding, but if you want to tell others about your own understanding then you need some sort of proof. I myself have experienced the truth, but I cannot prove that to you, and I would not argue about it because I would look silly, so i keep it to myself. Each one of us can experience what we call truth, and that experience will be theirs and no one else's, but try to prove that experienced truth to another and you will find yourself in difficulty.

 

[Willamena]

Now understanding something that means something to you is your own understanding, but if you want to tell others about your own understanding then you need some sort of proof. I myself have experienced the truth, but I cannot prove that to you, and I would not argue about it because I would look silly, so i keep it to myself. Each one of us can experience what we call truth, and that experience will be theirs and no one else's, but try to prove that experienced truth to another and you will find yourself in difficulty.

If you understand 2+2=4, is it your own understanding?

 

[psychoslice]

If you understand 2+2=4, is it your own understanding?

But 2+2=4 is a proven mathematical reality, saying you know god is not a proven reality, big difference.

 

[Pudding]

I figure out how to rebut your post, so i'll make a new reply again.

Any god

You previously say: A person who thinks a god does not exist is absent of a belief that God does exist. You further clarify "a god" is refer to "any god".

What is the amount to this "any god"?
1 god? 2 gods? 100 gods? Some gods? Many gods? All gods?

There's where i have to use "a person who believe at least one god exist", which the belief that at least one god exist, is enough to identify the person as a theist. Even another person believe multiple gods exist, he still believe at least one god exist, which can be identify as a theist.

And as long as a person absence the belief that at least one god exist, he then is not a theist. Which is my definition for atheist.

And i have to use "a person who believe no god exist" to be a part of definition for strong atheist. Which if there are two atheists, they both absence the belief that at least one god exist, the first person believe no god exist, the second person absence the belief that no god exist.
They are both atheist because they fit with the definition of atheist, which is absence the belief that at least one god exist.
The presence of belief that no god exist make the first person also a strong atheist.
The absence of belief that no god exist make the second person also a weak atheist.

Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. A person that is absent belief is either an atheist in the moment they lack belief or ignorant. Ignorant means lacking in some specific knowledge. For instance, a person could lack the specific knowledge to understand the proposition. If a person cannot define god how can he or she evaluate the proposition? If I wrote "dheugdhkwhdhsiw" is that true or false? If you cannot comprehend what I mean, then you cannot evaluate what my proposition. You are therefore ignorant in this respect, because you lack the requisite knowledge to evaluate what I am saying. Ignorant is not bad or negative we are all ignorant in many respects. As for John, well he is likely an atheist. I suppose I would have to discuss with him more. But if you ask him if the proposition "a god exists" is true, and John says no. Then he is an atheist.

Again, your "a god", "any god", haven't specify the number you refer to the god.
It can be 1 god, 2 gods, 100 gods, some gods, many gods, all gods, you have to clarify the number, otherwise that is too vague.

 

[Pudding]

I am an atheist. I am not demonizing the term. I'm sorry that is the way you took it.

You are an atheist? Doubtful.

There are some theists who say atheist means believe no god exist, and then ask atheist to prove no god exist.

Those theist have to prove their god's existence, not asking atheist to prove the non-existence of their god.

As explain, it's the strong atheist who say they believe no god exist, not the weak atheist.
The strong atheist who say they believe no god exist and wish to convince other theist or weak atheist, then the strong atheist have the burden of proof to prove no god exist.

Weak atheist have no burden of proof to prove no god exist, weak atheist absence the belief that no god exist.

And i still see people saying atheist means believe no god exist. Including you, who say you're an atheist.

See what definition you give to weak atheist:

Weak atheist: a person in denial about being an atheist and is trying to evade some imaginary "burden of proof"
Agnostic weak atheist: a person who in an effort to avoid a burden of proof has found a label maker and lacks skills in categorization."

So similar to those theists who say atheist have the burden of proof to prove no god exist.
Explanation have been present, it's the strong atheist who say they believe no god exist, not the weak atheist.

 

[Curious George]

I figure out how to rebut your post, so i'll make a new reply again.

You previously say: A person who thinks a god does not exist is absent of a belief that God does exist. You further clarify "a god" is refer to "any god".

What is the amount to this "any god"?
1 god? 2 gods? 100 gods? Some gods? Many gods? All gods?

There's where i have to use "a person who believe at least one god exist", which the belief that at least one god exist, is enough to identify the person as a theist. Even another person believe multiple gods exist, he still believe at least one god exist, which can be identify as a theist.

And as long as a person absence the belief that at least one god exist, he then is not a theist. Which is my definition for atheist.

And i have to use "a person who believe no god exist" to be a part of definition for strong atheist. Which if there are two atheists, they both absence the belief that at least one god exist, the first person believe no god exist, the second person absence the belief that no god exist.
They are both atheist because they fit with the definition of atheist, which is absence the belief that at least one god exist.
The presence of belief that no god exist make the first person also a strong atheist.
The absence of belief that no god exist make the second person also a weak atheist.

Atheist, strong atheist, weak atheist, theist


Again, your "a god", "any god", haven't specify the number you refer to the god.
It can be 1 god, 2 gods, 100 gods, some gods, many gods, all gods, you have to clarify the number, otherwise that is too vague.

A god, is short for any/all. If you want to use "at least one god" for theist that is fine. For atheist: a person who believes not one god exists. Or, no god exists. Either way. There is no difference. Either a person is excluding their conception of god from existence, including their conception of god in existence, or in some way ignorant. That is all there is. People can try to create new labels that speak to how they approach the propositions; but to create a new position, the most one can do is put in a question mark to declare their ignorance. This is agnosticism. And consequently, we now have both theists and atheists who agree with agnostics. All of these additional categories are people trying to say something novel about the subject. But, do you really think these ideas were not around before some Neo atheist coined them? People are trying to soften their stance for worry about the future. However, the term atheist or theist are descriptive of the present. All of those people that "do not believe god exists" really believe no god exists. All of there exceptions and rhetoric amount to saying "I believe no god exists right now, but in the future I am perfectly willing to believe, if sufficient evidence presents itself." Alternatively there is a camp of people who seem to sit on the other side saying "I believe a god exists, but I realize there is not sufficient evidence out there and if someone disproves the existence of God, I could abandon my belief or hope thereof." Well, of course! If people did not think this way they would be illogical. We would expect any logical person to change their evaluation of the proposition if evidence presents. We are not talking about the future, we are describing only a moment.

 

[Curious George]

You are an atheist? Doubtful.

There are some theists who say atheist means believe no god exist, and then ask atheist to prove no god exist.

Those theist have to prove their god's existence, not asking atheist to prove the non-existence of their god.

As explain, it's the strong atheist who say they believe no god exist, not the weak atheist.
The strong atheist who say they believe no god exist and wish to convince other theist or weak atheist, then the strong atheist have the burden of proof to prove no god exist.

Weak atheist have no burden of proof to prove no god exist, weak atheist absence the belief that no god exist.

And i still see people saying atheist means believe no god exist. Including you, who say you're an atheist.

See what definition you give to weak atheist:

So similar to those theists who say atheist have the burden of proof to prove no god exist.
Explanation have been present, it's the strong atheist who say they believe no god exist, not the weak atheist.

I am most certainly an atheist. I have no desire to convince anyone that some god does not exist, though.

 

[Pudding]

I have to wonder why the OP creates ten (!!!) terms for atheism and yet only lists three for theism.

My intention for creating this thread is more about the term atheist, less about the term theist. That is because i often see the controversial debate about the meaning of atheist and its subcategory, between some theists with some atheists.

 

[Pudding]

A god, is short for any/all. If you want to use "at least one god" for theist that is fine. For atheist: a person who believes not one god exists. Or, no god exists. Either way. There is no difference. Either a person is excluding their conception of god from existence, including their conception of god in existence, or in some way ignorant. That is all there is. People can try to create new labels that speak to how they approach the propositions; but to create a new position, the most one can do is put in a question mark to declare their ignorance. This is agnosticism. And consequently, we now have both theists and atheists who agree with agnostics. All of these additional categories are people trying to say something novel about the subject. But, do you really think these ideas were not around before some Neo atheist coined them? People are trying to soften their stance for worry about the future. However, the term atheist or theist are descriptive of the present. All of those people that "do not believe god exists" really believe no god exists. All of there exceptions and rhetoric amount to saying "I believe no god exists right now, but in the future I am perfectly willing to believe, if sufficient evidence presents itself." Alternatively there is a camp of people who seem to sit on the other side saying "I believe a god exists, but I realize there is not sufficient evidence out there and if someone disproves the existence of God, I could abandon my belief or hope thereof." Well, of course! If people did not think this way they would be illogical. We would expect any logical person to change their evaluation of the proposition if evidence presents. We are not talking about the future, we are describing only a moment.

Please use some paragraph please.

 

[Pudding]

I am most certainly an atheist.

I'm doubtful.

I have explain my reason in my post #52, you provide 0 rebut to my reason.

Please, you can reply to this post of mine and again say you're an atheist, but again if you provide 0 rebut to my reason in my post #52, i will still say i'm doubtful.
You're not going to remove my doubt by providing 0 rebut to my reason.

I have no desire to convince anyone that some god does not exist, though.

I see, you don't have that desire.

 

[ArtieE]

Pudding I suggest you modify this drawing. You have one circle for theist. Then you have another circle for atheist. (A person with an absence of the belief that gods exist.) And inside the circle for atheist you have a smaller circle with strong atheist. (A person who believes gods don't exist.) Strong atheists are just a subset of all atheists. For all practical purposes atheist is just shorthand for weak atheist and weak atheist is mostly used when it's important to distinguish between weak and strong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theists don't engage in 100 page post about what is or is not theism.

Theist posts about what does and doesn't count as god-belief usually center around who is and isn't a monotheist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Theism: What people of different religions suddenly, and only, have in common when there's an atheist in the room.