Grim (and Luciferase),

If I’m sounding confused, then by all means, tell me. People need to know these things and if it sounds patronising, then that’s just too bad. It is ridiculous to the point of embarrassing that you guys don’t know any of this and Luciferase is continuing to dig himself/herself in even further.

If your (unconscious?) selective quoting of me is an indication of which parts of my post were the only parts of my post that you chose to absorb, then it’s no wonder I sound confusing/confused.

You can’t go from (or quote from)...

“Like I said before: theism and atheism go to what you BELIEVE...”

...to...

“Agnosticism is not a middle-ground”

...without adding...

“...gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you KNOW”

...and expect to understand what I’m saying or reply to me in any meaningful way.

Your definition of agnosticism is incorrect and demonstrates a misunderstanding of what atheism is. Theism means to hold a theological belief; atheism is everything else. So Socrates was an "atheist" (and agnostic) in regards to immortality and would only cease to be such until he started believing in immortality. In the same sense, the “starting point” for scientific inquiry would be “atheistic”. Atheism doesn't necessitate a pre-conceived notion, so yes, I'll say it again: agnosticism is a rather useless and unhelpful label.

You are only acknowledging atheism to be what is known as "explicit atheism" and mistaking "implicit atheism" for agnosticism when agnosticism doesn't deal with belief at all. But I tend to avoid the whole “explicit” and “implicit” part because it tends to clutter the issue.

If you still don't understand, then another way of explaining the difference between theism and atheism is to differentiate 'guilty' and 'not guilty' in a court of law: 'guilty' is the affirmative, everything else is 'not guilty'.

You can beg differ all you like, Grim (and Luciferase) but this is the way it is and if you don’t like it, then argue it with philosophers and linguists. Until you find some, though, Wikipedia is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Luciferase,

I'm not playing a "game" here and as you can see from my last response to Grim, he is anything but "on to me".

<<If you read my last posts and simply remove the words atheist, atheistic, agnostic...>>

Then it makes absolutely no difference to your case whatsoever and your inability to separate ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’, unless it suits you, is telling.

<<If you are only interested in your self-definition of an atheist, together with hiding behind your self-classification as an agnostic-theist, then what’s to discuss?>>

As I alluded to in my last post, these definitions are not inventions of my own making. If you are unhappy with these classifications and definitions, then take it up with philosophers and linguists.

<<You want the position that you never actually have to “deny” the existence of a god covered at all exits.>>

On the contrary, I deny the existence of God almost on a daily basis here on OLO and have even done so in this thread. Again - this inability of yours to distinguish between belief and knowledge.

<<Unfortunately, to be an “atheist” according to many dictionaries is to “deny” or “disbelieve” the existence of a god.>>

Yes, and entirely consistent with what I've been saying.

<<To “deny” is a strident stand that needs defence against challenge...>>

Not if those who argue in the affirmative have not yet put forth a case. Burden of proof... remember?

<<To “disbelieve” means to “reject as false”, similarly strident.>>

Not necessarily. “Disbelieve” is a broad term and is also consistent with the "implicit atheism" I mentioned earlier... http://tinyurl.com/6my9x3f

<<Your claim to being agnostic ... is overridden by stridency.>>

I have never described myself as an “agnostic” and have even expressed my disappointment in those who do so.

<<I believe there is no god. I accept this it is simply matter of faith to me, just as for theists.>>

Spoken like a true theist!

Your alleged disbelief is not a faith as those who hold the belief have not yet fulfilled their burden of proof and your apparent inability to understand this is highly suspicious.

"Although to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that everyone you mention is completely certain that they are atheists."

You must be psychic, Pericles...

I've been enjoying revisiting last year's Professors Craig and Millican debate and have decided for the moment that I'm going to convert - the anti-God thesis seems increasingly true, or at least I now believe I know it is.

Unfortunately, I suspect this makes me an a-atheist… as if my stutter wasn't bad enough already!

I would to see separation of religion and state. It would not matter what someone believed or didn't believe. Government would not use its powers to enforce or promote religion in general, any particular religion or atheism. Religionists or atheists could not depend on government to promulgate their views.

People would be free to promote their views in the home, churches or any non-govermental institution. However, government facilities such as the public schools would neither promote nor deny religious beliefs.

As a step on the way there has been a lawsuit heard in the High Court which would deny commonwealth funding to the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP). The decision is overdue.

AJ,

You provide a couple of new points.

You invent neat dichotomies "Theism means to hold a theological belief; atheism is everything else"

You ARE a theist or you ARE NOT a theist. Atheism is not "everything else" but a belief all on its own. You too can take this up with philosophers and linguists (all of them, not just the judiciously chosen)

Regarding believers (theist or atheist) fulfilling a "burden of proof", proof is a mathematical concept not a part of scientific inquiry. Nobody must "prove", nor can they prove, anything other than a mathematical proposition.

A "burden of support" is more the requirement, i.e. to present evidence to convince. The believer's burden is lifted once the presentation is fulfilled, whether the evidence convinces or not.


I wrote "I believe there is no god. I accept this is simply matter of faith...."

You responded "Your alleged disbelief is not a faith"

I did not use the word "disbelief" so don't mince my words to inject your very own "broad" definition of this word. My position is strident.
Knowledge: There is no god. Belief: I believe there is no god

Dear Luciferase,

Would you be kind enough to tell us about your coming to the belief that there is no God? I hope you can express it in words.