What Type of Theist or Atheist are You?

[Beelzebuddy]

Oh look, this thread again. Let me fast forward to page 10:

• Gnostic theist - Repent, heathen, for gods exist! Here is some fanfiction and a flier for an upcoming seminar. Refreshments will be served!
• Ignostic theist - I dunno if I'm really "religious," I mean I did yoga for a while but I'm still, like, just spiritual, you know? Like, we can't be alone, right?
• Agnostic theist - Something's out there, but it isn't possible to know what, since if it were He'd have shown up and said hi.
• Agnostic atheist - I just want to interrupt and point out that you can't prove a negative, so gods could exist and we just don't know of them.
• Ignostic atheist - No god or gods have ever turned out to be real. Come and get me if one shows up, I'll be over here not holding my breath.
• Gnostic atheist - Rejoice, heathen, for your gods do not exist! Here is a snarky bumper sticker and condescending book about how religion sucks.
• Apatheist - Sod off, the lot of you. Where do I have to go to get away from you people?

 

[ehcks]

Oh look, this thread again. Let me fast forward to page 10:

This is the poll I want.

I'll take Apathetic Ignostic Atheist.

 

[The Sparrow]

The same way you were born with no belief in a concept of which you am not even aware. Atheism doesn't “kick-in” the instant you learn of theism. Atheism is no more a rejection of theism than being a non-smoker is a rejection of smoking. They are both things you don't do by default. You don't have to be aware of a choice not to do something you don't do by default.

Ok I get what you are saying in terms of the breakdown of the word A - against or not theism - deities.

But when you say

The same way you were born with no belief in a concept of which you am not even aware

well isn't that kind of......everything.

When you say one believes in something, you are saying one holds a position on something, which necessitates being aware of something, then drawing a conclusion about it. It is an active process.

There is no active process taking place in a newborn concerning god. Just as there is no active process in your position on the amazon god I have not told you about yet.

Atheism is no more a rejection of theism than being a non-smoker is a rejection of smoking. They are both things you don't do by default.

Of course they are. A baby is a non-smoker by default. They don't smoke.

The word non-smoker includes 'smoker', but that doesn't mean the baby has to be aware of cigarettes and smoking before it becomes a non smoker.
we just don't have a better word for non smoker. We don't have a word for non-heroin user. That doesn't mean that babies are born into a state of flux where they are not yet determined to be heroin users or not.
It sounds ridiculous to say the baby is 'not a non-heroin user' by default.

I guess my point is that 'lack of belief in something' is the default because it is a non active position.
If there was another word for lack of belief in gods I would gladly use it.
Maybe 'Naturalist'. Maybe that's what I am.

 

[marplots]

Of course they are. A baby is a non-smoker by default. They don't smoke.

The word non-smoker includes 'smoker', but that doesn't mean the baby has to be aware of cigarettes and smoking before it becomes a non smoker.
we just don't have a better word for non smoker. We don't have a word for non-heroin user. That doesn't mean that babies are born into a state of flux where they are not yet determined to be heroin users or not.
It sounds ridiculous to say the baby is 'not a non-heroin user' by default.

I guess my point is that 'lack of belief in something' is the default because it is a non active position.
If there was another word for lack of belief in gods I would gladly use it.
Maybe 'Naturalist'. Maybe that's what I am.

You can use atheist in that way but it will lead to difficulties. If we push the idea just a bit we will conclude that my car is an atheist, as is the color blue.

What's missing is a certain capacity to be other than an atheist - the idea that there are categories it is possible to be in, other than the one we identify. This is the primary use of adjectives - descriptions intended to narrow down possibilities. But those possibilities have to exist in some fashion.

 

[The Sparrow]

You can use atheist in that way but it will lead to difficulties. If we push the idea just a bit we will conclude that my car is an atheist, as is the color blue.

What's missing is a certain capacity to be other than an atheist - the idea that there are categories it is possible to be in, other than the one we identify. This is the primary use of adjectives - descriptions intended to narrow down possibilities. But those possibilities have to exist in some fashion.

That's not unreasonable.

(did you see what I did there )

 

[Pup]

.
[*]Gnostic atheist - Rejoice, heathen, for your gods do not exist! Here is a snarky bumper sticker and condescending book about how religion sucks.

Claiming this one before anyone else does.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Then you must agree that having no disbelief in a god is as much component of default atheism as not have a belief in a god is. Therefore, it's not an “error” to combine these components in a definition of default atheism (“I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists”).

It is you, in fact, who is conflating "disbelief" and "lack of belief".

Read what you wrote. You asked if I were "...claiming that disbelief in 'god' " were "default".

I posted that I was not. (It is, in fact, you who conflates "disbelief" and "lack pf belief".)

You then proceeded to decree what I "must believe", compounding your error of misstating the position I have clearly delineated.

Again, I do not believe in 'god'; in a 'god'; in your 'god'[ nor in any 'gods'.

That is not the same as having "disbelief" in she/he/it/housecat. No matter how often you try to pretend that it is.

As far as "having no disbelief"; what is it, actually, that you, personally, think the phrase means?

I included both atheism components in the same option as they are both neutral components that don't negatively affect each other. In fact “I dont have a belief in a god” is complimented by “nor do I have a disbelief in a god” as they both represent a neutral position.

You do err when you continue so to do.

Again: "I do not believe" is not the same as "I disbelieve". If you feel the need to restate my position, but want to do so correctly, the proper synonym for "lack of belief" is not "disbelief", but "unbelief".

 

[Thermal]

"Agnostic" properly refers to the ability of a claim to be known--for instance, the position that humans cannot know whether there is, or is not, a 'god' is the "agnostic" position. "Agnostic" is not a point on the spectrum between "Theist" and "a-theist".

I checked the definition. Merriam-Webster and others do not restrict the definition as you and the OP do, are there specific definitions y'all agree to around here and where might I find them for future reference?

 

[Pup]

If by "I don't believe that there is a god" you mean the same as "I have no belief in a god' then the option is covered by "Atheist type A – I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists". It's not covered by "Atheist type B – I believe a god doesn't actually exist".

However, "I don't believe that there is a god" could be read to mean either "I believe that there is no god" or "I know that there is no god".

The most common atheist position is "I lack belief in any god," or your two examples, "I don't believe that there is a god" or "I have no belief in a god." The classic soft atheist position.

Those all differ from "I believe there is no god" or "I know no god exists." The hard atheist position.

Have I got that right so far? If so...

I don't see how the soft atheist position is covered by "Atheist type A – I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists." If you ask a soft atheist, "do you believe in the god of the Bible?" he'll say no. Period. No doubt. Same if you ask him about Zeus, Loki, Gamesh, etc.

It would be hard to elicit an answer of, "well, I don't disbelieve in that god," except maybe if you asked, "do you believe in the god Tagopongo?" The soft atheist could answer "I neither believe or disbelieve till you tell me more," while the hard atheist could say "if it's a god, no I don't believe in it." But that's an unusual situation, and the soft atheist would only neither believe or disbelieve till he learned more, and then have either a firm yes or no.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I voted type C because I am absolutely confident beyond doubt that any defined god from any religion I've encountere does not exist.

However I would add that were god to be defined in such a way as to not violate basic logic then I would only be in a position where I did not believe in them rather than actively thinking they are make believe.

 

[Pup]

I checked the definition. Merriam-Webster and others do not restrict the definition as you and the OP do, are there specific definitions y'all agree to around here and where might I find them for future reference?

The first dictionary hit I got from Google was "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

That seems to cover both uses. The latter one, "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God," sometimes shows up here. More often you'll see the other definition having to do with knowledge, which often is explained with a little box divided into quarters like this: http://atheisticagnosticism.com/tag/agnostic-atheist/

Those two pretty much cover all the uses you'll see here. I suppose one could get into an argument about whether gnostic was the exact opposite of agnostic, or referred to some religious sect, but I've never seen it happen.

 

[marplots]

That's not unreasonable.

(did you see what I did there )

Honestly? Not at first. I needed the prompt.

I have a new idea though. I'm going to claim that "atheist" is an internal property, invisible to outside, objective examination. Therefore, while an infant (or the like) might be an atheist, you can't tell unless they say so.

This has the nice property of capturing everyone I want to capture - those that state they are an atheist - while not catching those categories I don't want, because even if my car is an atheist, it can't express the thought and I have no way to tell for sure.

 

[Tormac]

I checked "Atheist type B", although none of your choices describe my position.

I don't believe that God(s) don't exist, but I have never seen any evidence that they do. Looking at the characteristics of God(s), the descriptions seem to run counter to reality, so it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that these supernatural critters are real, at least in the ways that they have been presented by theists.

It is not a matter of belief, I want to believe in an all knowing, loving, all powerful being watching over me. But that just seems so counter to reality to swallow.

 

[BStrong]

A type B.

 

[Piscivore]

As others have said, this poll is way too simplistic for me to make a selection.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I protest the lack of Planet X option. I couldn't make head or tails of the questionnaire.

I'm a postheist.

 

[ynot]

a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Someone should tell that dictionary that they're conflating faith and disbelief. Don't those idiots realise that faith and disbelief aren't the same thing?

 

[Agatha]

I don't know that god(s) don't exist. I don't believe that god(s) don't exist. I lack belief in god(s). It's not the same thing as the poll options, so I haven't voted.

This may be seen as semantics, but to me it's a fundamental point.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know that god(s) don't exist. I don't believe that god(s) don't exist. I lack belief in god(s). It's not the same thing as the poll options, so I haven't voted.

This may be seen as semantics, but to me it's a fundamental point.

Yep.

Well said.

 

[ynot]

I don't know that god(s) don't exist. I don't believe that god(s) don't exist. I lack belief in god(s). It's not the same thing as the poll options, so I haven't voted.

This may be seen as semantics, but to me it's a fundamental point.

Don't know why there is any difficulty in accepting “neither believe nor disbelieve” as being merely an exension of “Lack belief” that explains that what is “lacked' is both positive belief and negative belief. This poll isn't meant to be rocket science.

I didn't realise there were so many "fundamentalist" atheists