I don't think it is much possible to warrant a belief in non-existence, unless logically impossible. — AmadeusD

Out of all the things that could possibly exist, very few actually exist. So something that is merely possible, has a low probability of existing. That's sufficient reason to conclude that a mere possibility doesn't exist: you'll rarely be wrong.

we have no idea whether the aliens have cryo-stasis technology to overcome time constraints - so if we're entertaining that they exist I don't see why we would believe rather than posit, that they haven't visited Earth. Its logically possible, and we have no reason to entirely discount it. — AmadeusD

You only increase the viable distance, you don't make it infinite. And greater distances means more alternative destinations, making it less probable we'd be the target. I don't want to debate the plausibility of aliens here. My point is simply that my belief that aliens have not come here is warranted by my belief that it's extremely improbable - so improbable that it's not worth considering.

[The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero.]
They are not zero. It is logically possible. — AmadeusD

It's zero. There are no rocks on the moon with the molecular structure of a cabbage. If there were, it would be a cabbage, not a rock. You could loosen the exactness of the required likeness and match any probability you like. So instead, let's consider Russell's teapot: we're warranted in believing there is no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and Mars, even though it's logically possible, but grossly improbable.

As it is, I have merely no good reason to doubt. But i could not justifiably believe it, as i've never done anything by way of investigation on that. — AmadeusD

I simply suggest that if you have no reason to doubt she's human, then you actually DON'T doubt she's human and ergo you believe she's not an alien. We all believe lots of things, even though it's logically possible we're wrong. Believing x does not entail believing ~x is logically impossible. It just means we feel we have sufficient justification.

I do not [accept that there can be non-evidential warrant] — AmadeusD

Then your belief in ~ solipsism seems unwarranted. But regardless, we've identified another difference of opinion regarding warrant, and these differerences of opinion are far more relevant than semantics.

That you're using a word wrong, making your label incoherent. It's like saying "A glass table made of wood". — AmadeusD

That's your opinion, based on your own semantics, so it's irrelevant to me.

If you agree a Deist cannot claim God/s are unknowable
then that precludes the deist-entertaining from being agnostic, as it is incoherent to the deism concept. Not sure what's being missed here? — AmadeusD

Here's what you miss: If you agree a deist isn't agnostic, then you should agree I'm not a deist.

You say you're open to deism being true - which means you believe that God is discoverable.

No. I don't believe God is discoverable. You have a far too rigid view of semantics, and it's impeding you from understanding positions that don't fit neatly into your semantic framework.

Belief that a nonpersonal, non-interactive creator exists is consistent with deism as typically defined. I do not believe this, so I do not call myself a deist. And yet, you apply that label to me. So your definition of "deist" includes people who don't believe a nonpersonal, non-interactive creator exists. That seems to me a problematic semantics, but you are free to define terms however you like. But don't accuse of having a contradictory position simply because of the problematic defintions you've chosen.

Contunuing...I believe it's a live possibility such a being exists or existed (not merely logically possible). I believe this solely because it has some explanatory power (this is what makes it something more than logically possible), and I do not believe there's further evidence waiting to be discovered that has potential to change me position.

I contrast this "god of deism" with a "god of religion" - a personal and interactive God who reveals himself and provides us with an afterlife. I consider such a god to be merely logically possible. It has no explanatory power beyond what the god of deism provides, and it's considerably less parsimonious.

Out of all the things that could possibly exist, very few actually exist. So something that is merely possible, has a low probability of existing. That's sufficient reason to conclude that a mere possibility doesn't exist: you'll rarely be wrong. — Relativist

Hmm. I do see the point you're getting at, but I just think your conclusion is a leap too far. It's not really the case - though it is practically necessary to deal with life, as it is.

My point is simply that my belief that aliens have not come here is warranted by my belief that it's extremely improbable - so improbable that it's not worth considering. — Relativist

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing how you can get from 'improbably' to 'impossible', which is what a belief would seem to imply your thought is? If not, that's fine and it may just be the same as the previous quote/response.

It's zero. There are no rocks on the moon with the molecular structure of a cabbage. If there were, it would be a cabbage, not a rock. You could loosen the exactness of the required likeness and match any probability you like. So instead, let's consider Russell's teapot: we're warranted in believing there is no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and Mars, even though it's logically possible, but grossly improbable. — Relativist

Yeah. It's not zero. I mentioned shape only. There need not be an exact molecular match (because that would be, as you say, a Cabbage LOL defeating hte point of hte example). But I think you're again, leapfrogging there. It is logically possible the a rock, the surface of which, is an exactly surface-dimensional match is possible. In fact, if we extend this to the universe, it's almost certain it exists somewhere. I don't want to go down this path though - it's logically possible, on my account, because I don't posit what you did here. I think we'd agree - and it would again, come back to practicality as the two above have (as i see them). But it's a fair point you're making in all three instances. Again - i may be mentally unstable for my selective skepticism lol

I simply suggest that if you have no reason to doubt she's human, then you actually DON'T doubt she's human and ergo you believe she's not an alien. We all believe lots of things, even though it's logically possible we're wrong. Believing x does not entail believing ~x is logically impossible. It just means we feel we have sufficient justification. — Relativist

And i do not see sufficient justification without investigation, if we have two logically possible outcomes. Obviously, by inference, I can support a belief that my wife is not an alien - she meets all criteria, prima facie, to be a human. So, in that sense, I don't deny what you're saying - I'm making the point that with no reason one way or the other, belief is unwarranted. That fact is here, i have many, many vicariously-substantiated reasons. But none personal, other than my trust that those reasons are sound. And again, perhaps my doubt here (for both propositions) is a bit schizophrenic. I mind not :)

No. I don't believe God is discoverable. — Relativist

Then you're not a deist. It is defined as a God which is discoverable in empirical observations of nature. I think you're just ignoring the fact that misusing words is a problem. And, i, personally, while understanding your view will no longer even attempt to say you're a deist, because the statement here precludes it. Your take on that is immaterial to me looking at the definition - looking at your positiion - and deducing hte daylight between them.

And yet, you apply that label to me. — Relativist

Im done. I've been over this three times now and you've outright ignored it to ascribe to me a claim which i have not made and the clearly sufficient solution i've posited. If you're willing to ignore specific, direct treatment of a false claim about my view here, im unsure what to do about it. You are wrong. I don't do what you're claiming and have outright, directly rebutted it three times.

No. No it wasn’t. — AmadeusD

Then you have a burden to explain why that's the case. Insisting on your own definitions isn't reason-giving.

And the citation has been provided more than once. — AmadeusD

?

Just bloody look at the words lol. — AmadeusD

I did -- I gave the Oxford definition in the OP.

atheism -- The theory or belief that God does not exist. — Oxford Reference

Did you look at that? If so, why didn't you give a reason for rejecting this dictionary definition?

As Tom helpfully provide earlier in the https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ — AmadeusD

It was the OP that originally provided this, not Tom. All of this is making me think that you didn't read the OP.

They are anti-theists. ... Anti-theism. That there is NOT deities. — AmadeusD

No, anti-theism is moral opposition to God on the basis that belief in God is harmful to people. It's not an ontological claim, but a moral one.

A-theism literally means not theism. It doesn’t contain anything close to a positive claim. — AmadeusD

This reasoning doesn't follow, because if theism is the opposite of belief in God, rather than lack of theism, then it's the positive claim that belief in God is false.

No, anti-theism is moral opposition to God on the basis that belief in God is harmful to people. It's not an ontological claim, but a moral one. — Hallucinogen

No. Anti-theism is opposition to theism.

Then you have a burden to explain why that's the case. Insisting on your own definitions isn't reason-giving. — Hallucinogen

I don't think so. I'm attending the actually, etymologically sound usage of the words. Why would you accept randomly-ascribed meanings that don't fit the etymology. More on that below...

I did -- I gave the Oxford definition in the OP. — Hallucinogen

That isn't looking at the words - that's taking a definition that fits your point. The one provided by an institutional atheist organisation has much more authority, imo. And i did give that reason - apologies if it wasn't clearer. It should also be extremely clear by now that, three things are going on in my position:

1. I am trying to solve the problem.
2. I have identified robust meanings for these words which avoid double-counts, inaccuracies and inconsistencies, on my view.
3. I have provided a potential actual solution, rather than merely asserted "i am right'. I am asserting that my suggestion solves the problem of inter-subjective meaning making conversation either near-impossible, or totally unimportant.

It is either luck, or my erudite treatment of the words that results in that solution aligning with the etymologically-sound use of hte words.

All of this is making me think that you didn't read the OP. — Hallucinogen

Do feel free. I'm not being shirty there - please, feel free.

No, anti-theism is moral opposition to God on the basis that belief in God is harmful to people. — Hallucinogen

I've never seen this position ascribed to the word from any other source including a brief click-about just now to ensure i'm not totally off-mark - unless you're misreading 'theism should be opposed' as a moral, rather than logical claim (here, they can co-exist - It can be immoral for society to accept patently illogical and false cosmologies - but that's not a moral opposition to God. Was Hitch's position best i can tell). If i'm wrong there, conceded, and I return to my 'solution-oriented' approach to it, using the actual structure of the words to deduce their meaning to avoid this pulling of teeth.

This reasoning doesn't follow, because if theism is the opposite of belief in God, rather than lack of theism, then it's the positive claim that belief in God is false — Hallucinogen

I assume you mean atheism there. And if so, I reject that oppositional framing. They are related, but not opposites. One is a positive claim, one is rejection of that positive claim with no claim of it's own. Clearly, 'anti-theism' is the literal opposite of theism. A-theism is patently, inarguably non-theism with no positive claim. I simply will not accept claims other than this, looking at the words themselves and their structure. Otherwise,. I'm choosing to roll around in a shit-heap of talking over and past one another at every turn. Call me dogmatic, or egoic - I'm just not willing to wade into a clearly dumb framing of words that matter to the conversation. I'm more than happy to be inflexible about nutting out useful strategies for discussing things when it is obvious we don't have one.

As such, and in any case, even assuming i'm mistaken in all these term's meanings and therefore all of my suggestions and positions are 'false': That's a stupid, unhelpful framing of these words that causes the utterly ridiculous conversations we're having now. Hence, actual solution being suggested (IFF i am entirely wrong and can't argue from the words themselves) Why not just accept that a better system of terms would be better instead of going "this is what we have, we'll make do" That doesn't seem to fly anywhere else...

:ok:

Knowledge and truth are not the same thing. — Philosophim

Knowledge is the mental representation of truth.

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. — Philosophim

Then it's not knowledge, and this definition you're offering means you need a term for information that we're certain about. I call what you're referring to "faith" or "confidence".

We can only assume that what we know is the closest to the truth at the time — Philosophim

This isn't knowledge. Knowledge is what you are correctly certain about.

because at the time rationality and reality are not contradicting our conclusions. — Philosophim

Knowledge isn't just absence of contradiction. You are thinking of belief (or "confidence") - the space of possibilities inferred from what we know.

And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"? — Hallucinogen

Antitheist.

As a curiosity, I decided to find what the earliest ocurrences of the word ἄθεος were. I was pleasantly surprised that the earliest seems to be from Bacchylides, from the 6th century BC. Great, earlier than that we would be in the Dark Ages of generalised illiteracy (the use of alphabets died out):

...δʼ Ἥραν
παῦσεν καλυκοστεφάνους
κούρας μανιᾶν ἀθέων·

I don't speak Ancient Ancient Greek, but it seems to say "However [she] convinced Hera to stop the flower-crowned maiden's godless frenzy". The earliest usage of it seems to refer to the absence of gods, not the denial of them.

The uncommon word ἀντίθεος can have two meanings: like the gods, or against god(s).

Someone presented a Reddit post (lol) where the SEP and IEP are misused as sources, but it is true that the SEP claims that the standard definition in philosophy of religion is "denial of God".

Here is the thing: why should philosophers of religion be able to redefine a word that is at least 2000 years older than their field? A word that many people identify and have identified with while not implying the meaning the SEP claims is standard. It may be fair to say we should use the standard definition here since we are technically talking about phil of rel, but why use atheism when the meaning is better encapsulated in 'antitheism', which the IEP calls "positive atheism"?

In any case, I am very skeptical of the SEP's claims of "standard" or "consensus". Sometimes I fail to confirm the existence of those consensuses when I look into the topic myself.

:ok:

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

I disputed this over many posts. Finally, I got it across to you:

Then you're not a deist. — AmadeusD

Relativist: "[Belief that a nonpersonal, non-interactive creator exists is consistent with deism as typically defined. I do not believe this, so I do not call myself a deist] And yet, you apply that label to me."

Im done. I've been over this three times now and you've outright ignored it to ascribe to me a claim which i have not made — AmadeusD

Yes, you did. See the bolded statement, above.

I'm attending the actually, etymologically sound usage of the words. Why would you accept randomly-ascribed meanings that don't fit the etymology. — AmadeusD

You're doing the opposite. Atheism has always meant denial of God's existence and it's only recently that new atheists began to popularise the "lack of belief and nothing else" definition.

That isn't looking at the words - that's taking a definition that fits your point. — AmadeusD

Selecting any definition is selecting one that fits your point. If anything, this reveals that your original basis "Just look at the bloody words lol" was poorly-informed.

The one provided by an institutional atheist organisation has much more authority, imo. — AmadeusD

And you say this right after complaining I'm taking a definition that fits my point. It shows you're not sticking to your original basis, which you claimed was "just looking at words". Now it has to be from a specifically atheist source, all of a sudden.

2. I have identified robust meanings for these words which avoid double-counts, inaccuracies and inconsistencies, on my view. — AmadeusD

It doesn't, because as pointed out in the OP, defining atheism as lack of belief doesn't distinguish it from agnosticism, since agnostics also lack belief in God.

Here is the thing: why should philosophers of religion be able to redefine a word that is at least 2000 years older than their field? A word that many people identify and have identified with while not implying the meaning the SEP claims is standard. It may be fair to say we should use the standard definition here since we are technically talking about phil of rel, but why use atheism when the meaning is better encapsulated in 'antitheism', which the IEP calls "positive atheism"?

In any case, I am very skeptical of the SEP's claims of "standard" or "consensus". Sometimes I fail to confirm the existence of thoa quite relse consensuses when I look into the topic myself. — Lionino

People often assume that "everybody" uses the word in the way that they themselves do, and I'm not surprised that you find cases like those in the SEP - though they should know better. Philosophers should be aware that claiming a consensus should be done cautiously and preferably backed up with evidence. Fortunately, a good dictionary is a quite reliable source of such evidence.

You are right that in Ancient Greek atheos - I'm sorry that I don't have an Ancient Greek keyboard - didn't mean exactly what it means now. Though, on a closer look, Plato does, it seems, use that word to mean "denying the gods" (in the Apology). But otherwise, it seems to mean "godless" or "ungodly" (in Pindar, Sophocles and Lysias) and "abandoned by the gods" (in Sophocles). The meaning in your quotation from Bacchylides does seem to be "ungodly".

But I don't think ancient Greek usage is, or should be, a final authority on what a word means now. For me, the meaning of a word is what it is used to mean and the users of a language may not know or care how the ancient Greeks used it. So use may change over time, and most dictionaries now try to capture how the word is used, rather than how it "ought" to be used or was "originally" used.

I'll skip over the change in usage of "atheist" when polytheism declined and Christianity became dominant.

Perhaps the most relevant change is the invention of the term "agnostic" by T.H. Huxley in 1869. Before that "atheist" could comfortably cover both agnosticism (no assertion or denial) and atheism (denial). Huxley's point was precisely to draw that distinction and once it is drawn, "atheism" needs to move over. People seem to have found this distinction important, and so Huxley's coinage has taken root in the language. (Yes, of course you can check that claim in a dictionary!)

Maybe there are people who don't like this distinction. It would be interesting to know why. I don't see any problem with it.

You are right that in Ancient Greek atheos - I'm sorry that I don't have an Ancient Greek keyboard - didn't mean exactly what it means now. Though, on a closer look, Plato does, it seems, use that word to mean "denying the gods" (in the Apology). But otherwise, it seems to mean "godless" or "ungodly" (in Pindar, Sophocles and Lysias) and "abandoned by the gods" (in Sophocles). The meaning in your quotation from Bacchylides does seem to be "ungodly". — Ludwig V

:up:

Perhaps the most relevant change is the invention of the term "agnostic" by T.H. Huxley in 1869. Before that "atheist" could comfortably cover both agnosticism (no assertion or denial) and atheism (denial). Huxley's point was precisely to draw that distinction and once it is drawn, "atheism" needs to move over. People seem to have found this distinction important, and so Huxley's coinage has taken root in the language. (Yes, of course you can check that claim in a dictionary!) — Ludwig V

This is a good addition to the debate. Then what happens when there is "antitheism"? Should "atheism" move over as well? If yes, where? If no, what happens with "antitheism"?

But I don't think ancient Greek usage is, or should be, a final authority on what a word means now. For me, the meaning of a word is what it is used to mean and the users of a language may not know or care how the ancient Greeks used it. — Ludwig V

I agree with this. But, and this is a completely different topic, I believe that when we loan a word from another language, the usage of the word should keep its origin in consideration, lest we commit a barbarism; whereas a word that is our own may be changed in meaning as much as the people will it — whether that is good practice is up to debate.

Then what happens when there is "antitheism"? Should "atheism" move over as well? If yes, where? If no, what happens with "antitheism"? — Lionino

I don't understand the Ancient Greek word, which means "godlike" in Homer, but "contrary to God" in writers that I know nothing about; they are clearly not classical. The obvious etymology is clearly in favour of the latter meaning, which has apparently been around since 1788.

As to what happens to "atheism", it would be a choice. Sadly, no-one is in a position to make the choice, so, in the end, it will be down to users of the terms to make their choices. (In France and Sweden, at least some of these choices are made by a committee, which has legislative backing, but English doesn't have any equivalent authority.)

If antitheism means active opposition to religious belief (and pratice), then atheism would be left with rejection of belief that does not lead to active opposition. But there are other possibilities, especially when you consider dystheism and maltheism. By the way, there is at least one religion (legally established as such in the USA) that is atheist - Scientology - and Buddhism is agnostic - or at least the Buddha was.

I can't see any mileage in arguing about what the words mean. The best one could do in a situation like the one we are in is to make an agreement about how to use the words and then deal with any substantial issues.

I can't see any mileage in arguing about what the words mean. The best one could do in a situation like the one we are in is to make an agreement about how to use the words and then deal with any substantial issues. — Ludwig V

:up:

Something that seemingly can't be reinforced too much.

Something that seemingly can't be reinforced too much. — wonderer1

It seems to me that what is important and valuable in this thread is the recognition that the traditional binary position that either God exists or it doesn't. The binary opposition, as so often, is not really very helpful.

I'm also wondering who might want to insist that agnosticism is a variety of atheism, rather than being a distinct position. Where does this idea come from? How does it affect the eternal debate?

Perhaps this has been explained earlier in the thread and I've missed it.

who might want to insist that agnosticism is a variety of atheism — Ludwig V

And they may call themselves an agnostic at the same time because while they do not believe in god, they believe that something should exist, but they don't know what. — mentos987

While I do not insist upon anything, is this what you asked about?

While I do not insist upon anything, is this what you asked about? — mentos987

Yes. it is. So I went back to the discussion you were quoting from.

I guess "insist" in this context sounds pejorative, so I won't insist on that word.

It seems to me that the debate you got involved in about the meaning of "atheism" and "agnosticism" is actually about the meaning of "knowledge" and "belief" and "certainty" and where there is a binary divide and where there is a spectrum. If there was agreement about those issues, the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" would fall into place.

It seems to me that goes back to the beginning: -

Belief is connected to knowledge through rationality. If you believe something and you're rational, it's because you know something. If you lack belief in something and you're rational, it's because you lack knowledge in it. Likewise, having knowledge in something makes it rational to believe in it, and lacking knowledge makes it rational to lack belief in it. — Hallucinogen

I'm not sure I fully understand this and I'm not sure it is right.

But it does seem important to me to note that religious belief may not be entirely rational. After all many religious people think that all that is needed is faith, though one hopes that they think that rationality has a part to play after the fundamental commitment of faith is made.

We can call them "hinge" propositions, or some other idea that treats it as a beginning, a starting-point and so not subject to rational standards in the same way as other propositions. We could even say that the foundation of religious belief is not propositional at all, but a commitment to a way of life - the existentialist idea of commitment has a part to play here.

Do we include atheism and agnosticism as kinds of religious belief? I'm not sure. It probably depends on the variety of atheism or agnosticism in question.

"knowledge" and "belief" and "certainty" — Ludwig V

And "faith"

Do we include atheism and agnosticism as kinds of religious belief? — Ludwig V

I'd say so. Although to me they are more of a way to declare yourself unconvinced.

And "faith" — mentos987

Yes, of course. I didn't mention that, for me, "" and "faith" are very closely related - and "erusr" and "loyalty" are as well.

I'd say so. Although to me they are more of a way to declare yourself unconvinced. — mentos987

OK. There is good reason to think of any opinion or attitude to religion as, in a sense, religious. There are complications - there always are - but I'm not sure that anything important hangs on them.

I don't think it is a matter of truth or not, but of usefulness. The language we use doesn't make any assertions, until it is used and applied. In the same way, the rules of a game aren't right or wrong; it is moves in the game that are right or wrong. That doesn't mean that they are simply arbitrary. The rules can frustrate the aims of the game - make it unplayable. Those rules can be said to be wrong, but that's not the same as false.

In France and Sweden — Ludwig V

If you are referring to Royal Academies of language, the same is the case for Castillian. Also to some extent Portuguese and Galician. English indeed does not have that in any country afaik.

dystheism and maltheism — Ludwig V

Those are more like nonce-words, like misotheism; antitheism is more established, though not as much as atheism admittedly.

there is at least one religion (legally established as such in the USA) that is atheist - Scientology - and Buddhism is agnostic - or at least the Buddha was. — Ludwig V

Add Jainism to the mix in case someone wants to reject that Buddhism is a religion.

I can't see any mileage in arguing about what the words mean. The best one could do in a situation like the one we are in is to make an agreement about how to use the words and then deal with any substantial issues. — Ludwig V

Agreed. I am sure any reasonable person would grant either of the two definitions in order to go forward in a debate. The discussion over the meaning of 'atheism' started in this thread a few pages ago I think, but it did not seem to lead anywhere, just a debate on semantics.

The obvious etymology is clearly in favour of the latter meaning — Ludwig V

Both I would say, ἀντί can mean 'face-to-face' among other things.

I'm also wondering who might want to insist that agnosticism is a variety of atheism, rather than being a distinct position. Where does this idea come from? How does it affect the eternal debate? — Ludwig V

I defend a similar position in this thread on this post, reserving the third position to not an epistemic position but a declarative one, of suspending judgement.

If you are referring to Royal Academies of language, the same is the case for Castillian. Also to some extent Portuguese and Galician. English indeed does not have that in any country afaik. — Lionino

Add Jainism to the mix in case someone wants to reject that Buddhism is a religion. — Lionino

Both I would say, ἀντί can mean 'face-to-face' among other things. — Lionino

Thanks for all these snippets. I was worrying about anti. Those two meanings combined didn't make any sense. But that explanation works perfectly. (My Greek is very rusty.)

Thie are more like nonce-words, like misotheism; antitheism is more established, though not as much as atheism admittedly. — Lionino

I'm not sure exactly what a "nonce-word" is, but I agree that mal-, dys- and miso- theism are pretty marginal. People love a label for a doctrine, especially if it can be given a name derived from Greek or Latin. But it wouldn't be practical to label every variety of possible doctrine about God. "ant-theism" is a stretch for me, but does seem to identify a worth-while difference and it has a certain antiquity that might serve as respectability.

I defend a similar position in this thread on this post, reserving agnosticism to not an epistemic position but a declarative one, of suspending judgement. — Lionino

I don't have a reason to quarrel with you, though I would classify not knowing whether... as epistemic. On the other hand, where would you put someone who thought that the concept of God, at least in Christianity, is incoherent, so that either assertion or denial are inappropriate? Or, I saw a translation of a Buddhist text that had the Buddha saying that the question was "undetermined"? Neither of those is suspending judgement.

I'm not sure exactly what a "nonce-word" — Ludwig V

I got it from the website I read about "dystheism", which I had never seen before. A nonce-word is a word that is made for that specific reason and abandoned after. Maltheism is a word that was made for a game, if I recall it properly from yesterday.

On the other hand, where would you put someone who thought that the concept of God, at least in Christianity, is incoherent, so that either assertion or denial are inappropriate? Or, I saw a translation of a Buddhist text that had the Buddha saying that the question was "undetermined"? Neither of those is suspending judgement. — Ludwig V

If a concept is incoherent, I think that denial is quite appropriate. But if you refer to something such as "This sentence is wrong", we might have to work with paraconsistent logic — a third truth-value or dialetheia. There is no word for someone who believes something to be a third truth-value or dialetheia, "dialeuthic about" perhaps.
As to undefined, it depends on what it means. Something undefined can be like 1/0 or infinity/infinity, which then undefined has a targeted meaning towards which we can believe or disbelieve. Or it can be something that is yet to be known, which suspending judgement is appropriate.

A nonce-word is a word that is made for that specific reason and abandoned after. Maltheism is a word that was made for a game, if I recall it properly from yesterday. — Lionino

OK. It seems that nothing hangs on what we say, so we don't have to say anything.

a third truth-value — Lionino

The difficulty with the third truth value is that it is very hard to stop at three. One could probably make a case for thirty-three.

As to undefined, it depends on what it means. — Lionino

Yes. Your two cases are different and there are probably others. Best to leave it at that.

You're doing the opposite. Atheism has always meant denial of God's existence and it's only recently that new atheists began to popularise the "lack of belief and nothing else" definition. — Hallucinogen

I'm not. And that fact (though, I deny the truth of it) wouldn't change what i've suggested im trying to do.

Selecting any definition is selecting one that fits your point. If anything, this reveals that your original basis "Just look at the bloody words lol" was poorly-informed. — Hallucinogen

Hmm. I have a feeling this is going to go nowhere. I asked you to look at the word. Its structure, its etymology, its meaning. Not its (according to you, anyhow) use. You ahve done the latter, and ignored the former. Disagree with the method, sure, but don't pretend you're doing something you're not (and in turn. impugning my method, falsely). I'm more than happy to just get a 'yep, well that's dumb' but being wrong about what I've suggested pushes me to respond this way.

And you say this right after complaining I'm taking a definition that fits my point. It shows you're not sticking to your original basis, which you claimed was "just looking at words". Now it has to be from a specifically atheist source, all of a sudden. — Hallucinogen

False. As explained above, you're being dishonest about htis. The fact that I (on your method) invoked a more authoratative definition is not an indication i've ceased using the etymological basis. This is now the type of sophistical weirdness talking with apologists gets me. May need to duck out.

It doesn't, because as pointed out in the OP, defining atheism as lack of belief doesn't distinguish it from agnosticism, since agnostics also lack belief in God. — Hallucinogen

I've dealt with this, in detail, over two possible propositions. I am now ducking it. It's been.. interesting :)

es, you did. See the bolded statement, above. — Relativist

There are three examples of my expounding, and explaining this quote. The bad faith in this response is beyond my ability to parse. If you did not read my treatment of this issue (three times) between that bolded quote, and this use of it, I cannot bring myself to delve into such an out-of-sorts use of conversation.

An atheist is simply not a theologian, atheists can still have faith in other things. "God" is just too clumsy of an answer for me. Gods were always created by man as a means to not have to explain things, but rather enforce. To justify actions taken to one's self. — Vaskane

That's fair; I should have restricted my use of the term. Thank you.

:up: :ok:

I don't think it's necessary to be too insistent on the topic of this statement being literally problematic.

Someone can saw they are an agnostic atheist in the following, trivial way, I am an atheist as regards to the Abrahamic religions, but am agnostic as to the topic of if there is some "higher power" or force or entity that orders the universe.

I don't see any good reasons to believe this, but, I don't think we attain certainty in the empirical world.

I don't have a reason to quarrel with you, though I would classify not knowing whether... as epistemic. — Ludwig V

I'd like to correct myself. It is not that agnosticism is not an epistemic position, surely it is. I mixed the actual sense of 'agnostic' with its sense in the discussion of belief in God here. In the argument that I was referencing, true agnosticism (not knowing whether p) is probabilistically unlikely (almost impossible), as the overall doxastic sway will almost always be towards p or not-p.
I quote Matthew McGrath that " I distinguish three: suspension of judgment, the inquiring attitude, and an attitude I call agnosticism. For the first two of these ways of being neutral, non-epistemic factors such as future-comparative and goal-related factors matter to their justification. But they are not genuine doxastic attitudes". Being that some individuals will be in/around the middle — even if more towards p than p-not or the converse — in such a way that they don't feel it is fair to affirm either, they will suspend judgement, which is the only third position — not doxastic but declarative.
As a disclaimer, Matthew McGrath, in that paper, does not claim Bayesian epistemology or reduction of belief are the case, which I presuppose for my argument.