What Type of Theist or Atheist are You?

[Kid Eager]

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.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said as well. I even used the word "semantics", so +10 points for me.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

it is clear that you do not understand.

It is equally clear that there are, in fact, atheists who do not equate, conflate, or mistake "disbelief" and "lack of belief".

Grammar and lexicon; our only tools against the darkness.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, that's pretty much what I said as well. I even used the word "semantics", so +10 points for me.

Yep.

 

[ynot]

It is equally clear that there are, in fact, atheists who do not equate, conflate, or mistake "disbelief" and "lack of belief".

But apparently there are dictionaries that conflate faith and disbelief.

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

"No disbelief" is a form of "lack of belief".

 

[Agatha]

Some dictionaries may well conflate the two. That doesn't mean that those who lack belief must conform to that particular dictionary. Disbelief=/=lack of belief. One is a positive, affirmative stance, one a negative.

 

[ynot]

Some dictionaries may well conflate the two. That doesn't mean that those who lack belief must conform to that particular dictionary. Disbelief=/=lack of belief. One is a positive, affirmative stance, one a negative.

In terms of “neither believe nor disbelieve” it's NOT “disbelief”, it's “lack of disbelief”. I don't see that's any more a negative stance than “lack of belief”.

Lack of disbelief=/=Lack of belief.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hmmmm. How would that option be worded? . . .

Atheist type X – I'm an atheist that enters the religious section of a forum, then a thread/poll in that section that's about what type of god-believers or non-god-believers people are, and argue that that all god based arguments are completely moot and pointless.

Sure. That works. Lets go with that

 

[ynot]

Sure. That works. Lets go with that

Well that was easy. Don't you have a burning torch and pitchfork?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well it's clear you don't understand humour and conflate it with calling people names.

Oh, your arguments are riotous.

 

[Slowvehicle]

But apparently there are dictionaries that conflate faith and disbelief.

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

"No disbelief" is a form of "lack of belief".

If you choose to adopt an idiosyncratic usage with which multiple posters on this very thread disagree, you have that argumentative right.

That does not, however, rescue your poll, or change the actual meanings of the words (see, for instance, "unbelief" as opposed to "disbelief").

 

[ynot]

Oh, your arguments are riotous.

Even without the riotous humour I don't see the “name calling”.

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

“A fundamentalist is usually considered to be a person who adheres strictly to a doctrine, viewpoint or set of principles that are considered original and 'pure'.” - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalist

 

[ynot]

If you choose to adopt an idiosyncratic usage with which multiple posters on this very thread disagree, you have that argumentative right.

That does not, however, rescue your poll, or change the actual meanings of the words (see, for instance, "unbelief" as opposed to "disbelief").

This . . .

In terms of “neither believe nor disbelieve” it's NOT “disbelief”, it's “lack of disbelief”. I don't see that's any more a negative stance than “lack of belief”.

Lack of disbelief=/=Lack of belief.

 

[Agatha]

Also, fundamental (forming a necessary base or core; of central importance) =/=fundamentalist (an adherent of fundamentalism, a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts: radical fundamentalists).

Although the root word is the same, the definitions and the usages are poles apart.

 

[ynot]

Also, fundamental (forming a necessary base or core; of central importance) =/=fundamentalist (an adherent of fundamentalism, a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts: radical fundamentalists).

Although the root word is the same, the definitions and the usages are poles apart.

But you did notice that “fundamentalist” was in scary quotes and the three “Get out of insult free” emoticon dudes, right?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Even without the riotous humour I don't see the “name calling”.

“A fundamentalist is usually considered to be a person who adheres strictly to a doctrine, viewpoint or set of principles that are considered original and 'pure'.” - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalist

You might want to look up the proper use of scare quotes.

But, of course, you were being humorous...right?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Also, fundamental (forming a necessary base or core; of central importance) =/=fundamentalist (an adherent of fundamentalism, a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts: radical fundamentalists).

Although the root word is the same, the definitions and the usages are poles apart.

Especilly when the user hides behind scare quotes...

 

[Dani]

Well, I chose Atheist type C.

 

[ynot]

Well, I chose Atheist type C.

Well thanks Dani. Hope making the choice had no lasting, adverse, negative effect on you.

 

[Dani]

Well thanks Dani. Hope making the choice had no lasting, adverse, negative effect on you.

Well, no. I always defended that, if we are to use the verb "to know" consistently, there's no reason not to say that I know a god doesn't exist, the same way I know many things don't or do exist (teapots, dragons, etc.)

But that depends on where you like to set the bar for "knowledge". I set the bar according to usage, not according to the idea of absolute knowledge many people seem to have in mind when this type of discussion arises. I'm more inclined towards epistemology than metaphysics, that is, I like to give the verb "to know" a practical usage.

 

[trvlr2]

Poll is worded wrongly .
However, based on facts available to me, there is no god.
And, what's it to ya, anyway?