NationStates Jolt Archive

How does not making a choice equal non belief?
Non belief is where you do not have that belief. And you don't have the belief that there is a god. It's quite simple.

BAAWA,

There is a natural pecking order on the forums, you see. Unfortunately, you are not at the top of that order, no matter how much you may wish to be. You were told, in no uncertain terms, how you should act. You decided to ignore this, and carry on your merry way.

Well, now you can carry on, off-line, for a fortnight. Perhaps you will listen when you come back.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Non belief is where you do not have that belief. And you don't have the belief that there is a god. It's quite simple.

But its not that I don't not believe in god its that I believe we can't know if there is or is not a god. I don't go around saying we can't know so I don't believe. I go we don't know so I haven't made a choice yet.

Since I believe there is no way to prove whether there is a God or not, then I can't know whether there is a God or not, so I don't know whether there is a God or not.

what if God came to earth with a Bazooka and started killing all the dogs, and then flew their bodies to the moon?
the proof of God happened 2000 to 35,0000 years ago. people just dont believe in these happenings anymore. :(

But its not that I don't not believe in god its that I believe we can't know if there is or is not a god. I don't go around saying we can't know so I don't believe. I go we don't know so I haven't made a choice yet.
If he can call you Atheist after i posted the definition of Agnostic already, then he really cant accept when hes wrong.

what if God came to earth with a Bazooka and started killing all the dogs, and then flew their bodies to the moon?
the proof of God happened 2000 to 35,0000 years ago. people just dont believe in these happenings anymore. :(The people if the specified time period were also uneducated. What they thought was God may as well been the shadow of a bird that they couldnt find in the sky.

None of those applie to me. There is no God and I hate the morals that everyone seems to have about God. Argh, screw it *Runs away to be found in a brothel*

None of those applie to me. There is no God and I hate the morals that everyone seems to have about God. Argh, screw it *Runs away to be found in a brothel*
... ok?

Anyway, im off, i'll probably be back here tomorow. Later!

If he can call you Atheist after i posted the definition of Agnostic already, then he really cant accept when hes wrong.

Either he is a very poor forum troll or he just can't accept that he is wrong sometimes.

Agnosticism is technically atheism. Atheism being the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists therefore either are disbelieving in god, by which I mean they actively believe there is no god. Or they do not claim to know whether god exists or not.

So an agnostic is technically an atheist, but agnosticism offers a finer gradation of definition as to exactly what the persons stance on theism is. So most agnostics will refer to themselves as agnostics rather than atheists.
Usage is not particularly relevant, since there are many usages of both atheism and agnosticism. Including the original meanings. None of which are more prevalent than the other, especially considering we are using a media that means that persons from all over the world could be taking part in the discussion.

I am an agnostic... sort of. I know that it is impossible to know whether a god or gods exist or not. On the other hand, I find the description of the gods worshipped by most major religions so ridiculous, that I don't think that they could possibly exist.

So I concede that there could be some god out there, but I don't think that it would be like any god from any religion that I have ever heard of.

For those who don't actually know anything about Satanism beyond what's been fed them by the media I suggest you check out www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm)

Thank you. IMO, an agnostic is an offshoot of Atheism, because we don't worship a god. However, you can not call us full blown Atheists, because we don't say "GOD DOESN"T EXISTS!!!" We say "God cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, we will not worship him/her/it."

Some of you have been saying "There's no middle ground. You either believe, or don't." Well, you people are most likely devout Christians who have been taught all your lives that there are "Us" and "Them" There has always been bipolar forces. Good, and Evil. Welcome to reality.

In this little place called the "real world", we have something called a gray area. This is where the borders between Good and Evil blur, or even vanish entirely. Here is a scenario where a gray zone is noticable:

A man's wife is sick with an uncommon disease. A scientist has discovered the cure for this disease, and can make it at a cost of 1000 dollars a dose. He charges, however, 2000 dollars a dose. The man cannot afford the medicine, because he is a lower class citizen, and is trying to feed his children and keep his wife in a hospital. The man steals the medicine from the doctor, and gives it to his wife.


Is the man good, or evil? This is where the bipolar model of Good and Evil breaks down. It is impossible to say whether he was doing good, or being bad.

In the gray zone, you will find the Agnostics. We can't say that God is here. We can't say he isn't. We walk the middle road, without passing into either of the enemy's camps.

Math cannot be comapred to spirituality at all. This is because math is concrete and solid, while spirituality cannot be proven [Objective vs subjective]. They are exact opposites. HA that wrong, you guys believe that the Bible is real, and you think that it is "concrete and solid" or the Christians that I happen to know. SO YOU'RE WRONG!!! Wow, I'm screwed in the head. :gundge:

Who the hell was dumb enough to vote for these two? That's like not believing someone's your dad after seeing the DNA evidence...or not believing that 2+2=4 after you count in out on your fingers...

Don't be stupid people. I know it's a lot to ask...but please...

If you have seen the DNA evidence then you don't believe, you KNOW.
Acctualy 2+2 can be 3 or 5 aswell as 4. Since 2 can be anywhere from 1,5 to 2,4 depending if your rounding up or down.

What kind of Atheist are you

I tell ya fellas, I put my pants on, one leg at a time just like the restaya.

I tell ya fellas, I put my pants on, one leg at a time just like the restaya.
"But when they are on I make gold records"

"But when they are on I make gold records"

We'll all be wearing gold-plated diapers.

You may be losing me here. Your saying its not that I accepted it as not true but I did not accept it as true?
I take the third option. I say we can not know and I don't make the choice.

There really IS no 'third option'.

It's a misunderstanding over what Atheism is... due to a history of people deciding it has meant something other than what it DOES mean.

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

Now - some are more extreme than others, and outright DENY the existence of god.... these are Explicit Atheists... they really ARE a minority among even Atheists.

The REST of the Atheists, are Implicit. For some reason, they simply do not 'believe' in 'god'. This might mean they doubt gods exist, this might mean they think logic makes it better to err on the side of less super-nature.

Or - it might mean that they simply have not accepted any forms of god as 'real'.

Thus - the simple act of NOT buying into any of the 'god' stories, makes you an Atheist. It doesn't matter if you believe in 'no god', either... it is the LACK of belief that defines the (Implicit) Atheist.

On the contrary; I'm exercising great diplomacy. It's neither my fault nor my problem that certain people do not acknowledge basic truths, such as there being no middle of have and not have.

And, I have agreed with you on that matter... however, I have done it with a little more tact, perhaps... and been a little more respectful.

It costs me nothing, and it makes the forum a nicer place to be...

I AM a little concerned that you consider your approach, thus far, to be a 'diplomatic' one...

The people if the specified time period were also uneducated. What they thought was God may as well been the shadow of a bird that they couldnt find in the sky.

not as smart as us, but they were still people, and they still had minds.if a race said that a sea part and thier people ran across it, ill asume they didnt get that wrong.

grae n idle, i notice that you capitolize "athiest" and leave God in lowercaps. its a name. i know this wasnt a mistake, this WAS intentional. i know im the last to be a grammer nazi but SHOW SOME RESPECT!!!!

There really IS no 'third option'.

It's a misunderstanding over what Atheism is... due to a history of people deciding it has meant something other than what it DOES mean.

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

Now - some are more extreme than others, and outright DENY the existence of god.... these are Explicit Atheists... they really ARE a minority among even Atheists.

The REST of the Atheists, are Implicit. For some reason, they simply do not 'believe' in 'god'. This might mean they doubt gods exist, this might mean they think logic makes it better to err on the side of less super-nature.

Or - it might mean that they simply have not accepted any forms of god as 'real'.

Thus - the simple act of NOT buying into any of the 'god' stories, makes you an Atheist. It doesn't matter if you believe in 'no god', either... it is the LACK of belief that defines the (Implicit) Atheist.

Then why make up the term agnostic?

*** FYI to all ***
Atheism is inherantly a belief regarding god..... In its case a belief based upon there being no god.... Atheism is a THEOlogy ;)

Sorry, my friend... but this gets NO truer, with repeat postings.

I am an Atheist. I do not KNOW if there is a god, or not... but I don't 'believe' there is... any more than I 'believe' there are pixies, or a boogeyman.

While some MIGHT call that Agnosticism, they are incorrect... although I am pretty much Agnostic, ALSO.

Lack of belief DOES NOT EQUAL belief of lack.

How can I be an atheist when I lack the belief that there is no god?

Because only Explicit Atheists 'believe' that there is no god.

Most Atheists just don't 'believe' there is a god/gods.

Then why make up the term agnostic?
Because before the term was introduced, noone differentiated between agnostic atheists & hardcore/explicit atheists.

The term has been highly successful, most likely because Christians tend to treat agnostic atheists slightly better than explicit atheists. The word agnostic, in current language, has no inherent religious/spiritual implication. It's simply a word like uncertainty or indecision.

As Several of us have already stated, you are an atheist. It makes no sense to try to refuse that any more than it makes sense for you to try and refuse that you are human, or a poster at NS General.

Because only Explicit Atheists 'believe' that there is no god.

Most Atheists just don't 'believe' there is a god/gods.

That depends entirely on what Atheist means. Some use the term Atheist to denote the lack of belief in a deity, others, belief in the lack of a deity. As long as the person using the term denotes which meaning they're referring to when it becomes important, either meaning is equally valid.

anostic=athiest
i believe if you dont have a faith, your athiest.
period.

That depends entirely on what Atheist means. Some use the term Atheist to denote the lack of belief in a deity, others, belief in the lack of a deity. As long as the person using the term denotes which meaning they're referring to when it becomes important, either meaning is equally valid.
Argh...

Atheism means both. Agnostic atheism is the former.

anostic=athiest
i believe if you dont have a faith, your athiest.
period.

So when you use the term atheist, we can be sure you also include agnostics. When others use the term atheist they might not include agnostics. Hopefully they will state which they mean.

Argh...

Atheism means both. Agnostic atheism is the former.

When you say the word. When others say the word it doesn't. Words mean what they express. For example, if I was talking to my friends about "the archimedes incident" the term would not mean the discovery of displacement, it would mean one of my friends spewing water out of his nose. If you said "archimedes incident it probably wouldn't mean that.

So when you use the term atheist, we can be sure you also include agnostics. When others use the term atheist they might not include agnostics. Hopefully they will state which they mean.
So when anyone uses the term atheism, it's reasonable to assume they mean atheism in all it's ways, shapes & forms, unless they explicitly state differently...

I know I molest lagnuage on a daily basis, but what you suggest is a bit extreme even for me.

That depends entirely on what Atheist means. Some use the term Atheist to denote the lack of belief in a deity, others, belief in the lack of a deity. As long as the person using the term denotes which meaning they're referring to when it becomes important, either meaning is equally valid.
To us atheists

Soft or implicit atheist = no belief in a deity
Hard or explicit atheist = belief in no deity

Explicits are often called anti-theists

Where is Athiest due to lack of care in the thread pole?

So when anyone uses the term atheism, it's reasonable to assume they mean atheism in all it's ways, shapes & forms, unless they explicitly state differently...

I know I molest lagnuage on a daily basis, but what you suggest is a bit extreme even for me.

It's not really that extreme: there's a substantial population (I.E. most agnostics) who use the term atheist to mean someone who believes in the nonexistence of god. They can do so absolutely as an explicit atheist, or based on available evidence, which is the other type of atheist. It's usually pretty easy to tell who's using which definition. Personally I like the second as it allows a greater degree of differentiation between atheists who would deny the existence of god in the face of evidence and atheists who deny it based on available evidence. I recognize that people use your definition as well, however, so I included it as an option on my poll so everyone can vote on their favored presumptions. While I thank you people who actually think the two definitions are worth arguing about for keeping this thread bumped, the debate is really unnecessary. Some will consider themselves atheist only if they believe in the nonexistence of god, others if they merely don't believe in the existence of god, and that's really all there is to it.

Where is Athiest due to lack of care in the thread pole?

The last two are basically that: you don't know, so you don't assume a god and consider that to be the definition of atheist.

It's not really that extreme: there's a substantial population (I.E. most agnostics) who use the term atheist to mean someone who believes in the nonexistence of god. They can do so absolutely as an explicit atheist, or based on available evidence, which is the other type of atheist. It's usually pretty easy to tell who's using which definition. Personally I like the second as it allows a greater degree of differentiation between atheists who would deny the existence of god in the face of evidence and atheists who deny it based on available evidence. I recognize that people use your definition as well, however, so I included it as an option on my poll so everyone can vote on their favored presumptions. While I thank you people who actually think the two definitions are worth arguing about for keeping this thread bumped, the debate is really unnecessary. Some will consider themselves atheist only if they believe in the nonexistence of god, others if they merely don't believe in the existence of god, and that's really all there is to it.
I'm starting to get the impression that you're right. To me it seems silly. I've always assumed people referring to themselves as agnostics does so to explain why they are atheists.. Not because they differentiate themselves from other atheists.
I know that, for example, UpwardThrust often does just that. To me, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But to use to word as a substitute for the real definition is daft. I mean really.. Are english-speaking people really that bad at the language?

I disagree that it's a good idea to change the meaning of the two words. If this really is a problem, I'd think it would be better to make two new words, so everybody doesn't keep confusing the meanings of the current ones.

And now for something completely different: what motivated you to make the poll?

I had to go with option 1, because existence of a god would be irrelevant to what I believe. People that would tell you to believe in a god without question would consider loyalty to be one of the highest values. Conversely, I consider integrity to be one of the highest values, the idea of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. You don't need a god to tell you what the right thing to do is when you have the capacity to realize it for yourself.

I had to go with option 1, because existence of a god would be irrelevant to what I believe. People that would tell you to believe in a god without question would consider loyalty to be one of the highest values. Conversely, I consider integrity to be one of the highest values, the idea of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. You don't need a god to tell you what the right thing to do is when you have the capacity to realize it for yourself.
If that's what option 1 meant, then I guess I should have chosen that as well.

I understood it as if I'd refuse to acknowledge divinity if I objectively knew it existed. Of course I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't worthship such entities though.

If that's what option 1 meant, then I guess I should have chosen that as well.

I understood it as if I'd refuse to acknowledge divinity if I objectively knew it existed. Of course I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't worthship such entities though.

I think my thoughts on the matter if God were proven to exist:
"You're God? Well good for You. Best of luck being Lord of the Christians."

I think my thoughts on the matter if God were proven to exist:
"You're God? Well good for You. Best of luck being Lord of the Christians."
Actually, I think I'd try to get one of the minor & less self absorbed deities on my side. Imagine having a deity help finance your local music scene & such!! Kick ass!

..Of course, that might be suicide. According to some Christians, their god doesn't like Oi! music at all.

Still, it wouldn't stop me from trying :D

The second part of that definition is a little biased. At least, the immorality part. Still, I guess it's sometimes a common usage, if an incorrect one.

Exactly, the last one, from the objective standpoint is not really accepted for general use.... It is highly subjective, and is the one that allows the use of "Atheism" in religious frameworks to be applies to anyone who does not follow the particular "(G/g)od(s)" of the particular relgion, and how such is applied to Pagans, Christians, Muslims and the like by each other at times..

Thus, objectively only (1) should be used. Thus someone who Does not know =/= Someone who denies, and thus does not adopting a "doctrine" that (G/g)od(s) do(es) not exist... Literally, no doctrine on God, and thus no "theology" and thus no "-theism" is applicable (including atheism)... Their doctrine deals with knowledge (greek gnosis), apart from (a) (G/g)od(s) existance.... Anyone who has such beliefs regarding the knowledge of such, is an Agnostic; but only if they formulate a doctrine, and belief (theology proper) regarding "(G/g)od(s)" can they be tagged with a "-theism"; postive or negative. In this since I am still an Agnostic, even after all these years; given that I do not believe the existance of God can be prooven by empirical knowlege and measurement... Though I am theistic, as I have adopted a position (and doctrine) regarding belief in God, in the positive in my case, making me an Agnostic Theist...

I'm not sure about the objective/subjective thing... but I certainly do not believe in a "god" or "gods". In my opinion, religion should be banned.
Now when I say religion, I mean organized religion, not individual beliefs.

Interesting POV.... The question of course is, can you actually do one without effecting the other?

Part of my belief, is that I commune with others of similar beliefs, we do this in a building we have bought (through each of our own givings to the group as a whole)... Each of us believe this, so it's individual... But, to ensure proper operation of such we create a local government over our group to handle disputes within the group, make sure our grounds and buildings are maintained, and to coordinate activities here and elsewhere amongst others... Thus creating organization out of individual concerns/beliefs.... Thus, banning organized religion, is banning individual beliefs.

Sorry, my friend... but this gets NO truer, with repeat postings.

I am an Atheist. I do not KNOW if there is a god, or not... but I don't 'believe' there is... any more than I 'believe' there are pixies, or a boogeyman.

While some MIGHT call that Agnosticism, they are incorrect... although I am pretty much Agnostic, ALSO.

Lack of belief DOES NOT EQUAL belief of lack.

Lack of belief =/= disbelief....

Atheism is a theology.... by the very construction of the term....

As long as you have a states belief regarding (G/g)od(s), (including a statement of belief in the negative) you have adopted a theological belief, and have constructed a doctrine in refference to (a teaching or understanding of).... Thus while you can have theologically based agnostics (ones whose belief regarding the knowledge of, is that it is not knowable), if they lack a theological construct regarding such, you cannot apply a "-theism" to their position, as they have no "Doctrine" in refference to.

Same standards can be applied to many other philosophical constructs... take Monarchism vs. Anarchism....

A monarchist believes one should rule...
An anarchist does not believe one should rule... (negative, or positive "believes that no one should rule")...

Either one is a belief regarding rulership... Just as both Montheism and Atheism are beliefs regarding "(G/g)od(s)"....

What seperates the issue is the difference between "not believing there (is a)/(in) (G/g)od(s)" and not having a belief regarding a "belief regarding (a) (G/g)od(s)".... EA does not have a belief regarding belief in (G/g)od(s)... But this is not the same as having "no belief in (a) (G/g)od(s)"... In a subjective sense they can be seen as the same, but I am not going to apply differing philosophical subjects, being viewed independent, subjectively, but rather objectively... Agnosticism is not inhernatly anything but a belief regarding the application and possibility in knowledge; being itself philosophical in nature... No -"theism" can be applied to it, unless the possition reasons, within the framework of such, into belief regarding (G/g)od(s).... In the positive, it becomes Agnostic Theism, in the negative it becomes Agnostic Atheism; but if no -"theism" is adopted, postive or negative, it cannot be rightly grouped with either, objectively... Since it makes no direct statements within a theological framework....

Sic. belief regarding a thing vs. belief regarding belief in a thing...

In the BAWAA sense (and yours as well, operating subjectively); it is true, EA is subjectively an "Atheist".... However, objectively EA is not... Simply because EA has no theology (literally), and therefore "-theism" cannot be objectively applied... Whereas you and BAWAA have an objective "-theism" which you have formulated by faculty of reason...

Thus, I do not apply "-theism" to one who has no adopted "theological" position on the manner... Operating objectively. No "-theism" is applicable, where there is no "-theism" to begin with.

This of course then leads to the latter part of the poll.... objectivity or subjectivity...

anostic=athiest
i believe if you dont have a faith, your athiest.
period.

Agnostic == Atheist?

Agnostic == "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

I believe it is impossible to know whether there is a God :THEREFORE: I am agnostic.

Atheist == "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

I believe a God exists :THEREFORE: I am not an atheist.

Conclusion

Agnostic =/= Atheist (Which the roots of each word itself should say)...

Agnosticism is a Philosophy.... Atheism is a Theology.... Neither is mutually inclusive of one another, neither exclusive... Both can be (or not be) in the same being, at the same time... OR either one or another... Belief regarding knowledge (a gnosis), is not implicit towards belief in status of a divinity (a theism)...

Since the defining argument, is prooven untrue, the conclusion is unfounded.

While it is possible for someones philosophical frame to formulate a theological argument, such is not iteself conclusive, and does not necessitate the actual formulation of a theological argument of refference.

An agnostic philosophical frame can formulate a doctrinal view and theology regarding the theoretical status of (G/g)od(s), for or agaisnt.... But does not necessitate actual formulation as such...

Agnostic == Atheist?

Agnostic == "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

I believe it is impossible to know whether there is a God :THEREFORE: I am agnostic.

Atheist == "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

I believe a God exists :THEREFORE: I am not an atheist.

Conclusion

Agnostic =/= Atheist (Which the roots of each word itself should say)...

Agnosticism is a Philosophy.... Atheism is a Theology.... Neither is mutually inclusive of one another, neither exclusive... Both can be (or not be) in the same being, at the same time... OR either one or another... Belief regarding knowledge (a gnosis), is not implicit towards belief in status of a divinity (a theism)...

Since the defining argument, is prooven untrue, the conclusion is unfounded.

While it is possible for someones philosophical frame to formulate a theological argument, such is not iteself conclusive, and does not necessitate the actual formulation of a theological argument of refference.

An agnostic philosophical frame can formulate a doctrinal view and theology regarding the theoretical status of (G/g)od(s), for or agaisnt.... But does not necessitate actual formulation as such...

Bookmarked ... stated WAY better then I have so far managed to try and say the same thing.

Who wouldn't acknowledge the existance of a god if she/he/it stood up in front of you? Surely they're subject to the same levels of requirement of proof as, er... cheese and people and things.

Who wouldn't acknowledge the existance of a god if she/he/it stood up in front of you? Surely they're subject to the same levels of requirement of proof as, er... cheese and people and things.
The problem being how do we determine if it is “god” vs just a rather powerful being

Example: Awful originally meant something that was full of awe. It was, in a sense, better than something that is "awsome" because in that case there is only some awe, not a full amount. This is still seen when using "awfully" such as "that's an awfully sexy dress you're wearing."


I don't disagree with the original meaning of "awful" but "awsome" = Some Awe?? Come on! "some" as a suffix is not the same as the modern word "some" Really, don't be too literal about that sort of thing. "Awesome" = awe inspiring. "fearsome" = fear inspiring. It's got nothing to do with the word "some."

I just realised how incredibly futile this thread really is. I mean, the same evidence is brought ot the table over and over. Its like a boring party, because everyone brought boston market chicken instead of making their own food to share with others. In this thread, all you ever do is regurgitate the same things over and over.

"Agnosticism is this, atheism is this!"

"Incorrect, atheism = agnosticism"

"There is no 'Middle Path'. You either belive or you dont."

"There is a 'middle'! Why cant you see that?"


Thats all thats being said here. Its a waste of energy.

Morality depends on each person.

Proofs will never be available in a 100% infallible manner, hence i will believe when proofs arise...

Side note i agree with the people at CoS.

let me explain further.
i believe that you cant say that you believe and not believe at the same time. if you arent dedicated and truely believing to a faith whether Christianity, or the religion of The Mighty Playboy Magazine you ARE an athiest.
saying that you cant confirm there being a God means you dont believe, and my definition of Athiest is one who does not believe in God.
whether you say you cant deny it or not, if you dont accept that there IS one without a doubt, you're athiest.

also, by saying you dont believe in God, you are stating that there is no God!!!!!!! you cant not believe in something that you think IS there!!!! that means there is only 1 type of athiest...... the ones that exist.

let me explain further.
i believe that you cant say that you believe and not believe at the same time. if you arent dedicated and truely believing to a faith whether Christianity, or the religion of The Mighty Playboy Magazine you ARE an athiest.
saying that you cant confirm there being a God means you dont believe, and my definition of Athiest is one who does not believe in God.
whether you say you cant deny it or not, if you dont accept that there IS one without a doubt, you're athiest.

also, by saying you dont believe in God, you are stating that there is no God!!!!!!! you cant not believe in something that you think IS there!!!! that means there is only 1 type of athiest...... the ones that exist.
Well... That's not completely accurate. For example, many, many Christians throughout history have promoted the idea that agnosticism is a prerequisite of true faith. One of the really famous ones would be Ockham, the guy with the razor. I seem to recall the bible saying something similar.

Of course, neither the Bible nor Ockham mentioned agnosticism, but the word is younger then both, so that's hardly surprising.

You are right, however, that you can't both believe in the divine & not believe in it. That's an oxymoron. But simply being unable to answer the question doesn't have much to do with whether you personally believe in it or not.

That's the point of this whole confusing discussion. Simply stating that you're agnostic doesn't say anything about your personal beliefs. It just says what you think about the question.

Not unlike if you ask me if I think it's cold outside, and I say "that's an odd question to ask". It's no answer, and it's most definitly not a "third option". The "third option" some people keep raving about, is simply one shade of atheism.

That depends entirely on what Atheist means. Some use the term Atheist to denote the lack of belief in a deity, others, belief in the lack of a deity. As long as the person using the term denotes which meaning they're referring to when it becomes important, either meaning is equally valid.

Atheist means 'without god'... basically.

Which is why we have further categorisations... the Explicit (who believes in a LACK of God), and the Implicit (who lacks a BELIEF in God).

If you are worried about intentions being clouded, use the correct terms... they are there for a reason.

As it is, the POPULAR conception is that an Atheist believes there IS NO god... but this is flawed. The 'default' Atheist (if you will) is someone who doesn't accept god.

Christians are Atheistic, if you think about it, about a whole ARRAY of gods... and THAT (Explicit) Atheism, is the reason for the misunderstanding about what the average Atheist believes.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're right. To me it seems silly. I've always assumed people referring to themselves as agnostics does so to explain why they are atheists.. Not because they differentiate themselves from other atheists.
I know that, for example, UpwardThrust often does just that. To me, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But to use to word as a substitute for the real definition is daft. I mean really.. Are english-speaking people really that bad at the language?

I disagree that it's a good idea to change the meaning of the two words. If this really is a problem, I'd think it would be better to make two new words, so everybody doesn't keep confusing the meanings of the current ones.

And now for something completely different: what motivated you to make the poll?

UpwardThrust usually refers to himself as an Agnostic with Atheist leanings. From this, one can deduce that he considers the BASE assumption to be that 'one can never know for sure if there is a god'.... and that his 'belief' tends AWAY from belief in god, rather than towards.

Lack of belief =/= disbelief....

Atheism is a theology.... by the very construction of the term....

As long as you have a states belief regarding (G/g)od(s), (including a statement of belief in the negative) you have adopted a theological belief, and have constructed a doctrine in refference to (a teaching or understanding of)....

Sorry, but there is just no way to accept this.

For me, Atheism is clearly a LACK of theology. I have no belief that there IS a god... and no belief that there is NOT a god. I am lacking in any of your theology.... thus, I am an Atheist.

And, most Atheists are of that kind. The hardcore Explicit Atheist is actually a fairly rare animal, and is largely a product of rebelling against a culture that says there is only ONE possible answer.

And, what is my Atheist 'doctrine'?

Sorry, but there is just no way to accept this.

For me, Atheism is clearly a LACK of theology. I have no belief that there IS a god... and no belief that there is NOT a god. I am lacking in any of your theology.... thus, I am an Atheist.

And, most Atheists are of that kind. The hardcore Explicit Atheist is actually a fairly rare animal, and is largely a product of rebelling against a culture that says there is only ONE possible answer.

And, what is my Atheist 'doctrine'?

Atheism is itself a theology; so, if you lack ANY theology, clasping Atheist to your position, is inherantly FUBAR'ed.... You should merely be Agnostic, with no -"theism" attached.

It's not my fault people who are not Atheists are attaching that term to their position...

There is no "accepting"... disbelief =/= "lack of belief"... If you "disbelieve" you do not "lack belief" but an "atheist", "disbelieves"... Disbelief is OPPOSING belief in, UNBELIEF is "lacking"... Thus, you simply are not an atheist (since you have no theology in the first place); and are therefore just agnostic (with no theology attached)....

If you have no theology, then don't adopt a title which automatically implies one...

Believing that there is no supernatural is not a doctrine, and thus not a theology. We all have different beliefs as to why there isn't a God, or why--at the very least--one cannot be known to exist. There is no single unifying creed, so it is not a theology.

Believing that there is no supernatural is not a doctrine, and thus not a theology. We all have different beliefs as to why there isn't a God, or why--at the very least--one cannot be known to exist. There is no single unifying creed, so it is not a theology.

"Believing that there is no supernatural".... is a doctrine. If it were not, you would not have said it.... As soon as your formulate a statement to convey an understanding of your belief upon that of another; you have created a doctrine. Such is the philosophical and theological DEFINITION of the word....

There is no single unifying "creed" for Theism either, let alone Monotheism, or Pantheism... Whether or not the particular discipline is unified, has no bearing upon it's proper placement as a theology, the only bearing something has upon theology, is are you systematically conveying your particular beliefs regarding the concept of (G/g)od(s) upon another... If you are, you are conveying (1) A set of doctrines upon the other person which formulate your particular (2) Theological view.... If you did not have (1) A theology, or (2) a doctrine in such capacity regarding (G/g)od(s); you simply would never get into any discussion involving the concept of such. As soon as you utter a disbelief or belief upon a particular subject matter; you can no longer claim to not have any doctrine upon such a position.... If you do not have a doctrine, you do not talk about it... If you're talking about it; you have a doctrine.

Here are some other "Doctrines" for your example, the first from the DOI, the rest from this thread:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

"For me, Atheism is clearly a LACK of theology."

"Morality depends on each person."

"I consider integrity to be one of the highest values, the idea of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do."

Once you realize the purpose and function of each of the above sentences; you'll then know what a doctrine actually is... You're surrounded by them everyday, in history, in language studies, in math, and even in science... And you yourself build and convey doctrine, likely, most days of your life...

Atheism is itself a theology; so, if you lack ANY theology, clasping Atheist to your position, is inherantly FUBAR'ed.... You should merely be Agnostic, with no -"theism" attached.

It's not my fault people who are not Atheists are attaching that term to their position...

There is no "accepting"... disbelief =/= "lack of belief"... If you "disbelieve" you do not "lack belief" but an "atheist", "disbelieves"... Disbelief is OPPOSING belief in, UNBELIEF is "lacking"... Thus, you simply are not an atheist (since you have no theology in the first place); and are therefore just agnostic (with no theology attached)....

If you have no theology, then don't adopt a title which automatically implies one...

You seem to be under the impression that it gets truer if you repeat it. I know this is a technique the church has used for centuries, and one of the chief tools of propoganda, but you are not dealing with a mindless automaton here, so your effort is wasted.

Quite simply, there is no way you can (successfully) portray a LACK of belief, as a FORM of belief.

I would grant that a 'belief of lack' could be argued as a system of belief, but I think you are chasing red-herrings with your 'Atheism = Theology" angle.

I also think that you are missing the fundamental meaning of 'Agnostic', if you think that it has ANYTHING to do with belief in god. Maybe that wasn't what you mean... but that is how it reads.

Last thing... the reason Atheism is often described as a 'disbelief'... as an opposition to belief... is that the BELIEF is what defines the theology. Thus, in order to be 'against' the theology (in any capacity... simple doubt, or pure opposition), one must 'disbelieve' what one is told ABOUT god/gods.

You could tell me Jesus was god's son. I would find it difficult to accept... maybe even 'disbelieve' it. That doesn't mean I have a 'theological' choice made... simply that I DON'T accept the choice you tell me about.

You seem to be under the impression that it gets truer if you repeat it. I know this is a technique the church has used for centuries, and one of the chief tools of propoganda, but you are not dealing with a mindless automaton here, so your effort is wasted.

Quite simply, there is no way you can (successfully) portray a LACK of belief, as a FORM of belief.

I would grant that a 'belief of lack' could be argued as a system of belief, but I think you are chasing red-herrings with your 'Atheism = Theology" angle.

I also think that you are missing the fundamental meaning of 'Agnostic', if you think that it has ANYTHING to do with belief in god. Maybe that wasn't what you mean... but that is how it reads.

Last thing... the reason Atheism is often described as a 'disbelief'... as an opposition to belief... is that the BELIEF is what defines the theology. Thus, in order to be 'against' the theology (in any capacity... simple doubt, or pure opposition), one must 'disbelieve' what one is told ABOUT god/gods.

You could tell me Jesus was god's son. I would find it difficult to accept... maybe even 'disbelieve' it. That doesn't mean I have a 'theological' choice made... simply that I DON'T accept the choice you tell me about.

Atheism is a theology, if you do not HAVE a theology; then you're not an Atheist (Nor are you a theist)...

That's my only point. Atheism/Theism = Theological Viewpoints. Whether you like it or not, I do not care... We're not going to rewrite 1000+ years of Philosophy and Theology for your benefit, Grave. EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET IS AN EXPLICIT ATHEIST; which is why neither discipline approves of the misapporpriation of the term to be used as you use it.... If I'm not going to have a view or set of beliefs regarding Government, I'm not going to call myself an Anarchist... And if one has literally no sets of views or beliefs regarding God; they should not be calling themselves an Atheist...

I'll just have to call you a Hypocritical Atheist (An Atheist who isn't).. if you want me to keep such inappropriate of a term tagged to you...

Atheism is a theology, if you do not HAVE a theology; then you're not an Atheist (Nor are you a theist)...

That's my only point. Atheism/Theism = Theological Viewpoints. Whether you like it or not, I do not care... We're not going to rewrite 1000+ years of Philosophy and Theology for your benefit, Grave. EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET IS AN EXPLICIT ATHEIST; which is why neither discipline approves of the misapporpriation of the term to be used as you use it.... If I'm not going to have a view or set of beliefs regarding Government, I'm not going to call myself an Anarchist... And if one has literally no sets of views or beliefs regarding God; they should not be calling themselves an Atheist...

I'll just have to call you a Hypocritical Atheist (An Atheist who isn't).. if you want me to keep such inappropriate of a term tagged to you...

Call me a hypocrite if you like, it won't make it any more true... but, whatever helps you sleep, eh?

If someone has no hard view on government, they are either fundamentally against it, or fundamentally in support... even through their apathy.

I fail to see what is getting you so worked up. Atheism is celarly a lack of theology... it is a lack of belief EITHER WAY about god.

SOME Atheists believe there is NO god... and to THAT, you COULD ascribe the label of theology.

To apply it to a 'lack of belief' is hazy at best, and either lazy, or deliberate misinterpretation, at worst.

But, still... like I said... whatever makes you comfortable.