This is an interesting position from my perspective.

I am new here and haven't read as many threads as I probably should have before making a comment, but, it seems your response doesn't allow for any 'middle of the road' or 'fence sitter' or non-committal postion.

From what little (50 posts) I have read, I have formed a very similar opinion regarding the purpose of this forum as skiminal. I also agree with a few of his/her comments regarding the views implied by those that appear to be prominent/preeimenent members of this forum.

While I realize the main emphasis here is rational, I don't think stating 'I don't know' implies one is committed to unbelief. Discounting agnostic belief as pre-athiest seems a bit persumptuous--though I do understand the rational that is used there--I don't belief it is accurate.

It sounds much like someone going to a baseball game and asking a person sitting next to them.
"So, do you think the Dodgers will win?"
answer. "I don't know!"
reply. "So, you think they are going to loose!"

(rational being if one doesn't believe the Dodgers are going to win, then obviously one must think the Dodgers will loose.)

That's not a logical assumption--in my opinion.
(fyi--I am not a Dodger fan--or even a baseball fan for that matter--that's just the first analogy I came up with )

One issue that is being overlooked here in the rather tired discussion of defining terms is that theism and atheism dwell upon certain points concerning existence.

In your analogy concerning baseball, the answer "i don't know" is perfectly understandable given the lack of information the person has at his disposal. In line with sapient's point concerning the fact that agnosticism concerns knowledge, it could be said that the person is agnostic on the question of whether the dodgers will win.

Atheism has to do with belief, as rightly pointed out by sapient and others, so to continue with the analogy, if the person was asked whether they believed in the existence of the dodgers, the person could conceivably say that they were an a-dodgerist, i.e. they were withholding judgment.

Now, before I get letters concerning problems with this, let me finish. The problem with the above analogy is that the existence of the dodgers is actually open to verifiability, due to it being grounded in material reality and open to rational discourse, hence it would be rather odd for anyone to call themselves an a-dodgerist. Truly, the person has only two options; one, acquiescing to the belief in the existence of the dodgers, or two, saying they "don't know" because they don't have enough information but they acknowledge the ability to acquire the info given time.

Now we get to atheism. Atheism isn't about positing "I don't know" because the point in doubt has nothing to do with material reality and hence cannot be thought about. It would be like me asking if you believe in the existence of "fizzle wassit" and me saying that such a creature was incapable of being defined to you. You would rightly say that you don't know what I was talking about and so withhold a positive judgment concerning its exsitence. Notice that this is different than "i don't know" because while at the moment you don't know just what it is you're discussing yet so as to say "you don't know."

Here's the problem theists have and why atheists of the negative kind have the upper hand. Theists have simply been incapable of describing in any way understandable their concept of god or deity and in fact have to resort to the creation of another realm (dualism) to account for their belief. But of course this is incapable of being understood, so the whole issue can simply be dealt with by a shrug of the shoulders, for we have no idea what they're talking about as their concepts have nothing to do with extant reality.

It's a shame that Christians have bastardized the terms so far that we now get "agnostics" telling us we're the re-definers. Look around the world and you'll notice most of Europe agrees with the original etymology of the words:

gnostic: with knowledge
agnostic: without knowledge

theist: with god belief
atheist: without god belief

The root (a) is similar in both, meaning without or lacking. Atheist is simply the absence of theism.

And you're being presented with evidence that millions of people would agree with, yet seem to want to hold steadfast to what you came to the table with. Through research I could find out that the Earth was flat, that Allah is real, and that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created us, yet that doesn't make my claim anymore valid.

I agree agnostics admit to not knowing, in your definition. You seem to be incapable to admit that the same etymological rules that apply to agnostic, also apply to atheist.

theist: someone with a positive belief in a god
atheist: someone without the beliefs of a theist

Do you have the positive belief a theist has? No.

I believe you're projecting.

It's also not the accepted truth by many that evolution is a fact. What's your point?

First, keep in mind EVERYONE associated with the Rational Response Squad at the upper levels is an agnostic, so please consider how you phrase that. Furthermore, virtually every community on the web that discusses atheism has at least a few people that hold our position, if not many more. InfidelGuy.com, AtheistNetwork.com, Atheists.com, Infidels.org are a few sites where our understanding of the definitions seems to be in the majority (the 4 largest atheist communities online: aside from us).

I'm not thrilled by your excessive usage of logical fallacies, and have now put me in a position where I am using them too. Seriously, appeals to popularity have no bearing on truth, for if they did, then you should be arguing that Christianity is true because it's the worlds largest religion.

"Rest of population?" Huh!? "completely different definition?" Wha?

If I ask you do you believe in God, that is a different question than if I ask "do you think god exists or that he doesn't exist?"

The proper dodgers analogy would've been, "do you think the dodgers will win?" (not win or lose) If I said I'd give $5 to everyone who believes they'll win, you wouldn't qualify if you said "I don't know," which would put you in the same boat as all the people who think they'll lose.

From the age of 14-20 I defined myself as a deist on some days and an agnostic on others. At the time I didn't realize it was possible to be an agnostic deist, which is what I was. At about 20 I went on the Internet to do more research. I came to realize that of the many lies that religion tells, one of them is the lie of what an atheist is. I myself was told by my Christian Church that atheists are devil worshippers who are so arrogant they claim to know that God doesn't exist. Online, I also came to realize that I was a deist out of ignorance. I wasn't able to explain a first cause, I didn't know what started the big bang, and was positing that a deity "did it." However as an open minded and honest individual I was forced to admit that I was explaining a concept that I lacked understanding on, with another that I also lacked understanding on. This I came to find out was known as "the argument from ignorance" and it's fallacious.

So, I dropped my deism, and I became an agnostic. However this presented a different problem. I now claimed "I don't know, there could be a god, there might not be." My new problem was, I still bought into a lie told to me by the religious right. I had managed to drop the lie that we know God exists, however I still held on to one... that lie of course was that the definition of atheist is someone who claims 100% a god doesn't exist.

It's rather simple when you look at the Oxford English Dictionary, a highly respected and trusted source. A source that hasn't had the hands of the American Religious right all over it (helpful to say the least). I posted that link for you, but apparently it was disregarded as not part of the "rest of the world." I'll post it again...

The definitions from the OED.

I'll BRIEFLY explain using the portions of the definition that apply only to remove confusion...

Atheism means: Disbelief in... the existence of a god.

So what is "Disbelief?" It's really more simple than the word sounds.

disbelieve: Not to believe or credit

Disbelieving is most simply defined as the absence of belief. The act of not believing something to be true. Do you believe a god exists? As we've seen, you don't hold a positive belief in God. You are not believing and crediting that a god is to be true. You are without that positive belief, you are a disbeliever, you are an atheist. And that spurious claim that the rest of the world defines the world as you do, is false, most of Europe, specifically England hasn't been brainwashed by fundamentalists who have twisted the words to fit their own agenda.

The religious right have marginalized and divided the secular community into two smaller groups, you let them get away with it willingly.

Well I'm glad. I've come to find that often when someone is wrong, and I correct them, no matter how polite I am, they return fire with something like "you're so arrogant and obnoxious." So whenever I'm dealing with hot button issues I often try to sugarcoat to some extent so the reader knows my intentions are that of education, not some primordial release of rage or anger.

Seriously? Come on. Obviously it was the later. I meant no rude or obnoxious implications with what I was saying.

Yet it came across so clearly in this round of responses.

I realize you see yourself as the authority on this, and see things differently than I do, but that does not imply that I am wrong or in need of correction. You are arguing minor points of definition, while completely ignoring those people who are neither athiest nor thiests. I realize you are probably just trying to pull them to your side, but that isn't really working here.

What term do you use when referring to a person that doesn't believe or disbelieve in god(s)?? And don't give me atheist, because the are not anti-theist they are just unsure. The OED definition of agnostic is a cop-out btw! But I can see why you would choose that one but there are many others that are highly respected as well...such as webster's which defines it as

So I was NOT wrong, and there was no need for your correction! Whether you choose to believe it or not.

This has been an excellent example of beating around the bush, and attacking issues that have little or nothing to do with the real point trying to be discussed. All this time and energy spent arguing over the definition of the terms being used, while totally ignoring the fact that there are thousands if not millions of people who have not made up their minds as to whether there is a god(s) or not. They--unlike you--have not declared "There is no God!."

I would excuse the behavior of a new member.
I would also call that person irrational.
I would say that person needs to find a starting point for themselves rather than letting something else define them.
I would ask that person to logically examine themselves before questioning the labels that define others.
I would ask that person to read the other areas and other posters to look for an answer that might have been posted by someone else.

The position of anti-theisT has already been addressed as irrational. Why? Because the general concensus is that the atheists here are anti-theisM.

No, what you should stop doing, is being dishonest. Again, point us to where this all happened.

I asked for a term, not responses. Perhaps that's why the question "Is this site hypocritical?" was posed? However, it seems more hyper-critical in my view sofar. While I appreciate being excused because I am a new member, I am surprised by the negative vibe I seem to be getting.
.
I was simply trying to find a common term to use when referring to that large group of people who aren't yet willing to deny the possibility of a supreme being(s) commonly referred to as god(s) but don't really have enough evidense to say one way or another what their opinion is at this point. I am beginning to get the feeling you may be among a group, of members here, that don't think/believe/deny-all-knowledge of, such a group even exists in the real world.
.
Is that a false understanding on my part?

I guess I was/am confused. (I think I heard someone say "DUH! )

Perhaps the term I am really looking for is the one that descibes those would are anti-thiest? I am looking for a single word to describe those who support the belief they know there is no god and never could have been a god, and have distain for those who think there is a god(s).

The only reason I continued the analogy was to show continuity. Whether you had intended the analogy to be complex or not is simply not at all an indication of whether the way in which i used it was valid. The reason I took the analogy to the extent I did was to show where you going wrong in your thinking, creating the argument that what religious believes adhere to is not open to discussion because it is, by definition, outside of the purview of rational discourse being it is not of material reality.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that the existence of people who adhere to agnosticism isn't in question. What is in question is the definition being used, wrongly, of atheism by yourself.

In point of fact, when I used the phrase "I don't know what you're tlaking about" it was in relation to the theists claim of the existence of god and even then I clearly stipulated that what I referred to was its existence in material reality, not the words themselves. Hence, when I used the phrase it had nothing to do with one's ability to speak on this forum. For you to use this as some kind of "victimization" or "martyr thought is unwarranted.

When the terms are understood instead of rejected upon 'belief' of their definitions, then we move into actual discussion.

The consensus prior to your arrival on the site is agnosticism alone is irrational.

Here is why:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/agnosticism_and_its_many_misconceptions

Dictionaries exist to capture commonly used definitions. They do not exist to provide rigorous philosophical defenses of the various defintions.

Hence, the proper way to achieve consensus is to first identify the context within which the term is to be used, and then rely on the definition used within that context, particularly if there is a rigorous philosophical defense available for its usage

When it comes to the term 'agnostic' we already have such a definition, from the creator of the word himself,

The term agnostic was coined by the 19th-century British positivist scientist Thomas H. Huxley He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in the word "amoral", and the noun "Gnostic". Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals-"ists," as he called them-who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. (See aesthetics) Rejecting this Wordsworthian idealism, Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Insane.

Look at what you are saying.

A person who doesn't believe and doesn't DISBELIEVE.

Double negative.

Let's remove the double negative and restate your claim.

What do we end up with:

A person who believes and doesn't believe.

Your words here are internally contradictory.

elnathon wrote:

I'll overlook the mispelling of "theist" and atheist"

I'll try this as clearly as I can;

If a "theist" is someone who believes,

and if the prefix "a-" simply means to lack, or be without,

Then would "atheist" simply mean "without belief in God"?

Notice the distinction between "lack of belief in God" and "belief in no God" (or "belief that God does not exist").

This is the source of the confusion. Atheists don't say that they believe God does not exist, they simply lack such belief.

Now, admittedly, you will find many an atheist who will also declare that they believe God does not exist, but this is strictly and technically in addition to their atheism. Often, the distinction is made between a hard atheist and a weak atheist, but IMO someone who makes the stronger claim is claiming something more than their lack of belief, for which we don't have an adequate term. Someone who says "I believe there is no God" is probably an atheist, but that doesn't mean that the statement defines the term "atheist"

Shaun

No it isn't. Those people are called "disbelievers." They are mentioned in the beginning of the definition.

Ok here we go again, with your inability to understand our position, and your choosing to define our position over and over while not comprehending it. I'll make this short...

The person who doesn't lack belief in a god or "believe that there is no god" is a theist.... everyone else is an atheist.

(a)=without
(theist)=someone believing in a god

atheists are without belief in a god.

Which god do you believe in? If you don't have a positive affirmative, I believe in XYZ god... you too are an atheist.

Did you not notice his next sentence was.... "Now, admittedly, you will find many an atheist who will also declare that they believe God does not exist, but this is strictly and technically in addition to their atheism."

In other words... even the atheist who believes that no god exists, is still "without a belief in a god." The easiest way to encompass all atheists which is a broad definition is to recognize that ALL atheists "lack or are without positive belief in a god."

Easiest definition that applies to all atheists:
atheist: someone without a positive belief in a god.

We want to erradicate irrational beliefs, not all beliefs.

What is GDNE?

I think we're up to about the fourth time you've been told this. We don't deny agnosticism, WE'RE ALL AGNOSTICS!!!

We deny that agnostic is a middle position between atheism and theism. Anyone who hasn't been brainwashed to believe otherwise can easily grasp the concept. Holding that agnostic is between atheism and theism, is irrational and or ignorant.

If you really need to, if you absolutely must...

strong atheist: someone that believes there is no god
weak atheist: someone lacking a belief in a god (all babies are born as weak atheists)

WTF are you talking about? This statement is bullshit.

We believe people should be honest with themselves and rational. We see that people aren't (you included), and "fight so strongly" to break humanity free of it's addiction to irrationality.

And it seems you have no fucking clue what we're about. There are tons of conflicting opinions on this board. A great example, (didn't I already bring it up in this thread?) is the fact that we're all omnivores, yet there are some people on this forum who are vegetarian. You don't see us fighting them on it.

Please stop repeating the same lies over and over.

The phrase is unconstitutional, as a freethinker, one not bound to believe things within the constrains of a holy text, it's very easy to see that.

Because some peoples beliefs don't deserve to be respected. Be careful not to confuse the issue with the fact that the person deserves respect, not the irrational belief. Since we respect the person we take time from our life and dedicate time to helping people see why their beliefs don't deserve respect.

Seriously, it's the same story over and over with you. Get a clue on the reading comprehension.

Point out our hypocrisy without misrepresenting our position... you can't do it... but feel free to try again, floor is yours.

You may be right. In either case, his refusal to acknowledge what is being said and continued ranting about things that simply aren't true is indicative of the mentality that the religious typically have, the inability to admit to their being wrong.

That's strong atheism.

Atheism is a disbelief in gods.

You actually said this:

This would require that the person, believe, and not believe, at the same time.

To not not believe is to believe.

We're not disagreeing that the term 'agnostic' is commonly misued. No one denies that the meanings ascribed to words change over time. A word's meaning may be overgeneralized. This has happened to the word 'agnostic' The word is now used to describe uncertainty regarding ANY choice at all.

Do you prefer coffee or tea? Yankees or Mets?

I'm agnostic on that one. Not sure.

So yes, people use the term to express doubt.

So we are not saying every person, everywhere, is in error for using it that way. What we are saying is that it is an error to transport this new meaning back to the original context. Theologically speaking, agnosticism has to do with knowledge claims.

This would mean that they don't believe. Atheism.

Strong atheism: disavowel of the possibilty of gods
theism: belief in a god

Weak atheism: disbelief.

Saying that agnosticism involves believing and not believing at the same time implies that agnosticism is doublethink. An agnostic would be at home in Oceania, and the neighbor of Winston Smith.

Why do theists feel the need to lie and pretend to be atheist or agnostic (or to once have been?)

Yep.

People can stop believing for emotional reasons and then become theists again.

Others can stop believing for emotional reasons and then start debating atheists about God....because they are not really strong believers. Does this sound unlikey? It isn't...

Not everyone becomes atheist due to purley intellect. Emotions play a part at first for some folks.

The easiest way to handle this is for Reason_Passion to post a print screen. Send it to my email Reason, if you're unable to host it yourself.

Thanks Reason for clearing that up.

I'm no expert on this...not even close, so maybe Todangst or someone can explain this to me.

Atheism is defined as: a lack of a belief in god or absence of belief in god . How is that possible? If you have any sort of opinion on the matter (whether it be positive, neutral or negative), that's a belief, correct? You have to have certain beliefs to arrive at your lack of belief....right?

I'm sure it's going to come up, so I'm going to bring up the "all babies are atheists argument". They have no belief either way, so they truly would lack a belief in god or anything else. But how does that argument apply to adults (atheist or theist) who formulate their opinions based on knowledge, faith or beliefs?

Definition of belief:
-something believed; an opinion or conviction
-confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
-confidence; faith; trust

Oh, and I think the site is awesome. The beautiful thing about offensive or "hypocritical" material is that you don't have to look. No one is forcing anyone to visit this site.

Yes, I read through the whole thread, but didn't see anyone really answer this very thoroughly. Babies do not believe in any gods, no. But babies have absolutely no knowledge on any subject, so don't you think that sort of disqualifies them?

But, even you admit that beliefs lead to disbelief. You must have some sort of beliefs to have disbelief. It makes sense to me, but that doesn't mean much. Ugh, no I did not 'pick up' this argument from anyone. I've always wondered why so many atheists freak out whenever this topic is brought up. My husband goes nuts whenever we talk about it...personally, it doesn't really bother me.

No, the opposite. I was saying that babies are atheists, absolutely.

But wouldn't your many beliefs add up to a positive belief...the results (theist or atheist) of those beliefs would seem to be irrelevant. I don't know, I am just of the opinion that everything (besides fact) is a belief. I don't believe god exists and I can't prove that he doesn't or he does, so either way...wouldn't it be a belief?

I've actually just recently starting to post more on this site, so sorry if there was already a thread on this, but I haven't seen it.

Sorry I haven't donated or purchased shows in a while. I need to. I had a huge issue with PayPal and have not used them in months. Somehow, someone got access to my PayPal account information and completely drained my bank account, since it was linked directly. The traced it to London and refunded my money 3 weeks after the fact. It really left a bad taste in my mouth with them. Do you guys have another way of accepting payments?