This was the OP:
To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist. Atheism doesn't require knowledge of the non-existence of gods, it merely doesn't accept unsubstantiated theistic beliefs that claim gods actually exist. Theism doesn't require knowledge of the actual existence of gods, it merely accepts unsubstantiated beliefs that claim gods actually exist.
It is obviously a statement and isn't really controversial or particularly helpful. If anything it appears to want to classify people into two opposing groups and leave it at that.
this was the second post of the thread:
As far as I'm concerned there are two answers to the question "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" If the answer is anything but yes than you're an atheist.
I have a feeling this thread will be more about how people choose to label themselves.
Yes. "How people choose to label themselves"
"If the answer is anything but yes...then you're an atheist."
'Maybe' doesn't qualify one as an atheist, and 'I don't know' isn't an answer to the question "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" unless the subject of god(s) is unknown to the one being questioned.
Dinwar, if I don't know anything about an issue, I can't possibly hold a belief about it, can I ? So if you ask me "do you believe X about this issue", the only answer I can give is "I don't know anything about this issue, so no."
That's an honest answer for everybody, not just me. This "I don't know, so I don't hold a belief but I also don't hold a disbelief" is just PC nonsense.
Until something is known about the subject of the question (in this case god(s) and their existence, one is ignorant. If the argument then is 'the answer
has to be "no I don't" then the person is considered by others to be an atheist by ignorance - and thus the one answering can be seen to be an atheist by those observing.
That isn't very logical though . To
have to answer "No I
don't believe (am therefor an atheist) in that which I know nothing about." because others insist that one is an atheist if one is ignorant of the subject of the question.
"I don't know anything about the subject and until I do, I cannot give an answer so shouldn't need to identify or be identified as anything until such time as I look into the matter and make a decision." (now **** off and stop trying to label me.)
That one - upon finding out about the subject god(s) may decide one way or the other, or decide that he/she cannot categorically say 'yes' or 'no' and thus answers 'I don't know'.
That is not PC nonsense. That is taking the responsibility for understanding your self in relation to the question and finding an answer which best reflects that self, without bowing to outside pressure from those who think otherwise or believe they have a right to label you as they see fit.
It is the honest answer to any such question.
Where the hell have I done this ? The word specifically refers to the absence of belief. Absence of knowledge on a topic results in an abense of belief.
That's the problem of the people who see it that way.
Yes but that's not what the word means, and it's not my problem if people don't understand language.
Understanding language isn't so much the problem. understanding the way language is used in a manner which can and often does cause confusion and silly argument is more the problem.
'Rewriting the dictionary' is one such silly argument. The dictionary is always adding new definitions as people work with language.
There really should be a category separate from the sub categories of atheism for those who see the logical sense in answering 'I don't know' to certain questions which require such an answer. It would help lessen the confusion.
