Do 'atheist' and 'not a theist' mean the same thing?

Mucter,

For your convenience, I am posting my unanswered post from your other thread here. That will keep you reminding that you have avoided that for not having an answer.

Here it is -----

Mucter - Correct. In the case of all negative numbers vs. all numbers which don’t fall into the category of negative numbers, zero falls into the latter. Substitute negative with positive and it still falls into the latter. Why? Because zero doesn’t fall into the category of negative numbers or the category of positive numbers.

Sanjay - If you admit that zero does not fall into either category, why you are playing tricks and presenting it as only apositive?

Mucter -As that’s a position of belief, not a position of non-belief, it would be analogous to either a positive or negative number, not zero (which is neutral)

Sanjay - What kind of argument is this? Where I said that agnostics are analogous to either negative or positive?

Mucter, do not try to play innocent and pretend as you misunderstood me. I know you got it clearly but as you do not have an answer thus pretending otherwise.

Again, for your clarification, I am comparing agnostics with zero here.

Mucter - I didn’t know there was a rule that one must be arguing for something in this message board. What’s wrong with having a philosophical discussion and exchanging ideas and thoughts?

Sanjay - Playing innocent again. I did not object your argument but you not following it up.

You said that Agnosticism isn’t the middle ground between atheism and theism. It’s on a different plane. Right. But, if that is true, how on the earth you are presenting agnosticism as a subset of atheism and both against theism?

Mucter -Atheists are on one side and theists are on the other side. This doesn’t mean the midpoint is neutral. Atheism is neutral and theism is the non-neutral position. The non-neutral position on the opposite side would be anti-theism.

Sanjay - Would you mind to explain what reasoning you have to conclude that atheism is a neutral position?

Some scientists believe that that the universe came into existence from big bang.
Some scientists believe that universe did not come into existence from big bang.

Now, tell me which position is neutral?

Something exists for sure is a belief but the same thing does not exist for sure is also s belief. One is positive belief while other one is negative but still both are beliefs. Neither position is void of beliefs.

So, tell me om which grounds you considered having belief in the non existence a neutral position?

Mucter -As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren’t mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:
Atheist

  1. Agnostic atheist
    does not believe any god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that no god exists
  2. Gnostic atheist
    believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Theist
3. Agnostic theist
believes a god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic theist
believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Does that make sense?

Sanjay - All that does not make neither any sense nor pertinent here. I also can put as many definitions as you want to see. That would not serve any purpose to you.

The only issue which we are discussing here that how you presented agnosticm as a subset of atheism and atheism as a neutral position. That is all.

Mucter - Actually, you don’t know what my objective is. Or are you omniscient?

Sanjay - As I said before, one needs not to be omniscient to realise what your actual intention is. Only some common sense is enough, and I have that much for sure.

With love,
Sanjay

Nope. Not believing that a god exists is not the same as believing that no god exists.

Exactly. Where did I say they were the same?

Depends. The word has different meanings, so if the issue is important to the listener/reader, one needs to ask some follow up questions to find out what that individual means when they refer to themselves that way.

If you are both a baseball fan and a football fan and someone asks if you’re a baseball fan, why are you obligated to tell them you’re also a football fan?

You’ll have to clarify. Agnostics isn’t a position of belief. It’s a position of knowledge.

Agnostic isn’t the mid point between believing a god exists and not believing a god exists. With respect to a mid point, having no belief is a mid point between believing a god exists and believing no god exists.

I’m following up now. BTW, please leave your posts in the conventional format, as it’s far less tedious to respond.

Let’s say there are four types of cars in your area. Models are Fords and Toyotas. All the cars are either black or white. So you have Black Fords, Black Toyotas, White Fords and White Toyotas. Do you consider white/black to be a subset of Ford/Toyota? If so, is white/black the midpoint between Ford and Toyota?

There are two positions of belief.

  1. Believes a god exists
  2. Believes no god exists
    The neutral or midpoint between those would be doesn’t have a belief. And those who don’t have a belief are called atheists.

One is the positive belief and one is the negative belief. A neutral or midpoint would be a scientist who doesn’t have a belief about how the universe came into existence. But this scientist would also fall into the category of those who don’t believe the universe came into existence from the big bang.

Agreed. However, please note that there is a difference between believing that there is no god and not believing there is a god.

That’s a position of belief. Having a belief in the existence would be the opposite non-neutral position. Having no belief would be the neutral position.

I don’t believe I ever presented agnosticism as a neutral position. Read the above four categories and you’ll see what I mean.

You may be able to make an educated guess or be reasonably sure. But perhaps my intention is entirely beyond your understanding.

In no category.

Your categories have nothing to do with newborn babies.


If there are the following three categories elephants, lions, and zebras; in which category do you fall into?

You say there are four categories. Two of those are Theist, and both start with “believes a god exists”. Nothing inconsistent there. However, the other two are both Atheist, but do not both begin the same way. The one begins with “does not believe any god exists”, whereas the other begins with “believes that no god exists”. By saying there are only four categories, you imply that “does not believe any god exists” is the same as “believes that no god exists”. If they are not the same, as you now seem to agree with me, there are five categories, not four:

Atheist

  1. Agnostic implicit atheist (= implicit negative atheist)
    does not believe that any god exists, but neither that no god exists
  2. Agnostic explicit atheist (= explicit negative atheist)
    believes that no god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true
  3. Gnostic explicit atheist (= explicit positive atheist)
    believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Theist
4. Agnostic theist (= explicit negative theist)
believes a god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true
5. Gnostic theist (= explicit positive theist)
believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Those who have the belief that no god exists are also called atheists. In fact, that is the source of all this confusion. Therefore, it may indeed be better to call them anti-theists instead.

Rather the other way round; the scientists who believe that the universe did not come into existence from a big bang would also fall into the category of those who don’t believe the universe came into existence from a big bang.

Not nitpicking, just insisting on clarity: for I think that’s the only way to ever settle this debate.

Actually most religionists claim their child to be a “muslim child”, or a “christian child”, which is absurd. Since it is an absurd claim it is necessary to point out that all children are born atheists.
Once again, if it were not for Theism, there would be no need to use the term Atheist.

QED an atheist is a non theist.

They are theists. You might be thinking about pantheists which are more like atheists than theists.

Well, I think pantheists are theists in the sense considered here. But yeah, pantheism is the positive form of that of which explicit atheism is the neutral form and pandiabolism is the negative form (“positive” and “negative” not in the sense of “strong” and “weak” or “hard” and “soft”, though).

You are overcomplicating things.
A Pantheist such as Spinoza makes everything of god, such that it is not a thing that intervenes has needs want or desires, it not all powerful but is the power, the universe the determined structure and all natural forces, unconscious. More like nature itself which we all part of and never apart from.
Such a idea is so far removed from the god of the Jews that it is no god at all.

Polytheists believe in a whole collection of gods.

In that sense pantheism is indeed not theistic. As I said, though, that’s not the sense considered here.

Pantheism says all beings are divine. Polytheism says multiple beings are divine. Monotheism says only one being is divine. Explicit atheism says no beings are divine.

Pantheism: x (the divine) = ∞ (for lack of an “all” symbol)
Polytheism: 1 < x < ∞
Monotheism: x = 1
Explicit atheism: x = 0

Now 0 = -0. Likewise, by “atheism” I also mean “adiabolism” here.

Explicit adiabolism: y (the diabolical) = 0
Monodiabolism: y = 1
Polydiabolism: 1 < y < ∞
Pandiabolism: y = ∞

Of course, any combination of polytheism, monotheism, or explicit atheism on the one hand, and explicit diabolism, monodiabolism, or polydiabolism on the other is possible (but pantheism can only be combined with adiabolism, and pandiabolism with atheism).

I don’t disagree that agnostic atheists could be broken down into two categories - implicit and explicit.

But why stop there? We could divide agnostic explicit atheist into sub categories based on why they don’t hold the belief that a god exists.

I don’t disagree that agnostic atheists could be broken down into two categories - implicit and explicit.

But why stop there? We could divide agnostic explicit atheist into sub categories based on why they don’t hold the belief that a god exists.

Fair enough. Carry on…

I still disagree newborn babies are atheists, though.

ἄθεος = without god / abandoned by the gods / godless / excluded from the heritage of Israel

Any thoughts?

I am certainly obligated to tell him that I like both games, if he would misunderstand my silence about football as my disliking. Would it not be cheating otherwise?

That is precisely (cheating) you are doing all along in your arguments, which is exposed now.

Wrong again.

Agnosticism is also related to belief in a way. It implies either the knowledge or the belief that one cannot be sure about either the existence or nonexistence of the god, or it implies the belief that there cannot be any certainty about this ever.

Mucter, even the knowledge of agnosticism would lead to belief at last. All three positions have beliefs. Theism has the belief of the existence of the god. Atheism has the belief of the nonexistence of the god. Agnosticism has the belief that both other beliefs are wrong because nothing can be known for sure, but it is still a belief.

It does not make any difference whether agnosticism is the middle point or not. The more important issue is that it is different from both other positions. Thus, you cannot present it as a subset of atheism. And, you also accepted in the discussion that agnosticism is from different plane from both others.

Mucter, you cannot fool me, no matter how hard you try.

Your analogy is wrong for the simple reason that you are making category error. There is no relation between the brands and colors of the cars. But, threism, atheism and agnosticm talk about the same issue; the belief about the god.

If we use your analogy of colours, theism and atheism represent white and black, while agnosticm represents other colours like grey.

Mucter, you are losing it now. Did you read carefully what you said above! I do not think so. Are you saying that atheists do not believe in the nonexistence of the god?

Atheists are not void of belief. They represent second category of the belief, which is the nonexistence of the god, and just opposite to the first kind of theism belief.

Givem that, how you can say that atheism is a neutral position?

You are right up to here but as usual, it is again half truth.

If a scientist, who does not have any belief how universe came into existence, can be clubbed with those who do not believe in big bang, why he cannot be clubbed with those who believe in big bang?

He is neither against nor for any particular position. Given that, how can you include him with the non believers of the big bang?

Yes, there is some difference. But, I do not see how it support your position in any way!

True. But, it is only agnostics who do not have any belief, not atheists. However, you did not answer my question. Look again.

Okay. Then explain how you presented agnosticism as a subset of atheism?

Mucter, not only me but many other members are also aware of your intentions now. Your effort to undermine theism at any cost is quite evident now.

With love,
Sanjay

Still no thoughts?

Strictly speaking the prefix “a-” means without.
ἄθεος = atheos (Greek) - without God

Originally, there was no such a word for a theist; meaning the default position was that a person was with God.

‘Skate-board’ in Greek means … therefore …

The Greeks and the Latins didn’t have words for all things. Words get usurped, realigned, and adopted from language to language. What a word used to mean to them long ago can only give hint as to what it might mean today.

TODAY in ENGLISH “Atheist” means:

The indented quotes give allowance for merely a lack of belief, a distinction not found in ancient Greek or Latin.

So about a ratio of 21 : 3 in favor of “Atheism” meaning “a belief in the lack of any fundamental theory” (aka “God”).