So do you think it is "irrational" to know that there is a god and not to believe in that god — 180 Proof

Yes.

ust as a wife can know that her husband exists and does not believe in him — 180 Proof

This seems like equivocation. I'm not talking about "believing in" in the sense of trusting their character.

If so, please explain. — 180 Proof

If you know something, it is rational to believe it. Why would you not believe something that you know?

I think your conflation of knowing (i.e. a proposition) and believing — 180 Proof

I'm not conflating them. I'm saying they're connected by rationality. See 1st sentence of the OP.

I'm not talking about "believing in"... — Hallucinogen

You misconstrue atheism which denotes 'lack of belief in god' and / or 'belief in the nonexistence of god' and is not a statement of knowledge (i.e. not a truth-claim) like agnosticism. It's you who are equivocating – confusing – belief and knowledge in order to conjure up an inconsistency where there isn't one.

If you know something, it is rational to believe it.

Yes, just as it can be "rational" to believe something without knowing whether it is true.

'lack of belief in god' and / or 'belief in the nonexistence of god' and is not a statement of knowledge — 180 Proof

If you lack knowledge of something, then it's rational to lack belief in it.
If you know something doesn't exist, then it's rational to believe it doesn't exist.

not a truth-claim) like agnosticism. — 180 Proof

???
Agnostics lack knowledge (the lack of a claim) and therefore lack belief.

it can be "rational" to believe something without knowing whether it is true. — 180 Proof

Any belief that you have is a result of what you know, not lack of knowledge.

Okay ... if you say so.

Haven’t read comments but to OP:

Agnostics believe we can’t know whether God exists. This doesn’t preclude faith. It’s just not justified true belief. So no knowledge of God - just belief.

Atheists cannot make that leap as they can only belief something justified and true. That precludes God.

So they are well-delineated to my mind. Has that delineation failed somewhere?

Okay ... if you say so. — 180 Proof

Ha! I agree. The point they are making is shaky.



From the American Atheist website:

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

I wasn't aware of their definition until recent years. But this construction has generally made sense to me.

The hallmark of trouble for me is often when people get bogged down in definitions and marooned in the words. Usage is much more efficacious. I am happy to be an atheist or agnostic or freethinker (the term I used to use) as long as people understand that I do not accept the proposition that god's exist. I have encountered no reason why I should believe in them and a lack of belief fits with my overall sense making.

I wasn't aware of their definition until recent years. — Tom Storm

I have always assumed that since the two words are used separately and that they have separate etymologies that they would carry particular and different meaning. My intuitions there worked out to be pretty much spot on.

I think that’s true that a usage-symbolism is good in some sense because it ultimately doesn’t matter what one labels oneself with over what they do. But discussing th Le positions requires a little more precision and that’s where the notion of belief vs knowledge is super clear abs helpful to me. In any case it seems to solve the problem of rhe OP if the definitions are shared.

Such Christians tend to interpret requests that they define God as an indication of dishonesty on the part of atheists. — wonderer1

To define something you would need to know something about it, does Christians claim to know god? Maybe, I don't know. To me it seems like arguments that god does not exist are weak, and arguments that it does exist are even weaker.

To me it seems like arguments that god does not exist are weak, and arguments that it does exist are even weaker. — mentos987

:up:

My WNA was a bit of a hoax, where I reworded the Kalam Cosmological Argument as presented by theologian/philosopher William Lane Craig, and presented the very slightly modified argument as an argument for atheism. The originator of that forum thread then proceeded to attack the WNA, using all the same logic he would reject if directed at the KCA.

Ye, you are right. I lack the prerequisite knowledge here.

I agree with the mission of the thread, even if I disagree with some of the arguments given for.

A: The reason why someone has or lacks belief is a different topic, with atheists often replying they don't see strong enough evidence and theists using personal experience — both of those are valid even if perhaps insufficient.

B: When we ask whether someone believes something, it is a yes or no question. When we ask someone "do you believe there is life in another planet", the answer is either yes or no, as the person weights the evidence in their head. The correct answer would be "I don't positively believe either way, but given the following facts, I believe it is more likely that...", but humans don't talk like that, we say "I (/do not) believe in it".

C: Are you sure that you will wake up tomorrow? No, I could have a stroke in my sleep. Do I have any reason to believe that will happen? No, so I believe I will wake up tomorrow.
The same applies to the Sun rising. Maybe the Sun is massive enough to form a supernova, maybe a supernova can happen from one day to another, maybe an asteroid will hit the Earth and shatter it, or maybe stop its spin, maybe the United Nations did not tell us anything about any of those for some reason! It is possible. Do I believe any of those are the case? I don't believe them, because if I believe that today, I should have believed it all the other past days, because the evidence is the same (none), and it did not happen in any of those days, so I am safer saying it won't happen tomorrow either.

D: It is hardly the case that someone is truly neutral on a topic, even if they purport to be. Given a topic with more than one argument for it and against it each, each argument can have sway in a person that goes from 0 to 1, and there are infinitely many possibilities between 1 and 0 — not convinced at all by that argument being 0 and 1 being fully convinced. Being that most topics have several arguments surrounding it, it is extremely unlikely that the evidence's sway in someone's head falls exactly in the middle between belief and disbelief.

From B and D, when we ask someone whether they believe in God they should say yes or no, the uncertainty of the topic is already implied, stating whether you are an agnostic theist/atheit is redundant, and any gnostic theist/atheist has an almost impossible-to-meet burden of proof, so I say the gnostics here are either lying or confused. The agnostic label should be reserved for those who are truly divided (even if the evidence sways their mind in another direction) and prefer to suspend judgement in the await for more evidence.

The agnostic label should be reserved for those who are truly divided (even if the evidence sways their mind in another direction) and prefer to suspend judgement in the await for more evidence. — Lionino

So what about those that are sure that our religious gods do not exist, but have no clue about anything supernatural beyond that? Are they just atheist or are they agnostic atheist?

It depends on what you mean by supernatural. If you mean stuff from God to ghosts to chakra, you could say they are agnostic about spirituality, which is a separate issue. If someone believes in God but is not religious (thus does not believe in the specific gods of world religions), the person is called irreligious theist. The label for someone that expressively denies the existence of a god is 'antitheist' in contrast to just atheism.
You could argue for the label of religious atheist as well for stuff like Buddhism and Jainism, but that is a whole other can of worms.
So to answer your answer, I would say first that those people are deluded because of "sure that our religious gods do not exist" and my comment's C. I would then say they are agnostic about spirituality, but conditionally gnostic antitheist (on the condition that those gods are the gods of Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Tengri etc).

I would say first that those people are deluded because — Lionino

I don't think people need to be delusional because they don't share your grasp of the terminology.

lying or confused — Lionino

Confused seems better. Even so, saying you are an atheist is usually enough to get the correct message across.

I don't think people need to be delusional because they don't share your grasp of the terminology. — mentos987

I am not saying that, but that under my definition they would be; if by "gnostic" they understand the Christian gnostics, I would not call deluled, I would call them weird instead.

Confused seems better. Even so, saying you are an atheist is usually enough to get the correct message across. — mentos987

Which is basically my original comment's point.

. To me it seems like arguments that god does not exist are weak, and arguments that it does exist are even weaker. — mentos987

Which is basically my original comment's point. — Lionino

Yes, I think I follow, except I think that "confused" is not the same as not bothering with fully knowing the meaning of a world before using it. People just don't care enough to be correct in all they say.

except I think that "confused" is not the same as not bothering with fully knowing the meaning of a world before using it — mentos987

We could argue about the meaning of the word 'confused', but that would be going full circle in this discussion in an ironic fashion.

True. I surrender.

"what" God do atheists not believe in?

Meanwhile everyone else is actively either trying to define a God (theologians), open minded to a reasonable definition of God (agnostics) or settled with one they like (the religious).

How can you "not believe in god" and at the same time have millions of people still trying to define what "God" is or isn't?
"What" God? Does one reject?


Therefore I understand being a Christian God-atheist, a Jewish God atheist, a Sarah from down the roads God atheist. Because they're defined. They have a dogma.

But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one.
But this doesn't apply to everyone's concept of it.

But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one.
But this doesn't apply to everyone's concept of it. — Benj96

When an atheist says they don't believe in god they are saying they don't believe in any supernatural, personal mind that is outside of space and time, be that mind according to Christian or Hindu theology.

which they refer. Their own one. — Benj96

I would refer to the Christian god if I were to say this, not a god of my own creation.

I suppose it would be more correct to say, "I do not believe in the Christian concept of god" rather than "I don't believe in god", but then it would take longer to say it.

But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one. — Benj96

Do you see that you are presupposing that the atheist in this scenario is bringing his own concept of God to the discussion?

Conversations can be ongoing and allow for the concept of God under discussion to be fleshed out. At the same time in an ongoing conversation, I as someone who calls himself an atheist, can clarify nuances of my perspective. If I am in a discussion with a theist, the concept of God that makes sense to talk about is the concept of that particular theist. I'm well aware that the concepts of God that theists hold are all over the place.

The whole statement "I am an atheist about the Christian god" is extremely weird, it is like saying "I am vegetarian about beef" but then stuffing your mouth with chicken. You are not vegetarian then, you just don't eat beef for whatever reason, there is no being "vegetarian about". Describing a Christian as an atheist when it comes to Hindu gods is not only weird but an inappropriate stretch of the meaning of words (so unhelpful that we speak English and not French or German). Someone who does not believe in the God of any religion is simply irreligious.

I always take this to mean the person has assessed the claim for that God and rejevted it for lack of evidence - other Gods are next in line for assessment

I don't think that "atheist about" is even something grammatically correct. The adjective "atheist" is not like "curious" that allows for a nominal complement (I am curious about something), but rather like "hungry" (I am hungry about). The preposition "about" typically does not even go with adjectives, but rather with verbs and nouns.

I don't think that "atheist about" is even something grammatically correct. — Lionino

Fully agree. A-Abrahamic makes more sense I just take it to be a shoddy enumeration of the position I noted. Z

:up:

But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one.
But this doesn't apply to everyone's concept of it. — Benj96

This is inaccurate and atheists don't say that unless they are in America, say, and dealing with the presumption of the single Christian god. They tend to respond in kind: so an atheist in a monotheistic country will tend to respond to that brand of monotheism.

As an atheist I (and most atheists I have met over 30 years) have generally put it thus: I have heard no reason to believe the proposition that any gods exist. AC Grayling an atheist philosopher puts it like this - "I do not believe that gods and goddesses exist."

I have generally also added that I do not find any arguments for any of the gods I have had described to me convincing. Whether the arguments come from Aquinas, Cornelius Van Til, Paul Tillich or Alvin Carl Plantinga . That's all there is to it.

Who's calling themselves an agnostic atheist? That's just misunderstanding the definition of the terms.

Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
Atheist - Denies God's existence entirely