Weak Atheist vs. Agnostic

[Sarkus]

I'm not sure why we would need to be so distinct; We don't have words for every possible thing that you can "believe in the non-existance of" because there would be an infinite number of objects for that statement to apply to. We merely posit a word for the opposite of a proclaimed belief that has become widespread.

And since we use a word for that, we need to consider various nuances and variations thereof. If you have a large group that share one specific factor then it is only natural to want to sub-divide according to other factors surrounding the same general topic.

Let's keep it simple, at the end of it all they are both atheists and that is the important fact.

Simplicity is all well and good - and to be encouraged when it suffices. But when discussing philosophical viewpoints, even around a single subject, there are too many different views for one label to suffice.
So again I ask - how would you distinguish between someone who has neither belief in existence or non-existence of God, and someone who actually claims God to not exist? Whether you feel we should have a word or not, these are positions people do hold.

If there are those who insist they would like to create their own belief (or in this case non-belief) system, such as the various branches of theism, then I think that should be up to them. That is for that branch of atheists to decide on however, not the theists, and it should not involve splitting an already defined term.

And you are sure the theists coined the term weak- and strong-atheism?
Who is to say that it was not one atheist wishing to make their position clear and distinct from another?
And as for not splitting an already defined term... that's naive, given that it is a widespread occurrence: there are terms that cover the general class of things that share a common factor (or factors) and then there are terms for specifics within that generality.

Personally I don't know any atheists that feel the need to define themselves as such, they tend to be happy just with atheist.

In general I would agree - but when you're in a philosophy forum discussing religion, such a general term is usually insufficient to get across one's position. If terms such as weak-atheist etc help do that then where is the issue?
The issue comes, as previously stated, where others argue against one subset and apply it to the whole.

90% of the time however this is an argument from theists - those trying to claim "weak" atheism as a means of conversion, as a means to suggest a lack of conviction, or that it is an equal belief based system on the same footing as their own - rather than simply lacking theirs.

This is an issue with the theist making the argument without understanding the terminology, not with the practice of dividing something into more specific subsets.
If you have an issue specifically with the "weak-" and "strong-" part - thinking they allow more easily for unwarranted implications - then you may have a point, but I have never come across a theist argue that a "weak atheist" is somehow lesser or more easily converted or somesuch.

Granted some conversion happy atheists will run with this theme, but most atheists are busy getting on with life!

Sure - and those that are will not be concerned and will not be on this forum arguing the issue. But given that you are on this forum and you are discussing it...?

The dictionary definition and most common usage disagrees with Dawkins, and he is known for falling into the above proselytizing atheist category. Of course this is normal, the atheist who simply disagrees and shrugs their shoulders gets far less media time.
Perhaps he can have a subbranch of atheism called "godlessism" for the "strong atheists" if he really feels it necessary.

All atheists are godless.
My understanding of the original usage of the term was to describe people who still believed the Gods existed but turned their backs on them... and became "godless" - i.e. without the support / favour of the gods.

Wouldn't all atheists fall under this?

Yes - but if you define atheism as a considered opinion then non-atheists would still fall under the term "practical atheism". And some theists would also fall under practical atheism, if they don't really think about it, don't practice their belief etc.

My point is that the philosophies around the term are varied, and labels exist to help distinguish between them.

The only atheists I know who use those terms do so with a reluctant sigh and nod to the overwhelming theistic insistance on such positions existing.

Granted they generally get dragged out when needing to make distinctions and, in my experience, to highlight how an argument against one type of atheist may not apply to all - and to help show that we use terms that help highlight the differences.

Well it's the same as there is not just one set of theistic beliefs, but they still all fall under the overall category of "theism". We don't have "weak theism" after all.

Sure - and while there is an overriding "atheism", there are differences within it - e.g. between a considered opinion and an innate position (e.g. of a baby).

I am not saying for one moment that these distinctions should be used at all times, especially when it is sufficient to say "atheism". But in situations where distinctions are needed to be made, I have no issue with sub-divisions.
Do the terms "weak-" and "strong-" possibly insinuate/imply something which isn't there? Possibly. But that is an issue with the labels, not with the process of giving them a label.

The main problem is there is no belief system under the atheistic branch.

I don't find that a problem at all!!

Perhaps the best thing is to do away with both words all together?

I think when you talk casually then most things can be understood with the single term "atheism"... but most would still take it to be "belief in the non-existence of God". I am an atheist, but their view of atheism does not describe me. So why not find a way of getting across my position?

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

I'd take a stab at a theist. I don't see why an atheist would need, want, or care enough to specify "weak" or "strong" versions. Especially given that theism seems to be lacking the same terms.
A theist of course believes they have something to gain by defining something they oppose as "weak" and suggesting a lack of conviction.

Well, there is actually such a thing as weak theism. Just Google "weak theism" and theres a bunch of stuff. The top result is a page from the Journal of Psychology and Theology.

In addition, atheists aren't automatically free of motive or suspicion. An associate of mine thinks one reason an atheist would want to be "weak" atheist is so that they could make the claim that there is no God without having to prove that claim. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm just saying one could speculate in either direction.

The difference being there is no such thing as weak atheism at all. It is a one or the other proposition. A person holds the assertion god exists, or they do not hold such an assertion. :shrug:

My understanding is that there are actually two claims. It's not simply holding a belief in God or not. One could make the claim that there is a God, or one could make the claim that there is no God. Those are both claims. My understanding is that Agnosticism is not holding either claim, regardless of whether it is because the agnostic does not know, or cannot know. None of this necessarily means there is a lack of conviction in their respective claims.

But I could be wrong. If I thought I was right, I probably wouldn't have made this thread.

 

[Big Chiller]

You seem to think all atheists hold the belief that there is no God.
They don't, although some do.
The "weak atheist" believes neither in the existence nor in the non-existence of God.
They are atheist by dint of not having the belief in God that theists do.

The difference between "believe not-X" and "not believe X" is the former is making a claim ("I believe X does not exist") whereas the latter might merely not be making a claim either way.

Usually infants and the highly insane are very much unable to understand theism, which implies a major distinction to me between the aforementioned and the typical atheists or agnostics. It is not just about ignorance then.

The same way that software exists on a DVD... through interpretation of a pattern of activity.

In other words concepts 'exist' as information interpreted from various patterns?

It goes back to the whole God-gene business and that some beliefs are supposedly ingrained.
So it does make a difference in how we define "belief."

It does not seem so much like God-gene to me as it does more of a "universal belief". It's like this all the particles you are made of belong to God so they all believe in God and so does the one who is consisted of the particles. While one still may claim that doesn't change the atheist position, theists can continue to adhere to this example because it's an example of an alternate definition of belief.

 

[Anti-Flag]

And since we use a word for that, we need to consider various nuances and variations thereof. If you have a large group that share one specific factor then it is only natural to want to sub-divide according to other factors surrounding the same general topic.

Simplicity is all well and good - and to be encouraged when it suffices. But when discussing philosophical viewpoints, even around a single subject, there are too many different views for one label to suffice.
So again I ask - how would you distinguish between someone who has neither belief in existence or non-existence of God, and someone who actually claims God to not exist? Whether you feel we should have a word or not, these are positions people do hold.

Then how far are we going to take the sub-divisions? They have no other tenets to link them so what need do we have to make any distinction? What difference does it make to anything from a practical viewpoint? Think how many different viewpoints of Christianity an individual could have or not have and yet we still branch people under the very broad umbrella of Christian.
The philosophical view doesn't allow for a "neither" answer. If you fall under "neither" then you fall into the "no" camp. Even if you are still analysing the data you fall under the "no" camp until a decision is made to the positive.

And you are sure the theists coined the term weak- and strong-atheism?
Who is to say that it was not one atheist wishing to make their position clear and distinct from another?

What need does an atheist have to distinguish a position on non-belief? What practical effect does that have on things over the statement "I don't believe in god"?

And as for not splitting an already defined term... that's naive, given that it is a widespread occurrence: there are terms that cover the general class of things that share a common factor (or factors) and then there are terms for specifics within that generality.

Except they are split with clearly defined terms, not just "weak" or "strong".
The implication is that one is more valid than another. We might as well have weak and strong Christians, or Muslims.

In general I would agree - but when you're in a philosophy forum discussing religion, such a general term is usually insufficient to get across one's position. If terms such as weak-atheist etc help do that then where is the issue?
The issue comes, as previously stated, where others argue against one subset and apply it to the whole.

What difference does it make to any philosophical arguement whether the atheist falls into weak or strong categories? Particularly from the atheist point of view, the argument is still one of lack of proof for the existence of god. It's about as relevant as asking people on a scale of 1-20 what their belief is.

This is an issue with the theist making the argument without understanding the terminology, not with the practice of dividing something into more specific subsets.
If you have an issue specifically with the "weak-" and "strong-" part - thinking they allow more easily for unwarranted implications - then you may have a point, but I have never come across a theist argue that a "weak atheist" is somehow lesser or more easily converted or somesuch.

That's the whole point of the terminology. How many people would voluntarily describe their own philosophical position as weak? Especially when it makes no differences to the arguments they themselves would present.

Sure - and those that are will not be concerned and will not be on this forum arguing the issue. But given that you are on this forum and you are discussing it...?

And I'm not one of the ones running with the theme to convert others; Merely educating other people when I'm free.

All atheists are godless.
My understanding of the original usage of the term was to describe people who still believed the Gods existed but turned their backs on them... and became "godless" - i.e. without the support / favour of the gods.

So you are with god, or without(godless). Those are the two positions so weak or strong is not relevant and we're agreed on the issue. :shrug:

Yes - but if you define atheism as a considered opinion then non-atheists would still fall under the term "practical atheism". And some theists would also fall under practical atheism, if they don't really think about it, don't practice their belief etc.

My point is that the philosophies around the term are varied, and labels exist to help distinguish between them.

They are still theists if they believe in god.
Of course the philosophies are varied, no two people are the same, the question is what actual difference does it make to the arguments made to try to separate them at that point? As far as I can tell the only benefit is for theists, who really should just make more of an effort to understand that it doesn't make a difference.

Granted they generally get dragged out when needing to make distinctions and, in my experience, to highlight how an argument against one type of atheist may not apply to all - and to help show that we use terms that help highlight the differences.

They do, but as I say, it's the theists that want the distinctions. I tend to just say "I'm atheist".

Sure - and while there is an overriding "atheism", there are differences within it - e.g. between a considered opinion and an innate position (e.g. of a baby).

I am not saying for one moment that these distinctions should be used at all times, especially when it is sufficient to say "atheism". But in situations where distinctions are needed to be made, I have no issue with sub-divisions.
Do the terms "weak-" and "strong-" possibly insinuate/imply something which isn't there? Possibly. But that is an issue with the labels, not with the process of giving them a label.

There are differences, but do they affect things? If a theist wants to discuss the position then they would have to explain it first to those who have the innate atheistic position. Which just leaves the considered belief, or non-belief.

I don't find that a problem at all!!

I think when you talk casually then most things can be understood with the single term "atheism"... but most would still take it to be "belief in the non-existence of God". I am an atheist, but their view of atheism does not describe me. So why not find a way of getting across my position?

I find the best way to get across that point is to correct their incorrect views, rather than to submit to their line of thinking, even if that does allow more dialogue.
If they still wish to insist on them, I find that to be their problem. Otherwise it would be like changing maths for people that can't understand it, and I find that a fundamentally wrong thing to do.

Well, there is actually such a thing as weak theism. Just Google "weak theism" and theres a bunch of stuff. The top result is a page from the Journal of Psychology and Theology.

Funny, when I try it it says "did you mean weak atheism?" - and the result you mention is the only one with those two words linked.
Weak theism would be what? Lacking a belief in the non-belief of god? So in other words believing in god, and that would be normal theism then right?

In addition, atheists aren't automatically free of motive or suspicion. An associate of mine thinks one reason an atheist would want to be "weak" atheist is so that they could make the claim that there is no God without having to prove that claim. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm just saying one could speculate in either direction.

The burden of proof is on the claiment of the existence of god, and I would hazard a guess that 99% of atheists are well aware of that. It's not a claim, it's a rejection of a claim - which is the automatic position a person holds until they consider a claim to be proven.

My understanding is that there are actually two claims. It's not simply holding a belief in God or not. One could make the claim that there is a God, or one could make the claim that there is no God. Those are both claims. My understanding is that Agnosticism is not holding either claim, regardless of whether it is because the agnostic does not know, or cannot know. None of this necessarily means there is a lack of conviction in their respective claims.

But I could be wrong. If I thought I was right, I probably wouldn't have made this thread.

As I say above, the claiment is the one who asserts the positive. Otherwise someone may suggest anything utterly absurd, and then say "search the universe to prove it wrong". This of course is unreasonable, so we don't claim the non-existence of something, we take it as a given that it doesn't exist until proven to the contrary. Otherwise we'd have to be agnostic towards everything.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Funny, when I try it it says "did you mean weak atheism?" - and the result you mention is the only one with those two words linked.

What country do you live in? Google works differently in different countries.

Weak theism would be what? Lacking a belief in the non-belief of god? So in other words believing in god, and that would be normal theism then right?

Apparently, they profess a belief in God, but do not claim to have absolute 100% certainty.

The burden of proof is on the claiment of the existence of god, and I would hazard a guess that 99% of atheists are well aware of that. It's not a claim, it's a rejection of a claim - which is the automatic position a person holds until they consider a claim to be proven.

Well, the burden of proof is on anyone making any claim. But you're right, it does rest more heavily on the ontologically positive claim, which would be theists.

As I say above, the claiment is the one who asserts the positive. Otherwise someone may suggest anything utterly absurd, and then say "search the universe to prove it wrong". This of course is unreasonable, so we don't claim the non-existence of something, we take it as a given that it doesn't exist until proven to the contrary.

By that do you mean that, for example, if the existence of God is not proven, then you take it to be a given that it does not exist? So if someone were to ask you if God exists, you would say, "No, it does not?"

Otherwise we'd have to be agnostic towards everything.

No, we'd have to be weak atheists. Agnostics, if I've understood correctly, hold that we can't know. Weak Atheists hold that we don't know. Again, I could be wrong.

Anyway, what's the problem with being weak atheist about everything? If there's no conclusive evidence you should have no conclusion, right? So if we were really being rational, wouldn't we avoid making any claim at all in the absence of evidence? We would say, "We don't know if there is or isn't," rather than "there is" or "there isn't."

 

[Sarkus]

Usually infants and the highly insane are very much unable to understand theism, which implies a major distinction to me between the aforementioned and the typical atheists or agnostics. It is not just about ignorance then.

I'm comfortable with making such a distinction. And I think using the term "atheism" alone to cover both can lead to a confusion when the context of discussion would benefit from such a distinction.

In other words concepts 'exist' as information interpreted from various patterns?

I would say so, yes.

 

[wynn]

Usually infants and the highly insane are very much unable to understand theism, which implies a major distinction to me between the aforementioned and the typical atheists or agnostics. It is not just about ignorance then.

At the risk of sounding judgmental (and worse) - I do not think that atheists and agnostics are able to understand theism.

I consider myself in the atheist/agnostic spectrum, but theism is completely foreign to me. And I am sure I am not the only one.

It does not seem so much like God-gene to me as it does more of a "universal belief". It's like this all the particles you are made of belong to God so they all believe in God and so does the one who is consisted of the particles. While one still may claim that doesn't change the atheist position, theists can continue to adhere to this example because it's an example of an alternate definition of belief.

And it's an explanation that would mean that atheists are going against their true nature.
As such, it is a decidedly ideological explanation.

 

[Arioch]

@Socratic --

By that do you mean that, for example, if the existence of God is not proven, then you take it to be a given that it does not exist? So if someone were to ask you if God exists, you would say, "No, it does not?"

Only if all of the arguments for it are absolute tripe. lol!

In all seriousness though, it always makes more sense to doubt unproven assumptions. If your friend were grievously injured on the side of the road(with you there next to him, of course) and a stranger walked up and said that he had a powder that, if sprinkled into the wound, would heal it instantly, don't you think that doubting that claim would be the best(and safest) course of action? How eager would you be to just let this stranger sprinkle an unknown substance in the wounds of your friend?

Theistic claims are just the same. We're asked to accept something as fact that has never been demonstrated but to trust that the theist has it "on good authority", and when we ask what that authority is we're told that it's the same thing we've just been asked to accept. How is rejecting that claim a bad thing?

No, we'd have to be weak atheists. Agnostics, if I've understood correctly, hold that we can't know. Weak Atheists hold that we don't know. Again, I could be wrong.

Well yes and no. You're right in that agnosticism is actually the position that we can't know something(whatever you're agnostic about, whether that's god or the color red), however that's not the way the term has been abused...er...I mean used in pop-culture. In popular usage the term agnostic applies to anyone who doesn't claim to know the answer, though they usually fall on the atheistic side of the spectrum(most self-identified "agnostics" are a five or a six on the Dawkins' Scale)

 

[Sarkus]

Then how far are we going to take the sub-divisions?

As far as is necessary for the context of the discussion. This is fairly normal practice... we talk of "animals" to distinguish them from "plants" etc. Then we talk of "mammals" to distinguish those from "reptiles"... and so on until we talk of "humans" to distinguish from other apes.

The philosophical view doesn't allow for a "neither" answer. If you fall under "neither" then you fall into the "no" camp. Even if you are still analysing the data you fall under the "no" camp until a decision is made to the positive.

The philosophical view very much allows for a "neither" answer. It is the practical view that doesn't.
Philosophically there is a vast difference, and you offer only a false dilemma: "Do you believe god exists or do you believe god does not exist?"
My answer remains "Neither".

What need does an atheist have to distinguish a position on non-belief? What practical effect does that have on things over the statement "I don't believe in god"?

It's a matter of context. Such distinctions are valuable when discussing one's philosophical position, and when you are aware of distinctions between your and someone else's position despite falling under the same general label.

Except they are split with clearly defined terms, not just "weak" or "strong".
The implication is that one is more valid than another. We might as well have weak and strong Christians, or Muslims.
...
That's the whole point of the terminology. How many people would voluntarily describe their own philosophical position as weak? Especially when it makes no differences to the arguments they themselves would present.

You swap between arguing against the need for making distinctions and then arguing against the terms used in those distinctions.
I am not too concerned with the actual terms... you could call them "A-Atheist" and "B-Atheist" as far as I'm concerned.
But what is implied by the theist or not is not an argument against making the distinction - only in what terms are then used.

What difference does it make to any philosophical arguement whether the atheist falls into weak or strong categories? Particularly from the atheist point of view, the argument is still one of lack of proof for the existence of god.

In general, sure, but it is a matter of context of discussion.
For example, a "strong" atheist claims that God does not exist... yet is reliant on an absence of evidence as their evidence for absence. They are making a positive claim about non-existence. This is significantly different to someone who does not make such positive claims.

So you are with god, or without(godless). Those are the two positions so weak or strong is not relevant and we're agreed on the issue.

This is certainly the practical position. But philosophically it doesn't hold adequately - as theists can still be considered "practical atheists" - or "godless" (e.g. if they turn their backs on their God yet still believe God exists).
So you're back to square one in trying to use a single generic term to explain every nuanced position that it covers.

Of course the philosophies are varied, no two people are the same, the question is what actual difference does it make to the arguments made to try to separate them at that point? As far as I can tell the only benefit is for theists, who really should just make more of an effort to understand that it doesn't make a difference.

It is a matter of context of the discussion one is having. Noone is saying the distinctions have to be named when the more generic term is sufficient.
But when one is discussing more specific philosophical points than mere "atheism" I can not see what issue you have with allowing them to make such ditinction, as your only point seems to be that theists misunderstand the distinctions (because of the terms used), rather than any issue with making the distinction.

They do, but as I say, it's the theists that want the distinctions. I tend to just say "I'm atheist".

Context. That's all it's about. If it is sufficient for you to say that, and for noone to be confused by that position, then why indeed use anything more. I'm not suggesting you should.

There are differences, but do they affect things? If a theist wants to discuss the position then they would have to explain it first to those who have the innate atheistic position. Which just leaves the considered belief, or non-belief.

"Affect things"? Practically, no, but this is a matter of philosophical discussion, not necessarily the practical.

I find the best way to get across that point is to correct their incorrect views, rather than to submit to their line of thinking, even if that does allow more dialogue.
If they still wish to insist on them, I find that to be their problem.

Yet you are concerned about the terms "weak" and "strong" despite the issues arising merely because of theists' misunderstanding and misuse of them. Somewhat of a lack of consistency here.
And it is not a matter of "submitting to their line of thinking"... it is about context (whether with theist or not). And if distinctions help that dialogue then where is the issue?
And why are you focussing on merely theist v atheist debate? The distinctions are not solely for discussion with theists but for any discussion of the philosophical positions involved.

Otherwise it would be like changing maths for people that can't understand it, and I find that a fundamentally wrong thing to do.

False Analogy and Strawman, but I think you already knew that.

 

[wynn]

Agnostics, if I've understood correctly, hold that we can't know. Weak Atheists hold that we don't know. Again, I could be wrong.

Weak agnosticism about God: "I currently do not know whether God exists or not."
Strong agnosticism about God: "It is impossible to know whether God exists or not."

Anyway, what's the problem with being weak atheist about everything? If there's no conclusive evidence you should have no conclusion, right? So if we were really being rational, wouldn't we avoid making any claim at all in the absence of evidence? We would say, "We don't know if there is or isn't," rather than "there is" or "there isn't."

As people, we are subject to psychological and practical factors.

Saying "I don't know" too often or in the wrong association could have negative repercussions, such as invite ridicule and assumptions of incompetence.

People generally try to avoid being ridiculed or considered incompetent, so they devise ways to talk around things they don't know. Sometimes, this means they express certainty about some related point on which they are certain, or they flat out lie, change the topic, or something else.

Moreover, even in our own privacy, we cannot afford to consider "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" too often. People who desperately try to act only when they are fully sure, soon become psychologically paralyzed, unable to do anything.

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

I dunno about that, I've never had any trouble admitting when I don't know something, and it used to happen quite frequently.

 

[Anti-Flag]

As far as is necessary for the context of the discussion. This is fairly normal practice... we talk of "animals" to distinguish them from "plants" etc. Then we talk of "mammals" to distinguish those from "reptiles"... and so on until we talk of "humans" to distinguish from other apes.
The philosophical view very much allows for a "neither" answer. It is the practical view that doesn't.
Philosophically there is a vast difference, and you offer only a false dilemma: "Do you believe god exists or do you believe god does not exist?"
My answer remains "Neither".

I don't think we'll agree on this. If someone asks if you believe in god you either do or do not. As a statement of belief you agree with them or disagree regardless of what you consider to be knowledge or proof, to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous.

You swap between arguing against the need for making distinctions and then arguing against the terms used in those distinctions.
I am not too concerned with the actual terms... you could call them "A-Atheist" and "B-Atheist" as far as I'm concerned.
But what is implied by the theist or not is not an argument against making the distinction - only in what terms are then used.

Not at all, it was you who suggested we require some distinctions - I'm suggesting if you're insisting on that we use something better than a theistic interpretation of something they clearly don't understand.

In general, sure, but it is a matter of context of discussion.
For example, a "strong" atheist claims that God does not exist... yet is reliant on an absence of evidence as their evidence for absence. They are making a positive claim about non-existence. This is significantly different to someone who does not make such positive claims.

Actually it's not, when talking of knowledge and evidence we are moving into the realms of agnosticism. Atheism is about beliefe, you fall into one camp, or the other. If you want to make a statement that you cannot know then you become an Agnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic theist. The viewpoints are adequately covered in these terms that cover the different philosophical positions.

This is certainly the practical position. But philosophically it doesn't hold adequately - as theists can still be considered "practical atheists" - or "godless" (e.g. if they turn their backs on their God yet still believe God exists).
So you're back to square one in trying to use a single generic term to explain every nuanced position that it covers.

If they still believe in a god they are a theist, regardless of if they have "turned their back on god", whatever you mean by that in this situation.

It is a matter of context of the discussion one is having. Noone is saying the distinctions have to be named when the more generic term is sufficient.
But when one is discussing more specific philosophical points than mere "atheism" I can not see what issue you have with allowing them to make such ditinction, as your only point seems to be that theists misunderstand the distinctions (because of the terms used), rather than any issue with making the distinction.

I believe I've now covered this.

Context. That's all it's about. If it is sufficient for you to say that, and for noone to be confused by that position, then why indeed use anything more. I'm not suggesting you should.

Not you personally, but others do try. As I say, the confusion is theirs.

Yet you are concerned about the terms "weak" and "strong" despite the issues arising merely because of theists' misunderstanding and misuse of them. Somewhat of a lack of consistency here.

Not at all, as I said they should be educated to understand that which they don't. If they still refuse to understand the terms then that does not mean others have to bend to suit them. That alone is likely a good sign that any reasonable debate isn't going to take place.

And it is not a matter of "submitting to their line of thinking"... it is about context (whether with theist or not). And if distinctions help that dialogue then where is the issue?
And why are you focussing on merely theist v atheist debate? The distinctions are not solely for discussion with theists but for any discussion of the philosophical positions involved.

Because the position of belief is an either/or situation. The debate on knowledge is the one that carries more distinctions. To dilute the two is precisely what causes problems.

False Analogy and Strawman, but I think you already knew that.

It's adequate to show the point, you do not change a system to fit those who don't understand it. :shrug:

 

[Anti-Flag]

What country do you live in? Google works differently in different countries.

The UK.

Apparently, they profess a belief in God, but do not claim to have absolute 100% certainty.

They would be agnostic theists. Agnosticism being the statement on knowledge.

Well, the burden of proof is on anyone making any claim. But you're right, it does rest more heavily on the ontologically positive claim, which would be theists.

You can't ask people to prove the non-existence of something, it's the default position.

By that do you mean that, for example, if the existence of God is not proven, then you take it to be a given that it does not exist? So if someone were to ask you if God exists, you would say, "No, it does not?"

If something is not proven it is reasonable to assume it does not exist until shown otherwise. If the question is based on knowledge you can say you do not know - if the question is based on belief you are in a yes or no situation.
I would assert god does not exist until proven otherwise, but as I say you cannot prove the non-existence of something so a statement on knowledge is not possible.

No, we'd have to be weak atheists. Agnostics, if I've understood correctly, hold that we can't know. Weak Atheists hold that we don't know. Again, I could be wrong.

My understanding of the dictionary definitions is as explained above. We have theists or non-theists. We sub categorise these into those who are agnostic and those who aren't.

Anyway, what's the problem with being weak atheist about everything? If there's no conclusive evidence you should have no conclusion, right? So if we were really being rational, wouldn't we avoid making any claim at all in the absence of evidence? We would say, "We don't know if there is or isn't," rather than "there is" or "there isn't."

I believe I've now covered this.

 

[wynn]

@Signal --

I dunno about that, I've never had any trouble admitting when I don't know something, and it used to happen quite frequently.

Not everyone is as fortunate as you.

 

[nietzschefan]

Are you accepting this extreme possibility 24/7?

I accept it as one of many possibilities, it probably the one with the smallest chance...right after that Joe Pesci is God.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't think we'll agree on this. If someone asks if you believe in god you either do or do not. As a statement of belief you agree with them or disagree regardless of what you consider to be knowledge or proof, to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous.

I have never said that atheism, as a generic term, can not or should not be used when it is appropriate and sufficient to do so.

Not at all, it was you who suggested we require some distinctions...

When the context calls for it.

I'm suggesting if you're insisting on that we use something better than a theistic interpretation of something they clearly don't understand.

We use whatever term is coined that sufficiently and adequately describes our position. That theists may not understand it is a separate issue.
You continue to argue against the purpose of distinctions by arguing against the terms being used, rather than against the purpose itself.

Actually it's not, when talking of knowledge and evidence we are moving into the realms of agnosticism.

Certainly agnosticism might be the reason... but is not the only reason.

Atheism is about beliefe, you fall into one camp, or the other. If you want to make a statement that you cannot know then you become an Agnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic theist. The viewpoints are adequately covered in these terms that cover the different philosophical positions.

Yet the term "atheism" does not adequately distinguish - when there is a need - between those that merely lack belief, and those that take it further and have the belief that God does not exist... whether they are also agnostic or not.
Agnosticism is a separate issue, and bringing it in clouds the issue - as you seem to think it suffices when it doesn't.
An agnostic atheist might also have the belief that God does not exist: they don't know (agnostic) yet they believe that God does not exist.
So you are still left with the lack of distinction in the term atheism that, when context requires, can be distinguished through such terms as "weak-" and "strong-".

Not you personally, but others do try. As I say, the confusion is theirs.

Again - you seem to confuse arguments against the specific terms being used as arguments against the need to be specific.

Not at all, as I said they should be educated to understand that which they don't. If they still refuse to understand the terms then that does not mean others have to bend to suit them. That alone is likely a good sign that any reasonable debate isn't going to take place.

And yet you still seem to struggle with understanding that a distinction might even need to be made, if appropriate for the context. No wonder they would be confused.

Because the position of belief is an either/or situation. The debate on knowledge is the one that carries more distinctions. To dilute the two is precisely what causes problems.

Belief is an either/or - but belief in what is where additional distinctions can arise.
A.) "Do you believe in God's existence?" Yes or no.
B.) "Do you believe in God's non-existence?" Yes or no.

Everyone who says Yes to A is a theist. Everyone who says No to A is an atheist. There is no issue here.
But a distinction among atheists CAN and possibly SHOULD be made (context depending) between those that answer differently to question B.
And the distinction is NOT purely on whether one is agnostic or not.
There are agnostic atheists who believe God does not exist: they consider God is an unknowable concept, and by dint of that alone conclude that it does not exist as anything other than a concept.

It's adequate to show the point, you do not change a system to fit those who don't understand it.

And it remains a flawed analogy because it doesn't show the point. Maths is a system. Language is definition-based. Furthermore, noone is suggesting changing a system... you merely seem reluctant to accept that it might be appropriate to distinguish between subsets of a larger whole.

 

[wynn]

I don't think we'll agree on this. If someone asks if you believe in god you either do or do not.

What if you don't know what the question "Do you believe in God?" means?

As a statement of belief you agree with them or disagree regardless of what you consider to be knowledge or proof, to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous.

If you don't understand the question, or if you find the question problematic in itself, then you cannot answer it.


I think that the question "Do you believe in God?" may have the same problems as "What is the meaning of life?"

For the latter, there are some philosophers who maintain that "What is the meaning of life?" is not a meaningful question (see SEP article).

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

The UK.

Well, maybe thats why youre getting a different result.

They would be agnostic theists. Agnosticism being the statement on knowledge.

Well, no. They're weak theists. I'm not even going to argue this, because I didn't come up with the term. They're weak theists and that's their position. Belief in God with varying levels of certainty.

You can't ask people to prove the non-existence of something, it's the default position.

No, but I can expect people to have a reason for believing something other than the fact that you can't disprove it. I mean, why is there a default position at all? Are we philosophically obligated to adopt a belief for which there is no evidence? To reject the idea of God makes sense, but does that mean you have to assert the opposite rather than simply remaining neutral?

If something is not proven it is reasonable to assume it does not exist until shown otherwise.

But, ideally, shouldn't it be the case that if you have no evidence, then you have no conclusion? Why must you assume?

If the question is based on knowledge you can say you do not know - if the question is based on belief you are in a yes or no situation.

What is the difference between belief and knowledge that makes neutrality impossible for belief? Why can't a person say "I don't believe he exists," rather than, "I believe he doesn't?"

I would assert god does not exist until proven otherwise, but as I say you cannot prove the non-existence of something so a statement on knowledge is not possible.

But why must there be an assertion?

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

What if you don't know what the question "Do you believe in God?" means?

God is a concept that we must be taught about, we aren't born with the concept of god inside our skulls. If a person is never taught about that concept, if they genuinely don't know of the concept of god, then they do not believe in god by default, though it is a different sort of non-belief. It's not a rejection of the theistic claims that most atheists experience, it's a lack of the mental framework necessary for theistic claims to take root.

Such a person is an atheist in that they don't believe in god, but they're an atheist in the same way that an infant is.

 

[Sarkus]

God is a concept that we must be taught about, we aren't born with the concept of god inside our skulls. If a person is never taught about that concept, if they genuinely don't know of the concept of god, then they do not believe in god by default, though it is a different sort of non-belief. It's not a rejection of the theistic claims that most atheists experience, it's a lack of the mental framework necessary for theistic claims to take root.

I agree, partly.
The only question would be with regard the initial person who created the concept... IF, as you say, God is a concept that we must be taught about.
Who taught the initial person?