Three positions,
Accept a claim - theist, reject the claim (awaiting further evidence) - weak Agnostic,
Reject that the claim can be proven (not awaiting any evidence, making a claim about the previous claim) - strong agnostic
Claim the inverse - Atheist
Refuse to consider the claim ('this concept you speak of hold no interest for me') - I don't know if this has a label...

Where those positions overlap is rather tough.

You can be agnostic and theistic (saying we don't have enough evidence but i choose to believe) But not a Strong Agnostic who denies that any other position is valid. Meanwhile, rejecting the idea that this claim needs to be considered, prevents any other position from being taken...

Okay, okay, okay, I finally read the damned link. I get your definition on that basis, but I don't think I buy it.

Also, just to be a douche, your chart fails to account for the tenets of Pragmatic Agnosticism, which claims that the question of god's existence can never be known, and that equal probability exists for the existence of every god and for the non-existence of any god. Thus that trying to answer it is... the best comparison is dividing by zero: the question itself is invalid, and they thus refuse to consider the question. (Although... by the strict definition of "reject" I suppose that refusal to consider constitutes rejection... but it's still clearly something other than atheism. Right?)

hecks -- I understand why--- Secular Humanism is a defined belief system. Athiesm is simply the lack of believing in a particular thing.

But...by your caveat...you are agnostic. You can't not rule out the possibility of God and stil claim atheist. Sheesh...that may be a MODERN day definition of athiesm...and I understand why the definition has been perverted and expanded by certain people (Dawkins...for example)...but it doesn't change the fact that FOREVER, if you left wiggle room, you are agnostic.

OK...I changed my mind. You are all atheists.

Hecks: OK, so you are closer to what is commonly called a "strong" atheist than a weak one like me. We're both atheists though, contrary to orathaic's irritating assertion-that-makes-it-clear-he-hasn't-read-anything-I've-been-saying.

If you don't buy my definition, you had probably better explain why. It seems to be the one that ascertains both the theistic (what one believes) and gnostic (what one claims to know or can be known) viewpoints with the least fuss. I'm happy to accept reasonable alternate definitions, but if it conflates atheism with agnosticism like you and Draugnar have been doing, then it's doing more harm than good.

----

"By your definitions, then, if I'm rejecting a claim pending further evidence, then I haven't decided. Which, from an atheistic perspective is different from having rejected a claim as untrue. Thus, I'm not sure that, by your definition of rejection, everyone who rejects the claim is an atheist. How about if you create a larger subset of non-theists which includes both atheists and agnostics?"

Because you still don't get it. You and orathaic still seem to be thinking that an atheist is a person who asserts that there are no gods. This is not what atheism is. An atheist is a person who rejects the claim that there are Gods. Also, not all agnostics are non-theists. One can believe in a God and believe it isn't or can't be known for sure (rare, but it does happen).

haha krellin really I do understand what you mean.

Whether and how the definitions have changed or been "perverted" and for what ends is a question I'd really like to know the answer to. However, I reject your claim that it for sure happened, pending further evidence :)

@YJ, apologies, i haven't been following. but i like my venn diagrams...

It's OK ora, just be aware that the definitions you have posited are not what I have been saying all along, and that the far majority of the Americans who consider themselves atheists would fall under the title "weak agnostic" by your definition.

"Refuse to consider the claim ('this concept you speak of hold no interest for me') - I don't know if this has a label..."

If you rephrase this to "this concept you speak of has no meaning and thus cannot be considered" you arrive at noncognitivsm.

An example would be "God is All-encompassing Love". I'm a noncognitivist towards such concept of God because I really don't know WTF is that even supposed to mean.

Btw, i'm pretty sure 'my' concept of weak agnostic is one i drew from somewhere (probably wikipedia)

@ulytau, i was thinking if you ask 'do you believe in Ah Ciliz?' - i would take the position, 'i've not idea what you're even talking about' - or the noncognitivist position, apparently...

But when it comes to 'God' - i suspect there are few people who are noncognitivist - in the same way that i suspect there are few people in the western world who haven't thought about Santa Claus. Perhaps i'm suffering from the bias of being raised ina catholic family and country...

@yj,
No, I get what you're saying. I just don't think a person who says, "I am not convinced there is a god, nor am I convinced there is not" (ie, a classic agnostic) would be define by most common definitions as an atheist. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your definition. In other words, just because you're wrong doesn't mean I don't understand.

I learn new words every day...
Today: Threadjack.

I appreciate the mental fertility and volubility that seems to be a trait of dipplayers, but...
This Forum would really need active modding.
Well, the layout is hopeless anyway. It was evidently not thought to serve as a general forum for discussion.

Lads!... discipline!

@yj - If you operate off a definition that blue is red, then sure, most firetrucks are painted blue. But that doesn't mean blue actually *is* red. It's just means that your definition of blue is incorrect.

@Syl, no, i think you'll find that this forum does pretty well with only self-moderation. And the layout is simple, that is a design choice.

Hey, hecks, was there a reason you ignored what I said or did you just not see my post?

I missed it. I guess I'm not sure how you mean it. I mean, do you genuinely not understand what people mean by the term "god," or do you just not see how such a concept can square with reality?

I genuinely can't get my head around what they are talking about. Christians, talking about "god", seem to have some idea in their head that I simply can't grasp.

Well, Christians will tell you that a complete understanding of god exceeds human capabilities. So they'd tell you a complete understanding isn't necessary to establish faith. But as far as I'm concerned, all I can tell is that you're not religious. Beyond that, you can identify however you like.

Personally, I find it hard to understand how someone could not get the concept of a universal controlling intelligence to have some gut reaction to the idea.

A typical conversation:


Christian: Do you believe in God, Jamie?

Me: What?

Christian: Well, do you believe that there is a God, who created the world and everything in it, and who loves us?

Me: Like, do I believe that the world was conjoured out of thin air by some immortal man who lives in the sky and has limitless magic powers? Some kind of invisible wizard?

Christian: No, no, no! That's not what God is, at all! God doesn't live in the sky, he is all around us, like oxygen!

Me: So, "God" isn't a magic man, he's more like an invisible cloud of gas?

Christian: No, no, no! God isn't a gas! God is much ‘bigger’ than us in every sense. So we can never completely describe him or understand him. He is three-in-one. Father, Son and Holy Spirit! He is everywhere and knows everything!

Me: I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Hecks: I find it hard to understand how someone could not get the concept of a universal controlling intelligence.

Me: What? You think that's an easy concept? I thought God wasn't supposed to control us anyway, there's that whole "free will" thing Christians go on about. See, even when people try to explain the concept of God to me, their own terms of reference appear to shift as they go on. I just don't get it, sorry.

Then let me make it easier for you:

Me: Do you believe in God, Jamie?

Jamie: What?

Me: Well, do you believe that there is a God, who created the world and everything in it, and who loves us?

Jamie: Like, do I believe that the world was conjoured out of thin air by some immortal man who lives in the sky and has limitless magic powers? Some kind of invisible wizard?

Me: Well... basically. I mean not entirely, but that's pretty close. So sky wizard, yes or no?

Jamie: Uh... seriously?

Me: Atheist.

AAAaaahhhh, but the thing is, whenever I use the "Invisible Sky Wizard" description, most Christians tell me I'm getting it completely wrong and that God is absolutely NOTHING like that. So I have no idea what they're conceiving of in their minds when they talk about "God".

Or this:

Me: Do you believe in the soul, Jamie?

Jamie: What?

Me: Well, do you believe that people have souls, that the things that make you you are entirely separate from your material body and your chemical brain.

Jamie: Like, do I believe that when I die I'll leave my body behind but still know what's going on?

Me: Yeah, pretty much.

Jamie: Uh... seriously?

Me: Atheist.

That one I can sort of deal with. Sort of.

Okay, I'll be frank with you here, Jamie. If, when asked about god, you use the analogy "invisible sky wizard," you're an atheist.

I guess so. Thanks, Frank.

You know, when it comes to defining things, people get hung up on... i don't know. Definitions, or hard n' solid facts, names and labels.

(like this whole Atheist, Agnostic (weak/strong) Theist labeling fiasco)

The label isn't important (except as a flag for a politician/war lord to wave so others can follow) The qualities of the thing are.

The Qualia. So what is God, becomes a proposition of what qualities does the 'god' concept hold, and how do we define them.

You could say God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, along with benevolent. So instead of saying 'oh he's like oxygen...' or some terrible analogy. Just ask what these things mean. And well, i end up with a thing which is everywhere (literally is all the places) which contains all the knowledge (literally every piece of information is encoded in it) and which can do all of the possible thing (everything which is physically possible) it is called the Universe, and I believe it exists...

I can even label it 'God' if that helps you decide whether i'm an Atheist/Theist...

@Heck, labeling Jamie an Atheist doesn't mean he will follow the Atheist banner and support the actions taken in the name of Atheism... So is not useful.

I believe that the universe exists.

(sorry, i took me over 10 minutes to post, and you seem to have resolved all of the things!)

But Jamie, is it also beyond human comprehension?