CJ Morgan,
>> it's not nearly as complicated as your mental gymnastics make it <<
Don’t worry, “mental-gymnastics” is a standard reaction I get from those who cannot follow my arguments (e.g. when I use the insights from mathematics in philosophy of science debates). Nevertheless, let me continue hoping that some people reading this can follow:

I cannot put it simpler than I did with Easter Bunnies: “absence of belief in any deity“ must mean the same as “belief in the non-existence of any deity“. If you “don't say there is no God“, neither that there is one, that is a (respectable) agnostic position.

If we want to communicate across the religious/non-religious divide, we have to use the commonly accepted meanings of basic terms. For instance,

Merriam Webster:
atheist=one who believes that there is no deity; atheism=(a) disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity (b) the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity; agnostic=a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
“Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God ... much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist. Agnosticism may be strictly personal ‘I have no firm belief about God’...” etc.

You might believe that Party A will win the next elections, and change it into a knowledge after the election, because of the falsifiability of you original belief. However, saying that you will believe in the existence of a reality (deity, God, etc.) that is beyond the reach of your senses (instruments, scientific theories) when it becomes accessible by your senses (or science) is like saying that you will understand Chinese when it will use English words and grammar: that language won’t be Chinese any more, and whatever you see (directly or through instruments) won’t be a “deity“ any more.

In case of languages you can use an interpreter, in case of the “deity“ you have various religions, but that is a different story.

Veronika,
Your second paragraph is a clear description of a position I can also share, and so should any educated person. It is compatible with (i) an additional belief in Something that science cannot tackle, or with (ii) an additional disbelief in such extra Something, or with (iii) no commitment to such a belief or disbelief. These would be the theist, atheist and agnostic positions respectively (please see the dictionary quotes in my previous post).

I read your “in terms of god, I have no belief” as a an absence of commitment one way or another, i.e. as an agnostic position. Körner’s description is that of a philosopher who wants to show that he is uncommitted, while knowing what he is talking about (as he should, being a philosopher). Maybe you do not think his description applies to you because you are not that philosophically sophisticated, I don’t know. There are things I am agnostic, uncommitted about, because I am not sufficiently informed, and others where I just do not care about the alternatives. Both are legitimate agnostic positions, but not for a professional philosopher when talking about philosophies, where he should understand what he is agnostic about.

I do not see any ambiguity here, only in terminology used by some. There are theists who are tolerant of other positions (religious or not) and also those who are not, who attack other world-views. And there are atheists who are tolerant of other positions, and those who are not, who attack religious world-views. This is regrettably so.

The confusion arises when somebody claiming not to have any beliefs (in deities, God) attacks those who are committed one way or another. If I am uncommitted about something I cannot attack those who are committed one way or another because that would contradict my being uncommitted. It is a different matter if I object to the FORM (quoting to unbelievers from sacred texts, hijacking the terms proof, evidence, righteousness, meaningful life etc. ) in which somebody proclaims his/her commitment.

My my, George, what a patronizing son-of-a-gun you are!

First you pat CJ on the head...

>>Don’t worry, “mental-gymnastics” is a standard reaction I get from those who cannot follow my arguments<<

after which you congratulate Veronika for

>>a clear description of a position I can also share, and so should any educated person<<

But you have made it crystal clear for me why you need to convince atheists that they are in fact not atheists at all, merely agnostics.

>>If I am uncommitted about something I cannot attack those who are committed one way or another because that would contradict my being uncommitted.<<

In short, you are saying "agnostics have no right to join the discussion".

Which is a little presumptuous, don't you think?

The decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the adoption of a belief, but the rejection of one single concept, that "there has to be a God".

To argue that the act of rejecting a preposterous and patently self-serving concept constitutes the creation of a belief system, is to subvert the terminology.

The sleight-of-hand that you, and many others, adopt, is to play around the borders of belief, and belief system.

Belief, of course, can be used in the straightforward "I do not believe in a God". But that does not in any sense qualify it to become a belief system, together with a unified set of rules, guidelines and penalties for non-conformance.

The atheists of my acquaintance share a diversity of views on the human condition that could never, ever be packaged into a "belief system".

But we can certainly agree on one point.

>>It is a different matter if I object to the FORM (quoting to unbelievers from sacred texts, hijacking the terms proof, evidence, righteousness, meaningful life etc.) in which somebody proclaims his/her commitment.<<

Amen, brother.

George: << Don’t worry, “mental-gymnastics” is a standard reaction I get from those who cannot follow my arguments >>

Oh, I follow your arguments all right - I just don't swallow them. I defined explicitly for you the nature of my atheism, which is very similar to that described by Pericles.

If you can't follow that, then we're just talking past each other.

Pericles, in quoting selections of George's ridiculous condescension, you forgot:

"Maybe you do not think his description applies to you because you are not that philosophically sophisticated, I don't know."

Actually I'm an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University.

Well I'm not really. But I could be if I wanted to.

George,

What Pericles said. Get your head around it.

Pericles,

"My my, George, what a patronizing son-of-a-gun you are!"

He seems to be in congenial company.

"But you have made it crystal clear for me why you need to convince atheists that they are in fact not atheists at all, merely agnostics."

Can you please reassure me that your comment isn't disingenous? George appears to have only got there by clarifying the comments of other people after quizzing their claim that belief is not belief. Helping people to articulate what they mean doesn't equate to trying to convince people they are what they aren't. An agnostic is not an atheist.

"The decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the adoption of a belief, but the rejection of one single concept, that "there has to be a God"."

Can you explain further?

"To argue that the act of rejecting a preposterous and patently self-serving concept constitutes the creation of a belief system, is to subvert the terminology."

Has it got that far? Either you have substituted "belief system" for "belief" or I have missed something. There may or may not be a belief system involved but your post is the first time I have noticed it discussed.

"The sleight-of-hand that you, and many others, adopt, is to play around the borders of belief, and belief system.

Belief, of course, can be used in the straightforward "I do not believe in a God". But that does not in any sense qualify it to become a belief system, together with a unified set of rules, guidelines and penalties for non-conformance.

The atheists of my acquaintance share a diversity of views on the human condition that could never, ever be packaged into a "belief system"."

So are you saying that anyone who claims to believe in God must share a uniformity of views and abide by a unified set of rules, and guidelines and accept penalties for non-conformance? I await your clarification but you seem to be unsuccessfully attempting to argue that a spade isn't a spade.

CONT.