What Type of Theist or Atheist are You?

[ynot]

Pretty Totally obviously a type A - but let's watch the nit pickers tear into this one.

FTFY. Incoming

 

[ynot]

Well, the first question to be asked there, really, is "Is the Old English Sheepdog a "person?" What about the tree? What about the very small rock? If they're not a person, then they wouldn't count as an atheist in the first place anyways. Either way, that babies are atheists because they lack a positive belief that any gods exist is an obvious conclusion, unless one actually wants to try to seriously argue that they are born with a belief in the existence of gods. That subset of atheists is, of course, generally considered to be different than the subset that have formed a belief on the matter.

Exactly

ETA - The poll isn't asking or expecting babies to vote.

 

[ynot]

That is actually the point. If that subset is different, why is it acceptable to lump it in as the OP has done?

A poll that asks “What type are you?” has to offer all reasonable possible options of “what types" there are available to choose from. You know polls are all about making choices from different options (aka "subsets"), right? The poll could have said "What subset or category of theist or atheist are you?" Hope no one is seriously suggesting an "I was born a theist" option should have been included in the poll.

In other words, the why is as important as the what for a poll of this nature, or else the results could be seen as simply trying to affirm a previously held opinion.

Because the poll is exclusively about the "what". Read the poll question and the OP. Seems you and others are trying to redefine the nature of the poll. Voting for one of the "what" options is merely that person defining what type of theist or atheist they are. There's nothing more to the poll than that, and I don't see that there even could be.

It is no different than 9/11 conspiracy theorists devising polls where the options are set such that their private position shows more support than it actually merits.

Rubbish.

 

[ynot]

I wonder if the baby Jesus was born an atheist?

Was baby Jesus actually a human? I mean, walking on water, rising from the dead, and all that other non-human stuff.

 

[Aridas]

That is actually the point. If that subset is different, why is it acceptable to lump it in as the OP has done? In other words, the why is as important as the what for a poll of this nature, or else the results could be seen as simply trying to affirm a previously held opinion. It is no different than 9/11 conspiracy theorists devising polls where the options are set such that their private position shows more support than it actually merits.

Is it wrong to include a potential option? I should be a little surprised that anyone here actually chose the atheist A option, I suppose, though I'm not surprised. Not including it would likely be more troublesome, really, given that the people who have tried to not count it as a potential option in the past seem to frequently have an agenda to try to prove that atheism is fundamentally a positive belief, rather than a lack of belief, and not including it would trigger automatic red flags and objections, given the people of these forums.

Thought you would have known that theism and atheism apply uniquely to humans.

"People" is a term that doesn't need to only apply to humans. For that matter, subsets of humans have frequently not been considered people in the past. Should intelligent aliens exist or other earth-origin creatures that are judged to qualify as such, either currently or in the future, the term would likely apply to them as well, on the other end of things.

 

[Pup]

Uh oh. New nits. My wife (a Mormon, but any theist would do) pointed out that she and I are both "Atheist type C – I know a god doesn't actually exist." For her god, she picks Zeus. She knows he doesn't exist.

The solution would be something like "I know no gods actually exist." Would that cause another problem?

 

[ynot]

"People" is a term that doesn't need to only apply to humans. For that matter, subsets of humans have frequently not been considered people in the past. Should intelligent aliens exist or other earth-origin creatures that are judged to qualify as such, either currently or in the future, the term would likely apply to them as well, on the other end of things.

“Apply” is in the present tense. Provide evidence of the existence of aliens or any other form of your definition of “people” that presently exist and can be theists or atheists..

 

[ynot]

Uh oh. New nits. My wife (a Mormon, but any theist would do) pointed out that she and I are both "Atheist type C – I know a god doesn't actually exist." For her god, she picks Zeus. She knows he doesn't exist.

The solution would be something like "I know no gods actually exist." Would that cause another problem?

Ask your wife (or any theist) if she believes a god exists and let us know what she says. That your wife doesn't believe a particular god exists doesn't mean she doesn't believe a (any) god exists.

The solution would be something like "This poll isn't trying to put people on Mars” so don't expect it to be of such a nit-pickingly high perfection that it could.

ETA - A nit-picker theist might pick your "no gods actually exist" solution because they believe only one god actually exists.

In the context of the poll I think "a god" is "okay". But I don't know why I didn't put the obvious
"god or gods".

Did you ask your wife how she knows Zeus doesn't actually exist?

 

[Pup]

Ask your wife (or any theist) if she believes a god exists and let us know what she says. That your wife doesn't believe a particular god exists doesn't mean she doesn't believe a (any) god exists.

The solution would be something like "This poll isn't trying to put people on Mars” so don't expect it to be of such a nit-pickingly high perfection that it could.

That's the solution but it just struck both of us as funny. In casual conversation a and any are clearly synonymous, but one can't read them too literally or the synonymousity disappears.

 

[ynot]

That's the solution but it just struck both of us as funny. In casual conversation a and any are clearly synonymous, but one can't read them too literally or the synonymousity disappears.

But did you ask your wife how she knows Ze . . . Oh, never-mind. That's probably a "Better not to ask" question.

 

[Aridas]

“Apply” is in the present tense. Provide evidence of the existence of aliens or any other form of your definition of “people” that presently exist and can be theists or atheists..

You're the one who claimed that only humans can qualify to be people, which is not at all the same as saying that the only people we know of are humans. I merely pointed out that the term is not necessarily limited to applying to humans. If the intelligent aliens exist, for example, they would potentially be people, depending on the specifics. No need to prove that they actually do exist to demonstrate the error in your statement.

This could, of course, become more complicated, if you want it to. What qualifies one for personhood is far from a settled matter, at last check.

 

[ynot]

You're the one who claimed that only humans can qualify to be people,

Incorrect. Either a mistaken or willfull misquote.

What I actually said (absolutely no mention of "people") . . .

Thought you would have known that theism and atheism apply uniquely to humans.

In other words, Only humans can be theists or atheists. Are you claiming aliens (that we don't even know exist) can be classified as humans? So you don't further misquote me, please note the word “can” (present tense).

 

[Aridas]

Incorrect. Either a mistaken or willfull misquote.

Neither.

What I actually said (absolutely no mention of "people") . . .

In other words, Only humans can be theists or atheists. Are you claiming aliens (that we don't even know exist) can be classified as humans? So you don't further misquote me, please note the word “can” (present tense).

"Human" isn't part of the definition of theist and atheist. "Person" or "one who" is, when it's even properly mentioned. As for theism and atheism, they're about the belief or lack thereof, with nothing to do with requiring that it be humans believing or not believing for it to be applicable. In short, your "human" is wrong to invoke in the first place.

 

[ynot]

Neither.

"Human" isn't part of the definition of theist and atheist. "Person" or "one who" is, when it's even properly mentioned. As for theism and atheism, they're about the belief or lack thereof, with nothing to do with requiring that it be humans believing or not believing for it to be applicable. In short, your "human" is wrong to invoke in the first place.

There you go again with your misunderstandings and misquotes.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

I didn't say "human" is part of the definition of theist and atheist. I said "Only humans can be theists or atheists." (can you spot the difference?). If not, please don't bother to reply.

ETA - Definition of a theist = "A human that believes in a god or gods". Humans are the only thing we currently know and describe as "people".

"People - human beings in general or considered collectively." - https://www.google.co.nz/?gws_rd=ssl#q=people+meaning

 

[Seismosaurus]

In some people it seems more a desire to willfully nit-pick in a pathetic attempt to ridicule an argument or person.

Perhaps. But those hypothetical people don't seem to be in this thread.

Did my post #197 in any way help your desire for accuracy?

Not particularly.

 

[Cat Not Included]

I find this whole thing hilarious.

We could take any question and split the hair to this degree we just don't.

Why is the distinction between strong and weak denial, passive and active statements of belief, and other minutia so vitally important in the question of the giant invisible sky wizard but no where else?

Because minor definition disagreements about religion have, throughout history, been the cause for enormous bloodshed and suffering. Even in this day in some parts of the world expressing the wrong opinion about faith gets people murdered, and in ever more parts gets people ostracized and bullied.

On the less important side, many of us have had unpleasant experiences talking (or typing) with people who seize certain word choices and use them rather like a bludgeon in an argument. Unfortunately, the poll choices (whether intentionally or accidentally) hit some of those word choices.

I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists: This can easily be taken as "I don't know", which can easily be used to shut down an argument. "Well, you don't know, so what right do you have to disagree with me?"

I believe a god doesn't actually exist: As has been pointed out repeatedly, this phrasing has a lot of people wary, many of whom would normally express it as "I do not believe any gods exist". A subtle difference; it might be even be hard to tweak out the detail. But some theists love to pound home any implication that atheism is "just a belief"*, and proceed to attack from that point; that the "believer" is therefore being dogmatic or obliged to continue believing that way even if there was contrary evidence. Or that since they both sides are just beliefs, both are equally valid. Either way, saying "I believe" is a very risky proposition for an atheist in such a discussion.

* Seems like often a "belief" held by the theist holds great value and should be given special consideration, but the same person will treat an atheist having a "belief" as irrational and meaningless. Hmmm.

I know a god doesn't actually exist: "knowing" is another big landmine statement that is often grabbed and used to insist an atheist is being unreasonable. "But you don't have any evidence, so how can you say you KNOW that?"

Can we truly know that there are no gods, teapots in hidden positions in far off orbits, or invisible intangible pink unicorns? We can't prove these things don't exist. Proving non-existence is terribly, terribly difficult if not impossible. For all that, of course most of us find it quite sensible to put enough weight on "that doesn't not exist" to comfortably say we "know" that there are no orbiting teapots or invisible intangible pink unicorns. But saying we "know" that there are no gods invites a whole special batch of criticism for overstepping our bounds.

In short, people are picky about these semantics because experience has taught us that we need to be.

 

[ynot]

Because minor definition disagreements about religion have, throughout history, been the cause for enormous bloodshed and suffering. Even in this day in some parts of the world expressing the wrong opinion about faith gets people murdered, and in ever more parts gets people ostracized and bullied.

The perpetrators of the enormous bloodshed and suffering are invariably theists. Strange then that not one of the theists that voted or took part in this thread have done so with any complaint. In fact one theists said this . . .

I was perfectly content with the poll, not sure why everyone is so up in arms.

Also this from the OP . . .

This poll asks “What” not “Why”, so there is no requirement to explain your vote.

On the less important side, many of us have had unpleasant experiences talking (or typing) with people who seize certain word choices and use them rather like a bludgeon in an argument. Unfortunately, the poll choices (whether intentionally or accidentally) hit some of those word choices.

A poll isn't an argument in which one can be bludgeoned. If you think the poll options are bludgeoning you then simply don't vote.

I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists: This can easily be taken as "I don't know", which can easily be used to shut down an argument. "Well, you don't know, so what right do you have to disagree with me?"

Anyone that takes “I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists” as being “I don't know” clearly doesn't understand the difference between “believe” and “know”. Neither believing nor disbelieving what someone else believes is not disagreeing with them. Theism and atheism are personal things that don't have to have anything to do with anyone else.

I believe a god doesn't actually exist: As has been pointed out repeatedly, this phrasing has a lot of people wary, many of whom would normally express it as "I do not believe any gods exist". A subtle difference; it might be even be hard to tweak out the detail. But some theists love to pound home any implication that atheism is "just a belief"*, and proceed to attack from that point; that the "believer" is therefore being dogmatic or obliged to continue believing that way even if there was contrary evidence. Or that since they both sides are just beliefs, both are equally valid. Either way, saying "I believe" is a very risky proposition for an atheist in such a discussion.

Whether they like it or not, an atheist that believes a god doesn't exist IS a “believer”. All people have beliefs, but atheists don't have the particular belief that a god or gods exists. Did you notice half the votes are for the “ I believe a god doesn't actually exist” option? Seems not all atheists are scared of what theists might think and say about them.

* Seems like often a "belief" held by the theist holds great value and should be given special consideration, but the same person will treat an atheist having a "belief" as irrational and meaningless. Hmmm.

So what? Why do you worry about what theists think and say? And what has this got to do with the poll?

There are both theists and atheists that have beliefs and lack of beliefs regarding gods. It's totally appropriate therefore that the poll provides options for these people.

I know a god doesn't actually exist: "knowing" is another big landmine statement that is often grabbed and used to insist an atheist is being unreasonable. "But you don't have any evidence, so how can you say you KNOW that?"

Can we truly know that there are no gods, teapots in hidden positions in far off orbits, or invisible intangible pink unicorns? We can't prove these things don't exist. Proving non-existence is terribly, terribly difficult if not impossible. For all that, of course most of us find it quite sensible to put enough weight on "that doesn't not exist" to comfortably say we "know" that there are no orbiting teapots or invisible intangible pink unicorns. But saying we "know" that there are no gods invites a whole special batch of criticism for overstepping our bounds.

There are both theists and atheists that can and do claim to “know”. It's totally appropriate therefore that the poll provides options for these people.

In short, people are picky about these semantics because experience has taught us that we need to be.

Paranoid, insecure, precious, nit-picking, claptrap that doesn't apply to everyone.

 

[ynot]

101 votes - thanks. Hardly a "failure".

 

[JoeMorgue]

How about "I'm as comfortable on an intellectual level stating that God doesn't exist as I am stating that a 500 meter tall inflatable Macy Day balloon of Colonel Klink from F Troop wearing a Tutu and holding a Ron Popil Pocket Fisherman isn't orbiting Saturn right now and feel no more need to apply some special specific level, type, or justification for knowing the former than the latter."

 

[ynot]

How about "I'm as comfortable on an intellectual level stating that God doesn't exist as I am stating that a 500 meter tall inflatable Macy Day balloon of Colonel Klink from F Troop wearing a Tutu and holding a Ron Popil Pocket Fisherman isn't orbiting Saturn right now and feel no more need to apply some special specific level, type, or justification for knowing the former than the latter."

So keep exercising your right not to vote in the poll. No one with an "agenda" is "bludgeoning" you or anyone to vote.

Would've you voted if it was worded this way? . . .
Atheist type C – I know, as much as I can know anything without empirical evidence, that a god or gods don't actually exist.