The Solution To Theism

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The North Korean regime IS a religion, with the three Kims as their holy trinity.

Stalin is still worshipped as a God in some parts of the former Soviet Union.

Totalitarian regimes oppose religion not because they want their people to be freethinkers, but because religions are rivals for the worship and obedience of the masses.

Anglican Protestantism started the same way; Henry VIII (and later Elizabeth I) opposed the Pope not because of any particular doctrinal argument, but because they wanted to be beholden to nobody as head of the church. It's all about power. It always was.

As usual you miss my point. For many people religion fills what appears to be a deep need. We are hierarchical by nature probably part genetics. As Campbell pointed out, the Abrahamic god is the ultimate alpha male. We see it in politics. Congressional republicans treat Trump as the alpha male and derive personal power from that.

Belief in the Abra-mic god mentally puts allegiance away from any Earthly power. Very satisfying to many.

People have been caught and jailed smuggling bibles into NK. There is likely a small underground community.

China gavbe up outlawing religion. They opted for making it a sate approved function. They presumed to select the next Dali Lama and Catholic clerics.

Religion can riot be ended.

Kinda like drugs and alcohol. If you can't beat it, regulate it and make some money.

I mentioned my Mom earlier. Another aspect of her religion was that she had absolutely no knowledge of any other religions or gods. She knew jews and christians of other denominations but didn't associate with them or ever attend their services. She knew they were wrong and wouldn't go to heaven. She prayed for their conversion regularly.

 

[Copernicus]

The prefix 'a' sometimes means "not."

Sometimes, as in not always.

Language is complex. It's not nice and neat like math equations.

The opposite of believing God exists was never meant to be construed as a mathematical negation.

Of course, science has progressed, and meanings have evolved.

Still, there's a subset of atheists that hold a very clear belief that isn't ... lacking.

I would say that most people we would conventionally call atheists belong to that subset, including most who insist that it means nothing more than "lacking belief in gods". It is usually taken to mean "rejecting belief in gods".

 

[fast]

The prefix 'a' sometimes means "not."

Sometimes, as in not always.

Language is complex. It's not nice and neat like math equations.

The opposite of believing God exists was never meant to be construed as a mathematical negation.

Of course, science has progressed, and meanings have evolved.

Still, there's a subset of atheists that hold a very clear belief that isn't ... lacking.

I would say that most people we would conventionally call atheists belong to that subset, including most who insist that it means nothing more than "lacking belief in gods". It is usually taken to mean "rejecting belief in gods".

The newer more atheist-accepting nomenclature holds:

Theist: B(G)
Atheist: ~B(G)

With that as the foundation, there is thus:
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)

Notice the similarity: ~B(G)

The old school system is substantively different:
Theist: B(G)
Atheist: B(~G)
Agnostic: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)

The old school atheist definition is equivalent to the new school strong atheist.
The old school agnostic definition is equivalent to the new school weak atheist

The new school agnostic has been elevated to ~K(G) and presumably ~K(~G) as well.

The description that I think captures the transition is the older view distinction as being opposites whereas the newer view distinction is negation.

The "lack of belief" phrasing comes across as a learned adhoc response.

The idealized atheist progression of logic purportedly flows from because we have no empiracically reliable evidence, we therefore remain without a belief that there is a God. The truth, however, more likely flows for many in the other direction. We are told there is a God and tend to believe what we're told but after questioning the belief tend to have a diminished belief. The reason for the lack of belief is not exactly the lack of evidence first but rather lack of evidence second. These atheists (true atheists) are ones that have actually come to hold a belief opposite of theists. Their justification for their belief is something they think is lacking--lack of empiracle evidence.

When the theist turned atheist holds the position and then later comes to grips with why they hold the position, the reasoning is posthoc and conflates the what with the why. Imagine making a decision to offer a product without knowing until later the full scope of the benefits to the customer and later claim that the reasoning for the decision came from wanting customers to reap those benefits.

The link between lack of evidence and lack of belief is a big deal to atheists, and I'm saying the order of recognition is not to be taken lightly. There are those that develop their beliefs and later give reason, and I'm not talking about theists or atheists specifically at the moment. The tell tale, if ya will, is in examining the presentation and how it accords with belief formation. In fact, it's quite common that people look for reasoning to justify their positions. When their positions precede their justifications, I'm not saying it's a bad thing--just telling.

An atheist does lack belief in God, but I question the proper interpretation of that. I don't think that truth should be regarded as foundational. It's the belief in opposition (not negation) that marks the distinction--as I temporarily argue for the old nomenclature. The fact that an atheist lacks belief in God's existence, therefore, is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The "atheist (thus a strong atheist in this view) lacks belief "is true but not true by definition ... since the marked difference stems from opposing (not negating) beliefs to theists--it's the belief that's important--not the lack of.

At any rate, what captures my attention most is the mathematical influences of people's interpretation to language. An atheist is not a theist, but who's not a theist need not necessarily be an atheist: the terms under the old nomenclature are not collectively exhaustive, but thats just what's happening with the newer atheist-identifying definition.

 

[bilby]

The prefix 'a' sometimes means "not."

Sometimes, as in not always.

Language is complex. It's not nice and neat like math equations.

The opposite of believing God exists was never meant to be construed as a mathematical negation.

Of course, science has progressed, and meanings have evolved.

Still, there's a subset of atheists that hold a very clear belief that isn't ... lacking.

I would say that most people we would conventionally call atheists belong to that subset, including most who insist that it means nothing more than "lacking belief in gods". It is usually taken to mean "rejecting belief in gods".

The newer more atheist-accepting nomenclature holds:

Theist: B(G)
Atheist: ~B(G)

With that as the foundation, there is thus:
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)

Notice the similarity: ~B(G)

The old school system is substantively different:
Theist: B(G)
Atheist: B(~G)
Agnostic: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)

The old school atheist definition is equivalent to the new school strong atheist.
The old school agnostic definition is equivalent to the new school weak atheist

The new school agnostic has been elevated to ~K(G) and presumably ~K(~G) as well.

The description that I think captures the transition is the older view distinction as being opposites whereas the newer view distinction is negation.

The "lack of belief" phrasing comes across as a learned adhoc response.

The idealized atheist progression of logic purportedly flows from because we have no empiracically reliable evidence, we therefore remain without a belief that there is a God. The truth, however, more likely flows for many in the other direction. We are told there is a God and tend to believe what we're told but after questioning the belief tend to have a diminished belief. The reason for the lack of belief is not exactly the lack of evidence first but rather lack of evidence second. These atheists (true atheists) are ones that have actually come to hold a belief opposite of theists. Their justification for their belief is something they think is lacking--lack of empiracle evidence.

When the theist turned atheist holds the position and then later comes to grips with why they hold the position, the reasoning is posthoc and conflates the what with the why. Imagine making a decision to offer a product without knowing until later the full scope of the benefits to the customer and later claim that the reasoning for the decision came from wanting customers to reap those benefits.

The link between lack of evidence and lack of belief is a big deal to atheists, and I'm saying the order of recognition is not to be taken lightly. There are those that develop their beliefs and later give reason, and I'm not talking about theists or atheists specifically at the moment. The tell tale, if ya will, is in examining the presentation and how it accords with belief formation. In fact, it's quite common that people look for reasoning to justify their positions. When their positions precede their justifications, I'm not saying it's a bad thing--just telling.

An atheist does lack belief in God, but I question the proper interpretation of that. I don't think that truth should be regarded as foundational. It's the belief in opposition (not negation) that marks the distinction--as I temporarily argue for the old nomenclature. The fact that an atheist lacks belief in God's existence, therefore, is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The "atheist (thus a strong atheist in this view) lacks belief "is true but not true by definition ... since the marked difference stems from opposing (not negating) beliefs to theists--it's the belief that's important--not the lack of.

At any rate, what captures my attention most is the mathematical influences of people's interpretation to language. An atheist is not a theist, but who's not a theist need not necessarily be an atheist: the terms under the old nomenclature are not collectively exhaustive, but thats just what's happening with the newer atheist-identifying definition.

There never was an 'old school' - just a misunderstanding.

Theist/Atheist is about belief.
Gnostic/Agnostic is about knowledge.

This has always been the case; The two comparisons are, and always were, orthogonal. Both axes include weak and strong versions of their respective stances. A weak atheist says "I believe that there probably isn't a god'. That weak atheist is most likely to also say 'I do not know that there isn't a god', and so is also an agnostic. But it is perfectly possible (if rare) to say 'I know that there isn't a god, and I am unsure whether I believe in Him' - a weak atheist and gnostic stance. Another weakly atheist and gnostic position would be 'I know that there is a God, but I don't think I believe in Him'.

These are not common stances, of course. But they are possible.

And of course, there's no reason at all why someone cannot be strongly theist, and strongly agnostic: "I have complete faith in the existence of a God who is completely unknowable and for whose existence no evidence shall ever be found".

The idea that 'agnostic' sits somewhere in the middle ground between 'Atheist' and 'Theist' is simply an error. It was a common error in the past, and is less common now, but it was never not an error.

 

[fast]

The newer more atheist-accepting nomenclature holds:

Theist: B(G)
Atheist: ~B(G)

With that as the foundation, there is thus:
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)

Notice the similarity: ~B(G)

The old school system is substantively different:
Theist: B(G)
Atheist: B(~G)
Agnostic: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)

The old school atheist definition is equivalent to the new school strong atheist.
The old school agnostic definition is equivalent to the new school weak atheist

The new school agnostic has been elevated to ~K(G) and presumably ~K(~G) as well.

The description that I think captures the transition is the older view distinction as being opposites whereas the newer view distinction is negation.

The "lack of belief" phrasing comes across as a learned adhoc response.

The idealized atheist progression of logic purportedly flows from because we have no empiracically reliable evidence, we therefore remain without a belief that there is a God. The truth, however, more likely flows for many in the other direction. We are told there is a God and tend to believe what we're told but after questioning the belief tend to have a diminished belief. The reason for the lack of belief is not exactly the lack of evidence first but rather lack of evidence second. These atheists (true atheists) are ones that have actually come to hold a belief opposite of theists. Their justification for their belief is something they think is lacking--lack of empiracle evidence.

When the theist turned atheist holds the position and then later comes to grips with why they hold the position, the reasoning is posthoc and conflates the what with the why. Imagine making a decision to offer a product without knowing until later the full scope of the benefits to the customer and later claim that the reasoning for the decision came from wanting customers to reap those benefits.

The link between lack of evidence and lack of belief is a big deal to atheists, and I'm saying the order of recognition is not to be taken lightly. There are those that develop their beliefs and later give reason, and I'm not talking about theists or atheists specifically at the moment. The tell tale, if ya will, is in examining the presentation and how it accords with belief formation. In fact, it's quite common that people look for reasoning to justify their positions. When their positions precede their justifications, I'm not saying it's a bad thing--just telling.

An atheist does lack belief in God, but I question the proper interpretation of that. I don't think that truth should be regarded as foundational. It's the belief in opposition (not negation) that marks the distinction--as I temporarily argue for the old nomenclature. The fact that an atheist lacks belief in God's existence, therefore, is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The "atheist (thus a strong atheist in this view) lacks belief "is true but not true by definition ... since the marked difference stems from opposing (not negating) beliefs to theists--it's the belief that's important--not the lack of.

At any rate, what captures my attention most is the mathematical influences of people's interpretation to language. An atheist is not a theist, but who's not a theist need not necessarily be an atheist: the terms under the old nomenclature are not collectively exhaustive, but thats just what's happening with the newer atheist-identifying definition.

There never was an 'old school' - just a misunderstanding.

Theist/Atheist is about belief.
Gnostic/Agnostic is about knowledge.

This has always been the case; The two comparisons are, and always were, orthogonal. Both axes include weak and strong versions of their respective stances. A weak atheist says "I believe that there probably isn't a god'. That weak atheist is most likely to also say 'I do not know that there isn't a god', and so is also an agnostic. But it is perfectly possible (if rare) to say 'I know that there isn't a god, and I am unsure whether I believe in Him' - a weak atheist and gnostic stance. Another weakly atheist and gnostic position would be 'I know that there is a God, but I don't think I believe in Him'.

These are not common stances, of course. But they are possible.

And of course, there's no reason at all why someone cannot be strongly theist, and strongly agnostic: "I have complete faith in the existence of a God who is completely unknowable and for whose existence no evidence shall ever be found".

The idea that 'agnostic' sits somewhere in the middle ground between 'Atheist' and 'Theist' is simply an error. It was a common error in the past, and is less common now, but it was never not an error.

I don't think so.

We had the one side that believes. The side that believes yes.

And we had the other side that (also) believes. But, that's the side that believes no.

The theist, the person of agency that has either a forming or fully formed belief (the yes's of the world)

The atheist, who with at least as much contemplation has come to hold the position of no.

The theist believes that there is a God: B(G)
The atheist believes that there is not a God: B(~G)

Then comes the in-between, the one's on the fence that is asked of their belief. With words, the term, "knowledge" is used, but listen closely and feel the message as intended as my fictitious representative speaks: Sir, I have thought long and hard about what I believe. I don't hold a belief that there is, and I don't hold a belief there isn't. Maybe there is; maybe there isn't ... a God; I just don't know.

The position isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. The intent is to convey the position not of knowledge but of not knowing which group to place his belief ... of which he has none. If one doesn't hold a belief either way, then of course one doesn't know, and that's what is said.

The agnostic stance is that of neither believing yes nor no.

Oh, and the distinction between weak and strong under the new nomenclature has nothing to do with strength solidity of belief. One can be a strong atheist and have an underlying weak belief.

Switching to expound upon the new nomenclature, the foundation that ties the strong with the weak has to do with the shared fact that there is no belief whatsoever THAT THERE IS a God. Atheists do not all share the belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Again:
Atheist: ~B(G)
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Hence, not only is it so that he has no belief THAT THERE IS a God, he also has no belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)
Hence, like his weak atheist friends, they share the fact that neither hold a belief THAT THERE IS a God, but unlike the weak atheists, the strong atheist has formed a belief about God's existence and that is that God does not exist.

Within this group, not everyone has a fully solidified strongly held belief. Again, the difference between weak and strong atheists have absolutely nothing to do with conviction--just the mere presence of belief. A strong atheist believes that there is no God (regardless of how strongly or weakly held that position is) while the weak atheist simply has no belief either way. In fact, a weak atheist can furiously oppose the strong atheist position with great conviction.

 

[bilby]

The newer more atheist-accepting nomenclature holds:

Theist: B(G)
Atheist: ~B(G)

With that as the foundation, there is thus:
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)

Notice the similarity: ~B(G)

The old school system is substantively different:
Theist: B(G)
Atheist: B(~G)
Agnostic: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)

The old school atheist definition is equivalent to the new school strong atheist.
The old school agnostic definition is equivalent to the new school weak atheist

The new school agnostic has been elevated to ~K(G) and presumably ~K(~G) as well.

The description that I think captures the transition is the older view distinction as being opposites whereas the newer view distinction is negation.

The "lack of belief" phrasing comes across as a learned adhoc response.

The idealized atheist progression of logic purportedly flows from because we have no empiracically reliable evidence, we therefore remain without a belief that there is a God. The truth, however, more likely flows for many in the other direction. We are told there is a God and tend to believe what we're told but after questioning the belief tend to have a diminished belief. The reason for the lack of belief is not exactly the lack of evidence first but rather lack of evidence second. These atheists (true atheists) are ones that have actually come to hold a belief opposite of theists. Their justification for their belief is something they think is lacking--lack of empiracle evidence.

When the theist turned atheist holds the position and then later comes to grips with why they hold the position, the reasoning is posthoc and conflates the what with the why. Imagine making a decision to offer a product without knowing until later the full scope of the benefits to the customer and later claim that the reasoning for the decision came from wanting customers to reap those benefits.

The link between lack of evidence and lack of belief is a big deal to atheists, and I'm saying the order of recognition is not to be taken lightly. There are those that develop their beliefs and later give reason, and I'm not talking about theists or atheists specifically at the moment. The tell tale, if ya will, is in examining the presentation and how it accords with belief formation. In fact, it's quite common that people look for reasoning to justify their positions. When their positions precede their justifications, I'm not saying it's a bad thing--just telling.

An atheist does lack belief in God, but I question the proper interpretation of that. I don't think that truth should be regarded as foundational. It's the belief in opposition (not negation) that marks the distinction--as I temporarily argue for the old nomenclature. The fact that an atheist lacks belief in God's existence, therefore, is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The "atheist (thus a strong atheist in this view) lacks belief "is true but not true by definition ... since the marked difference stems from opposing (not negating) beliefs to theists--it's the belief that's important--not the lack of.

At any rate, what captures my attention most is the mathematical influences of people's interpretation to language. An atheist is not a theist, but who's not a theist need not necessarily be an atheist: the terms under the old nomenclature are not collectively exhaustive, but thats just what's happening with the newer atheist-identifying definition.

There never was an 'old school' - just a misunderstanding.

Theist/Atheist is about belief.
Gnostic/Agnostic is about knowledge.

This has always been the case; The two comparisons are, and always were, orthogonal. Both axes include weak and strong versions of their respective stances. A weak atheist says "I believe that there probably isn't a god'. That weak atheist is most likely to also say 'I do not know that there isn't a god', and so is also an agnostic. But it is perfectly possible (if rare) to say 'I know that there isn't a god, and I am unsure whether I believe in Him' - a weak atheist and gnostic stance. Another weakly atheist and gnostic position would be 'I know that there is a God, but I don't think I believe in Him'.

These are not common stances, of course. But they are possible.

And of course, there's no reason at all why someone cannot be strongly theist, and strongly agnostic: "I have complete faith in the existence of a God who is completely unknowable and for whose existence no evidence shall ever be found".

The idea that 'agnostic' sits somewhere in the middle ground between 'Atheist' and 'Theist' is simply an error. It was a common error in the past, and is less common now, but it was never not an error.

I don't think so.

We had the one side that believes. The side that believes yes.

And we had the other side that (also) believes. But, that's the side that believes no.

The theist, the person of agency that has either a forming or fully formed belief (the yes's of the world)

The atheist, who with at least as much contemplation has come to hold the position of no.

The theist believes that there is a God: B(G)
The atheist believes that there is not a God: B(~G)

Then comes the in-between, the one's on the fence that is asked of their belief. With words, the term, "knowledge" is used, but listen closely and feel the message as intended as my fictitious representative speaks: Sir, I have thought long and hard about what I believe. I don't hold a belief that there is, and I don't hold a belief there isn't. Maybe there is; maybe there isn't ... a God; I just don't know.

The position isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. The intent is to convey the position not of knowledge but of not knowing which group to place his belief ... of which he has none. If one doesn't hold a belief either way, then of course one doesn't know, and that's what is said.

The agnostic stance is that of neither believing yes nor no.

The point where the two axes - Gnosticism and Theism - cross contains people who profess neither knowledge nor belief. This is the position you are describing. It is AN agnostic stance; It is not THE agnostic stance. "I firmly believe in God but cannot profess to know" is a theistic and agnostic stance. "I firmly believe that there are not Gods, but cannot profess to know" is an atheistic and agnostic stance. "I believe neither position, and know nothing" is an agnostic and non-theistic but non atheistic stance. This fence-sitter who occupies the middle ground on both measures is usually described solely in terms of his agnosticism, but the word 'Agnostic' alone is inadequate to define such a person, as he could still be a strong atheist, or a strong theist.

Oh, and the distinction between weak and strong under the new nomenclature has nothing to do with strength solidity of belief. One can be a strong atheist and have an underlying weak belief.

Switching to expound upon the new nomenclature, the foundation that ties the strong with the weak has to do with the shared fact that there is no belief whatsoever THAT THERE IS a God. Atheists do not all share the belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Again:
Atheist: ~B(G)
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Hence, not only is it so that he has no belief THAT THERE IS a God, he also has no belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)
Hence, like his weak atheist friends, they share the fact that neither hold a belief THAT THERE IS a God, but unlike the weak atheists, the strong atheist has formed a belief about God's existence and that is that God does not exist.

Within this group, not everyone has a fully solidified strongly held belief. Again, the difference between weak and strong atheists have absolutely nothing to do with conviction--just the mere presence of belief. A strong atheist believes that there is no God (regardless of how strongly or weakly held that position is) while the weak atheist simply has no belief either way. In fact, a weak atheist can furiously oppose the strong atheist position with great conviction.

Strength of conviction as you use it here is a third orthogonal dimension to the other two, which has extremes at 'easygoing' and 'militant'.

 

[Copernicus]

I hope that this doesn't get a derail started on how precisely to construe the word "atheist". However we might like to have others think of the meaning, most English speakers take atheists to be people who actively oppose belief in God/gods.

 

[remez]

There never was an 'old school' - just a misunderstanding.

Theist/Atheist is about belief.
Gnostic/Agnostic is about knowledge.

This has always been the case; The two comparisons are, and always were, orthogonal. Both axes include weak and strong versions of their respective stances. A weak atheist says "I believe that there probably isn't a god'. That weak atheist is most likely to also say 'I do not know that there isn't a god', and so is also an agnostic. But it is perfectly possible (if rare) to say 'I know that there isn't a god, and I am unsure whether I believe in Him' - a weak atheist and gnostic stance. Another weakly atheist and gnostic position would be 'I know that there is a God, but I don't think I believe in Him'.

These are not common stances, of course. But they are possible.

And of course, there's no reason at all why someone cannot be strongly theist, and strongly agnostic: "I have complete faith in the existence of a God who is completely unknowable and for whose existence no evidence shall ever be found".

The idea that 'agnostic' sits somewhere in the middle ground between 'Atheist' and 'Theist' is simply an error. It was a common error in the past, and is less common now, but it was never not an error.

I really find your mathematical framework here interesting. But I'm wondering about two different notions here. First............

These are not common stances, of course. But they are possible.

Just because it can be mathematical framed by your two axes, wouldn't the mathematical notion of implied domain negate that both could actually exist. Quick example. When using a quadratic approach to find the length of a rectangle, the negative root is logically rejected as impossible.

So...........

And of course, there's no reason at all why someone cannot be strongly theist, and strongly agnostic: "I have complete faith in the existence of a God who is completely unknowable and for whose existence no evidence shall ever be found".

... could be rejected as an impossible root. By reason that if something is completely unknowable then it can't be known to believe in, in the first place.

Continuing in that context of implied domain.....

Notion two....... You two have been concise with the degrees of atheism. Would you also recognize varying degrees of theism? Assuming this.....

And of course, there's no reason at all why someone cannot be strongly theist, and strongly agnostic: "I have complete faith in the existence of a God who is completely unknowable and for whose existence no evidence shall ever be found".

is rejected by implied domain. What then differentiates a strong theism from a weak theism?

Truly curious.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I hope that this doesn't get a derail started on how precisely to construe the word "atheist". However we might like to have others think of the meaning, most English speakers take atheists to be people who actively oppose belief in God/gods.

I've never considered myself actively opposed to people having gods. Rather it's simply that having gods and practicing religion are perceived as valueless and unimportant.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I hope that this doesn't get a derail started on how precisely to construe the word "atheist". However we might like to have others think of the meaning, most English speakers take atheists to be people who actively oppose belief in God/gods.

I've never considered myself actively opposed to people having gods. Rather it's simply that having gods and practicing religion are perceived as valueless and unimportant.

I'm the same way. It goes back to the stamp collecting analogy. I'm not opposed to people collecting stamps and just kind of think it's a waste of time.

 

[Juma]

The newer more atheist-accepting nomenclature holds:

Theist: B(G)
Atheist: ~B(G)

With that as the foundation, there is thus:
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)

Notice the similarity: ~B(G)

The old school system is substantively different:
Theist: B(G)
Atheist: B(~G)
Agnostic: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)

The old school atheist definition is equivalent to the new school strong atheist.
The old school agnostic definition is equivalent to the new school weak atheist

The new school agnostic has been elevated to ~K(G) and presumably ~K(~G) as well.

The description that I think captures the transition is the older view distinction as being opposites whereas the newer view distinction is negation.

The "lack of belief" phrasing comes across as a learned adhoc response.

The idealized atheist progression of logic purportedly flows from because we have no empiracically reliable evidence, we therefore remain without a belief that there is a God. The truth, however, more likely flows for many in the other direction. We are told there is a God and tend to believe what we're told but after questioning the belief tend to have a diminished belief. The reason for the lack of belief is not exactly the lack of evidence first but rather lack of evidence second. These atheists (true atheists) are ones that have actually come to hold a belief opposite of theists. Their justification for their belief is something they think is lacking--lack of empiracle evidence.

When the theist turned atheist holds the position and then later comes to grips with why they hold the position, the reasoning is posthoc and conflates the what with the why. Imagine making a decision to offer a product without knowing until later the full scope of the benefits to the customer and later claim that the reasoning for the decision came from wanting customers to reap those benefits.

The link between lack of evidence and lack of belief is a big deal to atheists, and I'm saying the order of recognition is not to be taken lightly. There are those that develop their beliefs and later give reason, and I'm not talking about theists or atheists specifically at the moment. The tell tale, if ya will, is in examining the presentation and how it accords with belief formation. In fact, it's quite common that people look for reasoning to justify their positions. When their positions precede their justifications, I'm not saying it's a bad thing--just telling.

An atheist does lack belief in God, but I question the proper interpretation of that. I don't think that truth should be regarded as foundational. It's the belief in opposition (not negation) that marks the distinction--as I temporarily argue for the old nomenclature. The fact that an atheist lacks belief in God's existence, therefore, is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The "atheist (thus a strong atheist in this view) lacks belief "is true but not true by definition ... since the marked difference stems from opposing (not negating) beliefs to theists--it's the belief that's important--not the lack of.

At any rate, what captures my attention most is the mathematical influences of people's interpretation to language. An atheist is not a theist, but who's not a theist need not necessarily be an atheist: the terms under the old nomenclature are not collectively exhaustive, but thats just what's happening with the newer atheist-identifying definition.

There never was an 'old school' - just a misunderstanding.

Theist/Atheist is about belief.
Gnostic/Agnostic is about knowledge.

This has always been the case; The two comparisons are, and always were, orthogonal. Both axes include weak and strong versions of their respective stances. A weak atheist says "I believe that there probably isn't a god'. That weak atheist is most likely to also say 'I do not know that there isn't a god', and so is also an agnostic. But it is perfectly possible (if rare) to say 'I know that there isn't a god, and I am unsure whether I believe in Him' - a weak atheist and gnostic stance. Another weakly atheist and gnostic position would be 'I know that there is a God, but I don't think I believe in Him'.

These are not common stances, of course. But they are possible.

And of course, there's no reason at all why someone cannot be strongly theist, and strongly agnostic: "I have complete faith in the existence of a God who is completely unknowable and for whose existence no evidence shall ever be found".

The idea that 'agnostic' sits somewhere in the middle ground between 'Atheist' and 'Theist' is simply an error. It was a common error in the past, and is less common now, but it was never not an error.

I don't think so.

We had the one side that believes. The side that believes yes.

And we had the other side that (also) believes. But, that's the side that believes no.

The theist, the person of agency that has either a forming or fully formed belief (the yes's of the world)

The atheist, who with at least as much contemplation has come to hold the position of no.

The theist believes that there is a God: B(G)
The atheist believes that there is not a God: B(~G)

Then comes the in-between, the one's on the fence that is asked of their belief. With words, the term, "knowledge" is used, but listen closely and feel the message as intended as my fictitious representative speaks: Sir, I have thought long and hard about what I believe. I don't hold a belief that there is, and I don't hold a belief there isn't. Maybe there is; maybe there isn't ... a God; I just don't know.

The position isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. The intent is to convey the position not of knowledge but of not knowing which group to place his belief ... of which he has none. If one doesn't hold a belief either way, then of course one doesn't know, and that's what is said.

The agnostic stance is that of neither believing yes nor no.

Oh, and the distinction between weak and strong under the new nomenclature has nothing to do with strength solidity of belief. One can be a strong atheist and have an underlying weak belief.

Switching to expound upon the new nomenclature, the foundation that ties the strong with the weak has to do with the shared fact that there is no belief whatsoever THAT THERE IS a God. Atheists do not all share the belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Again:
Atheist: ~B(G)
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Hence, not only is it so that he has no belief THAT THERE IS a God, he also has no belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)
Hence, like his weak atheist friends, they share the fact that neither hold a belief THAT THERE IS a God, but unlike the weak atheists, the strong atheist has formed a belief about God's existence and that is that God does not exist.

Within this group, not everyone has a fully solidified strongly held belief. Again, the difference between weak and strong atheists have absolutely nothing to do with conviction--just the mere presence of belief. A strong atheist believes that there is no God (regardless of how strongly or weakly held that position is) while the weak atheist simply has no belief either way. In fact, a weak atheist can furiously oppose the strong atheist position with great conviction.

A person that has never heard of the concept of god will not believe in god, and since he has no concept of a god will not believe that there is no god. This is a perfect example of an atheist. It is not an anti-state. It is just a state.

 

[Juma]

I hope that this doesn't get a derail started on how precisely to construe the word "atheist". However we might like to have others think of the meaning, most English speakers take atheists to be people who actively oppose belief in God/gods.

I've never considered myself actively opposed to people having gods. Rather it's simply that having gods and practicing religion are perceived as valueless and unimportant.

I'm the same way. It goes back to the stamp collecting analogy. I'm not opposed to people collecting stamps and just kind of think it's a waste of time.

But stamp collecting societies isnt known for telling how people should live...

 

[fast]

I don't think so.

We had the one side that believes. The side that believes yes.

And we had the other side that (also) believes. But, that's the side that believes no.

The theist, the person of agency that has either a forming or fully formed belief (the yes's of the world)

The atheist, who with at least as much contemplation has come to hold the position of no.

The theist believes that there is a God: B(G)
The atheist believes that there is not a God: B(~G)

Then comes the in-between, the one's on the fence that is asked of their belief. With words, the term, "knowledge" is used, but listen closely and feel the message as intended as my fictitious representative speaks: Sir, I have thought long and hard about what I believe. I don't hold a belief that there is, and I don't hold a belief there isn't. Maybe there is; maybe there isn't ... a God; I just don't know.

The position isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. The intent is to convey the position not of knowledge but of not knowing which group to place his belief ... of which he has none. If one doesn't hold a belief either way, then of course one doesn't know, and that's what is said.

The agnostic stance is that of neither believing yes nor no.

Oh, and the distinction between weak and strong under the new nomenclature has nothing to do with strength solidity of belief. One can be a strong atheist and have an underlying weak belief.

Switching to expound upon the new nomenclature, the foundation that ties the strong with the weak has to do with the shared fact that there is no belief whatsoever THAT THERE IS a God. Atheists do not all share the belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Again:
Atheist: ~B(G)
Weak atheist: ~B(G) and ~B(~G)
Hence, not only is it so that he has no belief THAT THERE IS a God, he also has no belief THAT THERE IS NOT a God.

Strong atheist: ~B(G) and B(~G)
Hence, like his weak atheist friends, they share the fact that neither hold a belief THAT THERE IS a God, but unlike the weak atheists, the strong atheist has formed a belief about God's existence and that is that God does not exist.

Within this group, not everyone has a fully solidified strongly held belief. Again, the difference between weak and strong atheists have absolutely nothing to do with conviction--just the mere presence of belief. A strong atheist believes that there is no God (regardless of how strongly or weakly held that position is) while the weak atheist simply has no belief either way. In fact, a weak atheist can furiously oppose the strong atheist position with great conviction.

A person that has never heard of the concept of god will not believe in god, and since he has no concept of a god will not believe that there is no god. This is a perfect example of an atheist. It is not an anti-state. It is just a state.

I understand what you're saying.

 

[Copernicus]

I hope that this doesn't get a derail started on how precisely to construe the word "atheist". However we might like to have others think of the meaning, most English speakers take atheists to be people who actively oppose belief in God/gods.

I've never considered myself actively opposed to people having gods. Rather it's simply that having gods and practicing religion are perceived as valueless and unimportant.

Exactly, and expressing your negativity towards belief in gods fits perfectly with the way most people think of atheists. They are people who actively reject belief in gods. The stereotype is that of someone who is aggressively hostile towards religion, although I think that a great many atheists cease to care about converting believers to skepticism after a while.

 

[Jobar]

 

[Jobar]

Think of it this way. Do you have to prove that werekoalas don't exist? How about vampire cows? Flying whalecats? Amazonian wombat-pandas?

I could go all night making up strange supernatural creatures that never were even considered until I dreamed 'em up. For none of them do I have any least evidence; if I try to convince you they nevertheless exist, are you responsible for proving they don't?

No, you are not. All you have to do is call bullshit, and require me to show some proof that any of that lot do exist.

It's the same with god(s). We atheists have no need to prove none exist, until and unless we see some evidence gods are real, or a sound and logical argument that establishes their necessity. (And despite centuries of attempts to do that, no such arguments exist.)

The only reason that there's a "debate" here at all is the millenia of claims by theists that god(s) *do* exist. Since they have failed to offer any evidence- since they have failed to substantiate their claim- we can consider their claims invalid.

AFAIK before I mentioned werekoalas, they didn't even exist as a fanciful concept. Thus there were no people who believed werekoalas existed ('werekoalaists'), and no people who didn't believe they existed ('a-werekoalaists'). Everybody was a 'non-werekoalaist'.

Now that I've dreamed up and written of the concept of a werekoala, I'm sure all reading this (including me, of course) are a-werekoalaists. Even the most gullible child wouldn't believe in such a thing- unless he or she was told by parents or other responsible adults that werekoalas did, in sober truth, exist. And if they were told this by *all* the adults around them, told why it was that no pictures of werekoalas existed because they were invisible, told tales about the strange and wonderful abilities and actions of werekoalas, and that werekoalas loved and cared for them- well, most small children believe in Santa Claus and other fantastic things, if they are told those things exist.

Now apply all that to god(s). Because 'god' is a concept with incredibly powerful social reinforcement, which most people have been told is real as real can be from the time they learned to talk, most people believe god is real. (It's a consequence of our being social animals, and of children being wide open to indoctrination by those around them. That openness is a survival trait, by and large; if a child doesn't believe that there are tigers because he or she's never seen one, then that child may not obey when they're told not to go wandering in the woods, and so becomes tiger food. Skepticism is not without its dangers!)

If there was nobody proclaiming the belief that god(s) exist, there'd be no one proclaiming that god(s) don't exist; just as there is no one proclaiming that werekoalas don't exist.

Atheism can be asserted *now* only because of the previous assertion of theism. And anyone who says they believe in god(s) is making this assertion, at least implicitly. If they make any claims whatsoever about god(s), if they come here wanting to talk about god(s) for any reason- if they even mention the word 'god'- then it's up to them to define and demonstrate what they mean by it. The only way theists could put the burden of (dis)proof on us would be if they had never said a word about belief in god, and yet we unbelievers had started insisting no god(s) exist!

 

[Copernicus]

It makes sense that we have special vocabulary to refer to people who reject popular beliefs, whether or not those beliefs have merit. It isn't even about who logically bears the burden of proof--skeptic or believer. Most of what we believe about reality comes from second and thirdhand sources. I certainly haven't done the science or math to verify what I believe to be scientific fact. I read about what scientific consensus is and mostly take such claims on the basis of trust or faith. So, despite the fact that I feel no obligation to disprove the existence of gods, I do feel some obligation to explain to interested parties why I reject strongly held popular opinions. What makes me an atheist is the fact that I hold a contrary opinion, not that I lack an opinion.