Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not — Philosophim

That is not what agnostic means, agnostic means unknowing.
In any case, I think my answer in particular back in page 2 fully addresses the problem :^) (I hope this one self-promotion does not break the rules)

Truth exists despite our knowledge of it. They are not the same thing. I can know physics today, but there may be aspects of it that aren't true which we discover 100 years from now. — Philosophim

So you can "know" that Einstein was wrong (because he had only theories, no proof) until someone else provides the proof? You and I do not share the same definition of "know".

If someone provides concrete proof that god exist I will be proven wrong in my belief that god does not exist.

The way I see it, if you knew something and are later proven wrong, it means that you never knew it to begin with. Since there are no solid proofs for gods (non)existence, what we think about it is all beliefs.

Again, it is just a small matter of semantics. It all depends on how high a degree of certainty you assign to the word "know". And this differs all the time, even in my own thinking.

Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
— Philosophim

That is not what agnostic means, agnostic means unknowing. — Lionino

How do you see "Doesn't know" as different from "unknowing"? Aren't they the same thing?

Truth exists despite our knowledge of it. They are not the same thing. I can know physics today, but there may be aspects of it that aren't true which we discover 100 years from now.
— Philosophim

So you can "know" that Einstein was wrong (because he had only theories, no proof) until someone else provides the proof? — mentos987

No, we would need to see his evidence first. Einstein invented a theory of math. I could look at his theory and know that his math was correct from where he started. But to know if the math represented reality, he would need to test it in reality. As long as Einstein didn't claim to know it worked in reality without testing it, he would not know if it worked either. Einstein believed it would work in reality, and fortunately for us all, it did.

If someone provides concrete proof that god exist I will be proven wrong in my belief that god does not exist. — mentos987

What you knew will no longer be known, true. There are plenty of things that you can know today that may be proven wrong tomorrow by a change in evidence or new discoveries. But what you know today is the only logical conclusion you can come to with all the information and evidence you have.

The way I see it, if you knew something and are later proven wrong, it means that you never knew it to begin with. — mentos987

No, knowledge is not infallible or necessarily true. Its just the most reasonable conclusion with the evidence we have. You can believe in God despite knowing there is not a God. Belief is when we take a less reasonable conclusion in the face of knowledge, or all we have to go on when we lack knowledge entirely.

Again, it is just a small matter of semantics. It all depends on how high a degree of certainty you assign to the word "know". — mentos987

Knowledge is contextual of course. Again, its the most rational conclusion based on evidence. Sometimes there is not enough evidence to arrive at a most rational conclusion, therefore we must rely on belief. To an atheist, there is no evidence that proves God exists which holds up under scrutiny. Therefore atheists know that God does not exist.

The 'third' situation is where we need a new word. This is where a person believes a God doesn't exist despite there being enough evidence not to rationally decide either way, or there being enough evidence for someone to know that a God exists. Or maybe there's simply an adjective fix such as "knowing atheist" or, "believing atheist". But in general the word has meant people who assert that the know God does not exist.

But the Lorentz transformations, which are what constrains matter to travelling below the speed of light, aren't derived from empirical evidence or subject to data that is variable. They're derived from the postulate that the laws of physics are invariant (necessary for science to be consistent with itself) along with mathematical modeling. — Hallucinogen

Knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Knowledge is the most reasonable conclusion we can make with the information we have at the time. That can change as new information comes about. Truth is inalienable, and does not care what evidence or rational conclusions we make. We can only assume that what we know is the closest to the truth at the time, because at the time rationality and reality are not contradicting our conclusions.

How do you see "Doesn't know" as different from "unknowing"? Aren't they the same thing? — Philosophim

My implication is that the word 'agnostic' does not imply anything about god automatically, it is only in the discussion of philosophy (of religion) that it acquires this special meaning.

agnostic means unknowing. — Lionino

I am having trouble with the plum disregard for what these words actually mean. Obviously, you're not hte culprit.

But a-theism has a meaning. A-gnostic has a meaning. Hallucinogen and Philosophism seem to be entirely ignoring those meanings to insert reverse definitions - for what reason, I cannot tell.

Knowledge is contextual of course. Again, its the most rational conclusion based on evidence. — Philosophim

Here we have it, this is where we differ. You define knowing as "most rational conclusion" and your "knowing" can be utterly changed if new evidence is introduced.

I have a much higher threshold of required certainty in my definition of knowing.

Here we have it, this is where we differ. You define knowing as "most rational conclusion" and your "knowing" can be utterly changed if new evidence is introduced.

I have a much higher threshold of required certainty in my definition of knowing. — mentos987

This is completely fair, and many people have a higher standard of knowledge that ties in with truth. Epistemology is one of my favorite topics, and I've studied it for many years. Even written my own theory of knowledge if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

You can skip down to the first post by Cerulean-Lawrence. They have a perfect summary if you're interested in just reading that. If you're interested in a deep dive into knowledge discussions, feel free to post there.

What you call knowledge, I call belief. What you call belief, I call faith.

You define knowing as "most rational conclusion" and your "knowing" can be utterly changed if new evidence is introduced. — mentos987

The distinction seems to be originating from the presupposed theory of truth that each one holds.

Since both atheists and agnostics lack belief in God, we need a way to distinguish the two. — Hallucinogen

I disagree that a sharp partition is needed between them, and with the idea that it's even worthwhile to debate the semantics. There are a variety of nuanced positions a person may have, and the label one starts with is never going to convey that. For example, I sometimes call myself an atheist, sometimes an agnostic, and other times an agnostic deist. Each is true in some sense of the word, and no one is going to understand my position without discussing further. I simply choose the label that I think will best work in the context of my discussion.

Even our views of knowledge are relevant. IMO, we have very little actual knowledge, but we may have lots of rationally justified beliefs (and we could also debate how strong a justification should be). I could call myself "agnostic" simply because I acknowledge we have so little actual knowledge. We could debate when to call a belief knowledge, just like we can debate where to apply the labels "atheist" and "agnostic", but it seems pointless.

To really understand someone's views, it requires a dialog - not a label. It seems more reasonable to discuss a person's viewpoint, than to debate the label he chooses. Suppose you come up with a set of definitions that meet your hopes, and then you encounter someone like me who says he's an atheist. Are you going to argue my use of the label, or are you going to enquire as to what I really mean?

:up:

Suppose you come up with a set of definitions that meet your hopes, and then you encounter someone like me who says he's an atheist. Are you going to argue my use of the label, or are you going to enquire as to what I really mean? — Relativist

You can do both.

Whenever I encounter someone who is (to my mind) misusing these words, i ascertain their position and then ascribe what appears to me an actual accurate enumeration of it.

I am an theist, because i refrain from belief in a God, and believe we could know, if God/s existed, of their existence in some way. Not because i 'identify' as one.

You can do both. — AmadeusD

You can label me however you like, after hearing the nuances of my position, but why argue the semantics? I'm inclined to continue to use the labels I mentioned when talking to others- most of whom, won't use the terms as you do, and it will get across the aspect of my view relevant to the occasion.

Just for fun, tell me how you'd label me. Here's some of my thoughts:

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. Not just "absence of belief" - that's for wimps ( IMO- no one should make this noncommital claim). I also believe unicorns and fairies don't exist.

I believe it's possible that some sort of intentional entity exists, that may account for the existence of the universe, and/or for the nature of consciousness (ie an immaterial solution to the hard problem). If I actually believed in this, I'd call myself deist (but still.an a-theist). But I don't actually believe it, I just think it's worth considering. Hence, I call myself an "agnostic deist", but still a-theist, and my general position on knowledge in makes me virtually an agnostic (we can't know much of anything) in general.

So how would you label me, and why should I start using that particular label?

I'd probably call you an atheist but I see why you say agnostic deist.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. — Relativist

I'd go along with this too.

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs. — Relativist

I thought JTB was not much held to these days in epistemology circles - we have competing approaches such as reliabilism; defeasibility theory; constructive empiricism, epistemic contextualism, virtue epistemology? I'm no expert in epistemology, but it would seem to me to be a contested space, with various competing approaches.

I'm no expert in epistemology, but it would seem to me to be a contested space, with various competing approaches. — Tom Storm

Sure, but that makes it another component of the discussion. With my definition of knowledge, most of us are agnostic. But much of this can be sidestepped by referencing belief, rather than knowledge. Knowledge is always belief.

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs. — Relativist

As a pre-amble, i'm glad to see this. I see no obstacle in Gettier problems due to the justification criterion.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. Not just"absence of belief" - that's for wimps ( IMO- no one should make this noncommital claim). I also believe unicorns and fairies don't exist.

I believe it's possible that some sort of intentional entity exists, that may account for the existence of the universe, and/or for the nature of consciousness (ie an immaterial solution to the hard problem). If I actually believed in this, I'd call myself deist (but still.an a-theist). But I don't actually believe it, I just think it's worth considering. Hence, I call myself an "agnostic deist", but still a-theist, and my general position on knowledge in makes me virtually an agnostic (we can't know much of anything) in general. — Relativist

I find the italicised pretty odd. What's the problem with non-commitment to something you don't claim any knowledge of? I'm unsure whether there's a rock the exact size of the cabbage in my fridge on the Moon, so i abstain from any take. Absence of evidence and all that...

That said... here's my take on you, written as if fact to make it clear what my take actually is (I do not undertake to debate the take below, but it may be fun!):

My understanding of 'theism' is that it entails belief in a 'Creator' personal God. In that light, IFF you actively reject this (believe theistic God/s cannot exist) you're anti-theist. As for 'agnostic deist' that seems incoherent. Below..

My understanding of deism is that it removes the requirement of a personal or supernatural aspect of the 'supreme being' notion and instead asserts that 'the deity' is part of the natural, discoverable world. To my mind deism entails that we can discover this deity. Since we can have knowledge of it, agnosticism is precluded (as it is the position we cannot know whether a God or Gods exist). If the knowledge criteria doesn't go through for you, anywhere, then just take that word as 'the literal best guess'.

So, I would say you're an anti-theist, and a deist. I would have inserted, over 'deist' a term specific to holding out on belief in a deistic God rather than theistic - if one exists. I also note this might be your 'wimp' moment :nerd: Is there a deistic God or not, Relativist? hehe.

But here's an issue - If agnosticism is meant to be a position on Theism, we're in a pickle using agnostic anyway, regardless of what Deism entails. If it's not, we're using shitty words given Atheism only relates to theism but apparently agnosticism can cover deism too. Here, a word which separates the two theories, AND the two positions would be great.

If atheism and agnosticism deal with the same thing, but only agnosticism can relate to deism we can't be having a worthwhile discussion about htem, using these words only.

Maybe that is the actual issue here.

Word 1: Deism, Yes. I have evidence
Word 2: Deism, No. Have evidence against
Word 3: Deism, Maybe and I believe I can know.
Word 4: Deism, cannot know

Theism: Theism, yes, I have evidence.
Atheism: Theism, Maybe, but im not convinced.
Anti-theist: Theism, No. I have evidence against.
Agnostic: Theism, cannot know


Edit: Sorry, I entirely missed this:

and why should I start using that particular label? — Relativist

Mainly, because 'agnostic deist' makes absolutely no sense given the above (perhaps peculiar to my amalgamated position on all these things taken together). So, to begin you need a new term.

You are anti-theistic, and you are abstaining from belief, but are open to, deistic God/s. The words I've used fit perfectly your position, given we essentially preclude not being able to know of a deistic God so can't use agnostic.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. Not just "absence of belief" - that's for wimps ( IMO- no one should make this noncommital claim). I also believe unicorns and fairies don't exist. — Relativist

Yes, quite right. In my opinion the error is a matter of fear, philosophical confusion, and an ignorance of the English meaning of the word "atheism." Humpty-Dumptys are running around having words mean "just what I choose them to mean," all in order to bolster a position for the sake of polemics.

From the perspective of an educated atheist, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/comment/cs3ci0s/

Humpty-Dumptys are running around having words mean "just what I choose them to mean," all in order to bolster a position for the sake of polemics. — Leontiskos

A-theism means A-theism.

What's the problem with non-commitment to something you don't claim any knowledge of? I'm unsure whether there's a rock the exact size of the cabbage in my fridge on the Moon, so i abstain from any take. — AmadeusD

There's lots of rocks of varying sizes on the moon, so there's a decent chance there's a cabbage sized one - so it's a live possibility. You can't justifiably believe there is such a rock, and you can't justifiably believe there isn't.

But consider unicorns. It's correct to say I lack belief in their existence, but that statement alone doesn't fully convey my position. I see absolutely no reason to believe they exist, no basis even to think it's a live possibility. Therefore I believe they don't exist.

If there's no credible reason to believe something exists, we ought to conclude it doesn't exist. The belief isn't incorrigible- good evidence will result in revising the belief, but without that evidence we should believe it doesn't exist. I think most atheists actually believe God doesn't exist, but are reluctant to admit that, so I say they're wimps.

My understanding of 'theism' is that it entails belief in a 'Creator' personal God. In that light, IFF you actively reject this (believe theistic God/s cannot exist) you're anti-theist. As for 'agnostic deist' that seems incoherent. — AmadeusD

"Cannot" is a modal claim - like saying it's logically impossible. That's going way too far. There's no basis to claim God is logically impossible.

We should be realistic about our beliefs. We form most beliefs through abduction- based on the evidence we're aware of. Your wife could be a alien, but there's no evidence of it- so you should believe she's not an alien.

I would say you're an anti-theist, and a deist. — AmadeusD

"Anti-theist" is yet another term, one that some would infer to mean I'm against theism. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it. I expect that's not the way you mean it, but there's no way I'd use it.

If you're going to label me a "deist", based solely on the fact that I think it's worth considering, then you're grouping me with people who actually believe an impersonal creator exists. Why do that? Why not keep "agnostic to deism" as a category (if you feel compelled to categorize)?

If agnosticism is meant to be a position on Theism... — AmadeusD

It's not. People use it all the time with respect to other beliefs, and it generally means withholding judgement. One can certainly withhold judgement with regard to God's existence. IMO, this entails considering both God's existence and nonexistence as live possibilities.

agnostic deist' makes absolutely no sense given the above — AmadeusD

If I can be agnostic as to economic theories, why can't I be agnostic as to the existence of an impersonal, non-interacting deity?

When I've used the term, I've always explained what I mean. But again, the problem with any labels is that they will not convey the position one holds. Debating terms seems a pointless tangent. It's a fact that these terms are not understood consistently by everyone.

If atheism and agnosticism deal with the same thing, but only agnosticism can relate to deism we can't be having a worthwhile discussion about htem, using these words only. — AmadeusD

My position is that worthwhile discussions depend on going much deeper than the meaning attached to labels. Labels only serve as an imperfect introduction to one's position. The next productive step would be to explore that position further, not to debate semantics.

Agreed, and I also think it's become fashionable to make the non-committal assertion, "I lack the belief in God's existence". It may also be motivated by the naive assumption we should only believe things that can be "proven".

It may also be motivated by the naive assumption we should only believe things that can be "proven". — Relativist

What other things should we believe in?

What other things should we believe in? — Lionino

Anything we can justifiably believe. We navigate the world based on beliefs we hold about the world that aren't strictly provable. It can't even be proven there's a world external to our minds.

Anything we can justifiably believe. We navigate the world based on beliefs we hold about the world that aren't strictly provable. It can't even be proven there's a world external to our minds. — Relativist

We could draw a distinction between things we believe to be true and things we don't believe to be true, but act as if it is true due to its productivity — free will is a big one for determinists.
Many people somewhat hold a nihilistic view of fatalism, where our lives are inherently meaningless, but many of those 'many people' still don't turn to hedonism; so they act as if nihilism is not true, even though they believe it is. You may call that cognitive dissonance, but hey ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

retracted

We could draw a distinction between things we believe to be true and things we don't believe to be true, but act as if it is true due to its productivity — Lionino

I think they're fooling themselves.

You can't justifiably believe there is such a rock, and you can't justifiably believe there isn't. — Relativist

Yes. I am 'atheist' in relation to the rock. I do not commit one way or the other. Yet....

Your wife could be a alien, but there's no evidence of it- so you should believe she's not an alien. — Relativist

Prima facie, No. No i shouldn't. And prima facie, these above two quotes are contradictory. If i can be 'agnostic' to the rock, i can be agnostic to my wife's potential alienality. I have no evidence one way or the other. I cannot make any reasonable conclusion. I have no reasons.

However, I know my wife. I can observe and experiment to ascertain whether she has any inhuman properties in some way to deduce whether there's an alien element to her. I do not need to take either conclusion on faith without reason.

The rock - on the other hand - I cannot. I do not have a sufficient reason to reject OR accept the fact of the rock (until I turn over every rock on the Moon - which i shan't). I simply have absolutely no intuition as to whether it exists, despite it being logically possible. So i abstain. Not seeing an issue here, other than a bully-ish determination to force me into a position I do not hold and have no reason to support. At least, in this case, it could be established. As with Deism.

But consider unicorns. — Relativist

Similar to my delineation above, this is entirely different from the case of a Theistic God imo. A physical, observable object (Unicorn) which has never been observed (other than in the mind) can, as you rightly say, be relegated to 'non-existent'. It's reasonable to 'believe' it does not exist because the evidence WOULD be there if it did (which is the case with a Deistic God).
Something, the existence of which, could not be observed in that same way requires a different process to establish as 'extant' to my mind. This is why your 'deism' cannot be agnostic. It admits of a discoverable God (but this goes to the wording issue I re-traverse below).

If I can be agnostic as to economic theories, why can't I be agnostic as to the existence of an impersonal, non-interacting deity? — Relativist

"given the above". 'agnostic' is an useless term in any arena if all it means is *shrug*.

"Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God"

If you're a Deist, you are not able to use the term above. Point blank period. Argue the definition all you want, but to my mind you're just confusing yourself.

If you're going to label me a "deist", based solely on the fact that I think it's worth considering,... — Relativist

I am not. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My point is that is the only word that assists in labeling you at all, since you're precluded from using 'agnostic' as it relates to God. Your point about 'agnostic' being essentially a field-less word is a matter of misusing the word in other areas- and is an example of the problem i went over at the end of my post with a suggestion as to how to solve that issue. Huxley specifically coined the word to apply to mystical and mystico-religious issues. It has been hijacked in other areas as an imprecise analogy.
So this isn't an actual objection to my position - just a restating of the problem I had identified. I would prefer new words to discuss 'Deism' since the word 'Atheist' literally doesn't touch it - therefore, using Agnostic to refer to both deism and theism is really unhelpful.

My position is that worthwhile discussions depend on going much deeper than the meaning attached to labels. — Relativist

Agreed, in principle but I would point out that if we cannot understand what each other is saying given the words are not helpful, I can't actually see the discussion as worthwhile. This exchange may be an example. You are not making logical sentences about your belief manifest. Maybe peculiar to me, but I have no interest in going deep into people's views without a reasonable understanding of their language and knowing it is consistent with the meaning of the words they are using. It makes every exchange feel like a Twitter war. And that is absurd in the highest, as i'm sure you're aware.

It's a fact that these terms are not understood consistently by everyone. — Relativist

But it is a fact that these words have definite meanings, overwhelmingly subscribe by our institutional sources of meaning. That people misunderstand them is the entire thrust of my point. That is a serious obstacle to even beginning a meaningful discussion. I cannot discuss your 'agnostic deism' because those terms are contradictory. New Agey nonsense is the biggest peddler of this shit, if you ask me. 'quantum' being the worse offender.. And that said, if what you're suggesting is that we let everyone re-define words so they can use the ones they are aesthetically drawn to and bore us with their illogical, shitty reasonings for doing so, I simply get off your bus and run as far as i can. But, this also seems to be commensurate with your view on non-commitment to theism.

It may also be motivated by the naive assumption we should only believe things that can be "proven". — Relativist

I do not think that is the case. It seems clearly a result of not believing anything on insufficient evidence, as a principle. Both sides have insufficient evidence for their respective positive claim. It takes courage to say "I don't know, and I'm going to move forward with gusto, in uncertainty, despite that..". Is there any reason to think your position, or mine, is a better take? Nope. They are opinions that don't matter other than as interpersonal curiosity. Why it's caused wars is something for psychologists to deal with..

I should be clear, all of the above and my previous comment are not arguments about 'facts of the matter'. There are facts in the argument (the etymology and definition of these words) but what i am doing is outlining a systematic use of the words that actually bloody helps instead of throwing up my hands and saying 'everything's wobbly and we need to spend our lives talking past one another because of it'. I simply don't think that's true, and am attempting to serve up a method for not falling into the illusion it is (on my account).

Agreed, and I also think it's become fashionable to make the non-committal assertion, "I lack the belief in God's existence". — Relativist

Right. Richard Dawkins became popular, atheism became fashionable, atheists started debating with theists all over the place, and then atheists found that it was easier to argue when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position.

Right. Richard Dawkins became popular, atheism became fashionable, atheists started debating with theists all over the place, and then atheists found that it was easier to argue when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position. — Leontiskos

This is painfully bad commentary but as you are Catholic, it is unsurprising.

Prima facie, No. No i shouldn't. And prima facie, these above two quotes are contradictory. If i can be 'agnostic' to the rock, i can be agnostic to my wife's potential alienality. I have no evidence one way or the other. I cannot make any reasonable conclusion. I have no reasons.

However, I know my wife. I can observe and experiment to ascertain whether she has any inhuman properties in some way to deduce whether there's an alien element to her. I do not need to take either conclusion on faith without reason. — AmadeusD

By "prima facie", do you mean - before all other beliefs are considered? If so, that just seems to say that all logical possibilities should be on the table. But they ought not to remain on the table for long. You based your belief on knowing your wife. I don't know your wife, but I feel pretty strongly that no extraterrestrial aliens that look like humans have ever come to earth, so I feel justified in believing she's not an alien,

I simply have absolutely no intuition as to whether it exists, despite it being logically possible. So i abstain. Not seeing an issue here, other than a bully-ish determination to force me into a position I do not hold and have no reason to support. At least, in this case, it could be established. — AmadeusD

We agree that the rock is something we ought to withhold judgement (or abstain) on.

We also agree that your belief that your wife isn't an alien is reasonable. I hope you agree that MY belief about your wife is also reasonable, in that it follows from my prior belief about aliens.

something, the existence of which, could not be observed in that same way requires a different process to establish as 'extant' to my mind. — AmadeusD

But something more than logical possibility is needed, otherwise we're embracing extreme philosophical skepticism. It's logically possible your wife's an alien, but logical possibility is too weak to support a belief or even a suspicion. Similarly with unicorns and gods. Sure, a different epistemological process is fine, as long as it's a methodology that tends to lead to truth.
.

This is why your 'deism' cannot be agnostic. It admits of a discoverable God (but this goes to the wording issue I re-traverse below).

"Discoverable"? Not sure what you mean. I consider deism to be more than a logical possibility, but based on it having explanatory power for the problem of consciousness - so it's a simply a metaphysical hypothesis I can't rule out. Seems pretty similar to your inability to rule out a cabbage sized rock on the moon.

you're precluded from using 'agnostic' as it relates to God. — AmadeusD

I don't preclude using the term think "agnostic", but I think it's useful to describe what one is agnostic about. As I said, I am agnostic to deism - although you disagree with me saying that, I guess.

So this isn't an actual objection to my position - just a restating of the problem I had identified. I would prefer new words to discuss 'Deism' since the word 'Atheist' literally doesn't touch it - therefore, using Agnostic to refer to both deism and theism is really unhelpful. — AmadeusD

Unhelpful for what? As I said, I think the terms we use to describe ourselves are nothing more than imperfect introductions to our positions. Adhering to your preferred semantics doesn't seem like it would make the terms any more than that, either. I've described my position in a bit of detail, and I don't think your terms (anti-theist/deist) captures it any better than "atheist agnostic-deist, and possibly even worse.