when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position. — Leontiskos

Ha! I see why you might say this but I think that’s an uncharitable view. As an aside, New Atheism was just a publishing gimmick, it didn't amount to a movement (as David Bentley Hart points out). Most atheists I know found the famous four fairly underwhelming as thinkers, more like good polemicists. But most of us are not philosophers either.

I personally think the idea that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe the proposition that gods exist is a vast improvement on those who say, There Is No God. It seems less militant and more open to discourse.

I hold the same position on morality and beauty. I don’t believe them to be objective (outside of contingent human experience and communities of shared values). I am happy to hear arguments that might change my mind. I am open. I like theists and have as good friends a Catholic priest and a Sister. I harbour no hatred towards all religions or people of faith.

I think if someone says they are an atheist we should be fine with their self-identification. Just as I am fine with anyone identifying as Christian, even in those instances where they might be following a prosperity cult of grotesque bigotry which ignores Christ. People in most cases should be allowed to choose their preferred appellation.

I am in no doubt about my lack of belief. I am certain/confident that the gods I am aware of don’t exist. The Abrahamic, the ancient and the Hindu. But I cannot talk to versions of God I have not heard of yet. I dislike the word atheist as it comes with significant baggage.

I would like to see more collaboration and goodwill between theists and atheists. The spiritual hollowness of consumer capitalism needs addressing, as does fundamentalism and its penchant for violence and division. We can only tackle this together.

This is painfully bad commentary but as you are Catholic, it is unsurprising. — AmadeusD

It saddens that the comment came from a Catholic instead of a Protestant, but by reading his introduction he is not actually Catholic, just a tradcath/orthobro without eucharisty or sacramental confirmation — I guessed as much when I read "United States".

Most atheists I know found the famous four fairly underwhelming as thinkers, more like good polemicists — Tom Storm

Even though that is true, I don't think it is bad. Those polemicists are still leagues better than any apologetics hacks like WL Craig and that dude who hammered his father's head and uses it as a talking point.

One can certainly withhold judgement with regard to God's existence. IMO, this entails considering both God's existence and nonexistence as live possibilities. — Relativist

This is, I think, where I differ most with you. I certainly withhold judgement, but not because I'm doing any considering. I don't care about the question to begin with. The God-concept is too indeterminate in my mind to hold any clear convictions. There's nothing there that could either exist or not. So I can certainly say I don't believe; but I can't say that I believe God doesn't exist.

The problem here is that in the God conversation the answer to "God doesn't exist" is assymetric in two ways: (a) emotional impact, and (b) clarity of concept. A simplified matrix:

Theist: emotional impact +, clarity of conept +
Me: emotional impact -, clarity of concept -

In terms of my daily conduct "God doesn't exist" has no emotional impact, partly because it's just words unattached to anything that's taken root in my world view. I feel if I said that line I wouldn't exactly know what I'm saying, so I refrain from saying that. I suspend judgment because (a) I don't care but the theist does, and (b) because I don't quite know what it is that I just said doesn't exist. I'm not someone who's lost his faith: I grew up as the son of Catholic parents, but the concept just never really took roots in my world view. The whys of that are... difficult to puzzle out. It's just that I grew up and my God concept didn't, so it's stunted when compared to that of a mature believer. I'm not sure what that means in practice. In conversations with theists about what they believe in I tend to get lost; it feels like a game of ever-shifting goal posts. I haven't ever gotten to a stage where I could say either way.

But that also means that I'm just not motivated by because-God-says-so arguments. It feels like an extension of social hierarchies, maybe with a shift towards beaurocracy? God as a stand-in for office, which serves as an organisational social principle? Maybe. I tend to dismiss the concept with psychology, sociology, etc.

My intuitive responses to various arguments for God or related concepts tends to be humouros. Intelligent Design? Really? Then who messed up the implementation? Ontological Argument? Wouldn't a God who can decide whether or not to exist even when he doesn't be the greatest of all? None of that is serious. It just flows out of the fact that my mind seems God-concept incompatible. I suppose it's the mindspace that creates Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

A lot of atheists ask for evidence, but I have trouble with that. I'd need some operable definition to stand in for my intuition; but I feel like the concept is such that if you can define it clearly enough so that asking for evidence makes sense, it ceases to be God. The scope's too big for evidence.

"I don't believe in God," feels like something I can confidently say. When I say "God doesn't exist," I feel like I've already acknowledged too much. That's where I stand on the topic (but it's not thought out).

The God-concept is too indeterminate in my mind to hold any clear convictions. — Dawnstorm

That's a good point, one that overlooked. It's another very good reason to withhold judgement.

A lot of atheists ask for evidence, but I have trouble with that. I'd need some operable definition to stand in for my intuition; but I feel like the concept is such that if you can define it clearly enough so that asking for evidence makes sense, it ceases to be God. The scope's too big for evidence. — Dawnstorm

What about a narrow definition, such as a being that intentionally created the universe, by choice?

There's no empirical evidence, but one might infer this as a viable explanatory hypothesis for the existence of a universe that permits the development and existence of intelligent life.

By "prima facie", do you mean - before all other beliefs are considered? If so, that just seems to say that all logical possibilities should be on the table. But they ought not to remain on the table for long. You based your belief on knowing your wife. — Relativist

Yes, 'on the face of it', i.e I cannot see how that is a given. It makes no sense to me on the face of it.

Yes, I agree. But without reason nothing changes about what's on the table. I would need something confirming one way or the other. But, this goes to the obvious and critical difference between the two examples we're using.

I don't know your wife, but I feel pretty strongly that no extraterrestrial aliens that look like humans have ever come to earth, so I feel justified in believing she's not an alien, — Relativist

Fair enough. That's a reason to think it's unlikely, but you have no knowledge, and so a belief is unwarranted. But that doesn't matter much to me - THey would have the same practical effect.

We agree that the rock is something we ought to withhold judgement (or abstain) on.

We also agree that your belief that your wife isn't an alien is reasonable. I hope you agree that MY belief about your wife is also reasonable, in that it follows from my prior belief about aliens. — Relativist

Neat. Then the contradiction remains...
I didn't claim to believe that.

It's logically possible your wife's an alien, but logical possibility is too weak to support a belief or even a suspicion. — Relativist

I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? There seems to be a black and white fallacy here - you're importing a belief into my wording where there isn't any. Confusing a bit.

Similarly with unicorns and gods. — Relativist

These are not the same (on my view). The hypothetical rock and hte Unicorn could be - they seem equally unlikely (an exact cabbage shaped rock on the moon, corresponding with the one in my fridge? Come on...) Both logically possible though, so I simply give them no serious thought. I don't 'believe' anything about htem. There's nothing to believe or deny. I have no information or reasons to judge.
A deistic God is discoverable, too. So you need a reason to entertain it? Or is the unlikelihood and lack of evidence enough? Because that seems to contradict your position on Unicorns and my wife being an Alien.

I can see how you'd take this as some form of extreme skepticism - and fair enough, if that's what i'm doing - but as far as i can tell, I am not doing that. I am making a distinction between unobservable possibilities and ones which would be confirmed or denied by empirical data (this, to my mind is the difference between Theism and Deism, as will be obvious by now im sure).

Sure, a different epistemological process is fine, as long as it's a methodology that tends to lead to truth. — Relativist

If there is no observability/falsifiability in the concept (Theistic God) there is no truth to be lead to.

I don't preclude using the term think "agnostic", but I think it's useful to describe what one is agnostic about. As I said, I am agnostic to deism - although you disagree with me saying that, I guess. — Relativist

This is because, as far as I'm concerned (and, I don't actually see this as an interpretation) you are misusing the word/s. Deism entails discoverability. Agnosticism entails no discoverability in the subject one is agnostic about. So, is it not clear on that account that you cannot by an agnostic deist?

Unhelpful for what? As I said, I think the terms we use to describe ourselves are nothing more than imperfect introductions to our positions. Adhering to your preferred semantics doesn't seem like it would make the terms any more than that, either. I've described my position in a bit of detail, and I don't think your terms (anti-theist/deist) captures it any better than "atheist agnostic-deist, and possibly even worse. — Relativist

Your final sentence here is an answer to your first. Its entirely incoherent and seems to just absolutely ignore the linguistic inaccuracy and falseness, relative to your expounded position. If you believe in a theistic God, you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in the material, mind-independent world, you cannot be an idealist. If you entertain a deistic God, you cannot also be agnostic because the deistic God is discoverable. They are incompatible positions.

Look, your point is taken, but I see it as an attempt to maintain incongruent positions because you can use language that refers to things you are not entitled to refer yourself to, because you think words are imprecise. Not untrue - but to me, that's a bit of a cop-out, despite recognizing the potential futility of trying to 'standardize' the use of these words. They need to be.

Perfect example is that final sentence I noted - I didn't suggest it was an accurate label. I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. I suggested a new set of words to illustrate positions relative to deism, and separately, theism.

This seems an inarguably more fruitful project than just waffling on to each other about positions that don't comport with the terms we're using for them.

I am in no doubt about my lack of belief. I am certain/confident that the gods I am aware of don’t exist. The Abrahamic, the ancient and the Hindu. But I cannot talk to versions of God I have not heard of yet. — Tom Storm

Then I would say you are an atheist with respect to the Hebrew God and an agnostic with respect to unknown gods, or something like that. Yet if you believe that all of the gods you are aware of are non-existent, then you are an atheist by the traditional definition.

People in most cases should be allowed to choose their preferred appellation. — Tom Storm

I am not much interested in people who redefine words to have idiosyncratic meanings. It defeats the purpose of words.

I personally think the idea that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe the proposition that gods exist is a vast improvement on those who say, There Is No God. — Tom Storm

I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist. Many years ago I argued with an intelligent atheist on this topic, and we disagreed. Some years later he messaged me and told me that he had been convinced of my position (regarding the meaning of atheism), and that that Reddit article is the thing that did it for him. He said he was less defensive when the arguments came from an atheist than from a theist.

In some ways this is merely about the meaning of words. There is no word for a mere lack of belief in God. As I told the OP, "agnostic atheist" seems like a fine way to describe such a person. Yet the reason 'atheist' does not mean such a minute and strange thing is because words have substance, and this idea of lack of belief has very little substance. There is nothing inherently combative about believing that some thing does not exist. Combativeness in this case pertains only to one's subjective dispositions.

What about a narrow definition, such as a being that intentionally created the universe, by choice?

There's no empirical evidence, but one might infer this as a viable explanatory hypothesis for the existence of a universe that permits the development and existence of intelligent life. — Relativist

As a string of words not entirely devoid of meaning, I can do logic with it to some degree, but I can't connect it to the world I like in. It's an intellectual game of no consequence.

The evidence in question is evidence, for a theist, given that they see God in His creation. I can't follow suit, so it's evidence for nothing. It's just see the world.

The problem is that I know what words like "creation" or "choice" mean inside this world. There are plenty of loose ends, and I don't think meaning is fixed to begin with, but there's something I can do about it. I mean it's fairly easy to follow the logic of "A garden is created and maintained by a gardener. When I see a garden, I know there's a gardener. A garden doesn't come about randomly. So what about the world and all it's regularities? Where do they come from?" The problem is that when they lead me to everything, they just lead me into a void; a lack of imagination; nothing.

See, I'm in the world, so are gardens, and so are gardeners. But if you then tell me that God has created the world in analogy to a garden, then I would imagine a god limited by similar restrictions that a gardener is limited by (needing tools and seeds, for example). I'd start wondering what sort of world God lives in, and so on. At that point, I'm in science fiction/fantasy territory. Whatever I can come up with is what's within the bounds of my imagination. And it's my experience is that Christians at the very least wouldn't accept that sort of limited creater as what they are imagining. So I would have to sort of imagine a decontextualised creation? With no limits? That's empty talk to me. Meaningless. It solves nothing. I'm way more comfortable with my ignorance than with this sort of confusion.

See, in every instance of creation the creator is indepentently accessible. I can see a gardener tend to the garden. What would I have seen when God created the world? Nothing. I wouldn't yet have been even possible; the act of seeing was still in the process of forming; and yet, somehow, the process of creation is already... "there" (even though there's no "there" yet)...

Either theists are all led astray by semantic tricks, or they have a world view organised vastly different from mine.

I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist. — Leontiskos

Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places?

Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places? — Lionino

Or think that thread would trump actual institutional atheist organisations..

@Leontiskos Unfortunately, I was referring to your commentary :smirk:

In some ways this is merely about the meaning of words. — Leontiskos

That's true. I often come down on the side of usage rather than definitions. This does not mean that I consider every word can be used however we like (Humpty style), it simply means recognition that language is dynamic, words change meaning over time. My English teacher in the 1970's tried fighting against the use of the word 'gay' for homosexual. He was appalled that he was unable to describe himself as a gay man, because the usage had changed.

I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist — Leontiskos

Thanks. Read it. I see the argument but I'm not sure it matters. I still believe there's something interesting and useful in the agnostic atheist category. I'll mull over it.

Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places? — Lionino

That may be a good question. I'm new to Reddit.

Speaking of spurious sources of knowledge I asked ChatGPT for a view on agnostic atheist.

...someone who identifies as an "agnostic atheist" is expressing a lack of belief in gods (atheism) while also acknowledging the limits of human knowledge on the matter (agnosticism). This combination is quite common, as many people find that the labels capture different aspects of their stance on the question of gods.

I'll continue to consider this matter.

Want to check something with you. The average atheist is not philosopher and probably (like most people) not all that interested in this recondite subject. I wonder if this means that conventional philosophical nomenclature and categorization are not as useful in trying to understand what people believe and why. When an atheist says, "I don't believe in gods, have no faith and hold gods to be mythological creatures" I don't see this as incompatible with agnosticism for reasons we have explored ad nauseum.

Here's the thing. Most atheists are practical atheists, they are not theorists and do not really care about the philosopher's arguments for or against gods. They simply don't see the need for gods or believe in them. The way they make sense of the world precludes gods. They are certainly atheists, but they don't aspire to any knowledge claim at all in this space. Many of them are not even aware of the arguments in defense of gods. They are simply 'without gods". Does this shed a different light on the matter to you or are these folk, as one theist I know says, 'ignorant dogmatists?'

Why does it matter if someone calls itself "atheist". If by "atheist" they don't mean someone who denies the existence of God, so what? If they explain what they mean by it, why the fixation? So you can go and say "Well so you are not an actual atheist!"? It is childish and unproductive.
Moreover, I don't see the point of debate when "denies God" is well encapsulated in the word antitheist.
I think the original purpose of the thread has been twisted.

I'm new to Reddit. — Tom Storm

You should soon see that it is the butthole of the internet.

I wonder if this means that conventional philosophical nomenclature and categorization are not as useful in trying to understand what people believe and why. — Tom Storm

I do not think this is the case. I acknowledge the difference in approach between a lay-person (excuse the pun) and a philosopher (or, sufficiently autodidactic fan thereof..) and realise in practical terms, It really, truly does not matter what labels are used. But we're trying to have discussions - and in the context of 'people who have discussions' i think my take is stands, on my view.

Does this shed a different light on the matter to you or are these folk, as one theist I know says, 'ignorant dogmatists?' — Tom Storm

These people are agnostic atheists. They don't consider the limits of knowledge, but refrain from belief in God/s. I do not think you're being accurate in that their view precludes God. It just doesn't include it, because there is no evidence for it. It's not an ideological position - its a lethargic one.

Why does it matter if someone calls itself "atheist". If by "atheist" they don't mean someone who denies the existence of God, so what? If they explain what they mean by it, why the fixation? So you can go and say "Well so you are not an actual atheist!"? It is childish and unproductive. — Lionino

That would be unproductive. Explaining how their view is askance from what that word means, is not.

Thanks. Read it. I see the argument but I'm not sure it matters. I still believe there's something interesting and useful in the agnostic atheist category. I'll mull over it. — Tom Storm

As I said in my first post (and also in the post you are responding to), "agnostic atheist" is an intelligible term. It's just not the same as "atheist."

I don't use Reddit, but the atheist I encountered years ago pointed me to that thread, and it is very good. In fact there is no comparison between that thread and the low-quality nonsense in this thread (including things like 's childish posts and ad hominem).

(including things like ↪AmadeusD's childish posts and ad hominem). — Leontiskos

The irony burns.

Suffice to say, this is also painfully bad commentary. But as i noted you are Catholic in that previous comment, this is also, unsurprising.

And there is no adhominem involved. You are Catholic. As a result, i am not surprised.

From his posts, he is not actually Catholic.

He is

:up: Good point.

I hear you and thanks for the talk. I am interested in your perspective.

These people are agnostic atheists. They don't consider the limits of knowledge, but refrain from belief in God/s. I do not think you're being accurate in that their view precludes God. It just doesn't include it, because there is no evidence for it. It's not an ideological position - its a lethargic one. — AmadeusD

Got ya. Yes, my point is more that their sense making of the world precludes god (functionally) when they work to explain anything at all (from creation to morality) the god hypothesis is precluded from their repertoire. If someone has determined that gods are irrelevant to their experince, then gods can never be incorporated in any account of any state of affairs. That's all I meant.

Belief is connected to knowledge through rationality. — Hallucinogen

Already skipped after this.

If someone has determined that gods are irrelevant to their experince, then gods can never be incorporated in any account of any state of affairs. That's all I meant. — Tom Storm

In principle, agreed - conditioned by the ignorance that requires :P Ignorance is harsh, but i'm referring to the lack of consideration. As soon as they begin considering the issues, that would change. So i'm ruffled by 'never' here. But, i agree, the majority of people just do not care. They either take God on or don't.

:up:

- :up:

without reason nothing changes about what's on the table. — AmadeusD

Agreed.

That's a reason to think it's unlikely, but you have no knowledge, and so a belief is unwarranted. — AmadeusD

This is a key point: what is needed to warrant belief in something's nonexistence?

It's not true that I have no knowledge to warrant my belief your wife is actually human, and not an alien. For example, I know:
-the speed of light provides a limit to how far aliens could travel
-our physical characteristics are a product of our evolutionary history, and therefore the chances aliens with human intelligence and appearance is vanishingly small.

I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? There seems to be a black and white fallacy here - you're importing a belief into my wording where there isn't any. Confusing a bit. — AmadeusD

Did I misunderstand? I thought you actually believe your wife is human, warranted by your knowledge of her.

But no, I'm not saying everything is black and white. There's also gray area, but there need to be reasons to be in the gray area. Mere logical possibility is not enough. Do you disagree?

an exact cabbage shaped rock on the moon, corresponding with the one in my fridge? Come on... — AmadeusD

Of course not. I've been discussing this in terms of approximation. The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero.

I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? — AmadeusD

Either she's a human or an alien. Your warrant for believing she's human is also warrant for believing she's not an alien.

Both logically possible though, so I simply give them no serious thought. I don't 'believe' anything about htem. — AmadeusD

OK, then my comments apply only to those of us who HAVE given serious consideration to these hypothetical existents. After such consideration, if they are left with mere logical possibility, then I think the appropriate belief is "doesn't exist". A key point I mentioned earlier is that beliefs aren't incorrigible. We should remain open to revising belief when we learn more. A corrollary: beliefs do not reflect certainty (certainty reflects incorrigibility).

If there is no observability/falsifiability in the concept (Theistic God) there is no truth to be lead to. — AmadeusD

You seem to be saying that one should deny the existence of a Theistic God if one believes there are no observables (=empirical evidence?) and if it's not falsifiable (through other empirical evidence?)

Apply this principle to solipsism. There's no evidence that entails it, or makes it likely or unlikely. Neither solipsism nor ~solipsism is falsifiable. Nevertheless, I feel it's warranted to believe ~solipsism (I've described this in another thread). This means I accept that there can be non-evidential warrant. I don't happen to see that there is such warrant for a theistic God, that's why I say I believe a theistic God does not exist. But maybe someday I'll be presented with a good reason I haven't heard of. If that occurs, I'll revise my belief.

This is because, as far as I'm concerned (and, I don't actually see this as an interpretation) you are misusing the word/s — AmadeusD

...per your preferred semantics. Notice that despite this, I've been able to describe my positions to you, and you are free to attach whatever label you like, consistent with those positions.

Your final sentence here is an answer to your first. Its entirely incoherent and seems to just absolutely ignore the linguistic inaccuracy and falseness, relative to your expounded position. If you believe in a theistic God, you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in the material, mind-independent world, you cannot be an idealist. If you entertain a deistic God, you cannot also be agnostic because the deistic God is discoverable. They are incompatible positions. — AmadeusD

You're arguing that the label "agnostic deist" is incoherent, but my impression is that it's only incoherent to someone who accepts your preferred semantics. I made up the term "agnostic deist", I didn't borrow it from someone else - and when I use the term, I explain what I mean. So what's the problem?

I am open to using different terminology to self-define, other than "agnostic deist", as long as it tells just as much about my position as does this one. I'm not open to using a different term merely to fit a semantics you've devised, particular your insistence that I call myself a "deist" despite the fact that I think it pretty unlikely that there is any kind of deity at all. That would mislead far more people than does "agnostic deist".

Look, your point is taken, but I see it as an attempt to maintain incongruent positions because you can use language that refers to things you are not entitled to refer yourself to, — AmadeusD

Why are you claiming I'm maintaining an "incongruent position"? What's incongruent about considering deism a live possibility, but unlikely? I get that you don't like the label I use, but that has no bearing on what my position is.

I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. — AmadeusD

It's not the definitions, it's that the definition precludes...
Did this come out the way you intended? It's contradictory.

But I agree that one cannot be both a deist and claim gods are unknowable*. But that's why it's inappropriate to call me a deist - so you erred in insisting I should have that label. My label more accurately conveys my position: I'm an "agnostic deist" meaning that I'm agnostic as to deism.

*We don't have common ground for identifying what constitutes knowledge. We would need this common ground in order to then consider what is, and isn't, knowable. I gave you a strict definition (justified, true, and no Gettier) - you thought it too strict, but we left it there.

Thank you for engaging me consistently. Please be assured that anything that can be remotely interpreted as short, grumpy or incredulous is merely a mistake on my part. I am thoroughly enjoying this and appreciate you very much.

But no, I'm not saying everything is black and white. There's also gray area, but there need to be reasons to be in the gray area. Mere logical possibility is not enough. Do you disagree? — Relativist

If something is logically possible, but we do not have a good reason to think one way or the other (the Moon Rock would fit here) i remain unconvinced either way. As noted, logical impossibility would be good reason to not believe, but logical possibility I agree is no reason to take something on.

This is a key point: what is needed to warrant belief in something's nonexistence?

It's not true that I have no knowledge. For example, I know:
-the speed of light provides a limit to how far aliens could travel
-our physical characteristics are a product of our evolutionary history, and therefore the chances aliens with human intelligence and appearance is vanishingly small. — Relativist

I don't think it is much possible to warrant a belief in non-existence, unless logically impossible. That would give us sufficient reason to believe that even if we explored every mm of every single thing we could ever possibly access, it would not be possible that the object exists. I would accept that. And this may apply to my wife being an alien. But we have no idea whether the aliens have cryo-stasis technology to overcome time constraints - so if we're entertaining that they exist I don't see why we would believe rather than posit, that they haven't visited Earth. Its logically possible, and we have no reason to entirely discount it. Good reason to take it less seriously, though, for sure. Maybe we're only disagreeing abotu degrees.

Did I misunderstand? I thought you actually believe your wife is human, warranted by your knowledge of her. — Relativist

Ah, i see. No, that was either a misunderstanding or a mis-wording. I meant to point out that i could carry out experiments which would preclude my wife being an alien. I haven't, though, so I can't be sure. I do not believe. I just don't care (for whatever that's worth).

Either she's a human or an alien. Your warrant for believing she's human is also warrant for believing she's not an alien. — Relativist

If i had it I would agree. If she is human, she isn't alien. But that doesn't seem to do much for the exchange we're having. As it is, I have merely no good reason to doubt. But i could not justifiably believe it, as i've never done anything by way of investigation on that. Maybe you find me mentally unstable for that - a bullet i'll bite. But doubting that there are other minds seems a wilder bullet to bite to me(not suggesting it's your view - just solipsism in general).

You seem to be saying that one should deny the existence of a Theistic God if one believes there are no observables (=empirical evidence?) and if it's not falsifiable (through other empirical evidence?) — Relativist

S that rejects there are observables should realise that knowledge is then irrelevant to the proposition. We couldn't possibly know, if there's nothing observable to confirm it. They should rightly call themselves agnostic.
If one believes there are observables, they not be able to refer to themselves as agnostic. That's all. If you believe God is discoverable, then you cannot be agnostic. Deism entails the former, and precludes agnosticism. So...

Of course not. I've been discussing this in terms of approximation. The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero. — Relativist

They are not zero. It is logically possible.

This means I accept that there can be non-evidential warrant. — Relativist

I do not. If you have no reason, you're mistaken to believe the proposition one way or the other. You're free to, though. This, I think, is the only way Theism can happen, other than being mistaken about facts.

...per your preferred semantics. Notice that despite this, I've been able to describe my positions to you, and you are free to attach whatever label you like, consistent with those positions. — Relativist

This seems to assume your position is what's hard to grasp. it isn't. It does not match the terminology you used.

I could describe myself as an African American and then tell you what i mean is light-skinned, not likely to suffer sickle cell etc... contravening the meaning of African American. Anyone with sense would object and tell me why my usage is wrong. Do you not think this can be done with the terms you're using?

So what's the problem, other than my not being interested in using your terms. — Relativist

That you're using a word wrong, making your label incoherent. It's like saying "A glass table made of wood".

I am open to using different terminology to self-define, other than "agnostic deist", as long as it tells just as much about my position as does this one. I'm not open to using a different term merely to fit a semantics you've devised, particular your insistence that I call myself a "deist" despite the fact that I think it pretty unlikely that there is any kind of deity at all. That would mislead far more people than does "agnostic deist". — Relativist

This has entirely misconstrued my position, and i literally no idea how that could have possibly
happened given my final response below...

Why are you claiming I'm maintaining an "incongruent position"? What's incongruent about considering deism a live possibility, but unlikely? I get that you don't like the label I use, but that has no bearing on what my position is. — Relativist

because if you are committed to using the term 'agnostic deist' the position described by it is contradictory - and your actual position is incongruent with the position it describes.
Bolded: This is the crux of my entire problem. Your position is your position, and it is being misrepresented by the words you're using. I know your position (i think), and I refuse to use incorrect words to describe it.

It's not the definitions, it's that the definition precludes...
Did this come out the way you intended? It's contradictory. — Relativist

My point is that the definition is sound, your position just is precluded by it. Perhaps i mis-typed what i was trying to say, but i read it entirely sensibly.

But I agree that one cannot be both a deist and claim gods are unknowable. But that's why it's inappropriate to call me a deist - so you erred in insisting I should have that label. My label more accurately conveys my position: I'm an "agnostic deist" meaning that I'm agnostic as to deism. — Relativist

The bolded contradict each other. If you agree a Deist cannot claim God/s are unknowable, then that precludes the deist-entertaining from being agnostic, as it is incoherent to the deism concept. Not sure what's being missed here? You say you're open to deism being true - which means you believe that God is discoverable. So, by your own admission you cannot be agnostic toward the Deistic God, despite concluding that here. You can be unmoved by current evidence, but that's not agnosticism.

Secondarily, as noted here

Perfect example is that final sentence I noted - I didn't suggest it was an accurate label. I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. I suggested a new set of words to illustrate positions relative to deism, and separately, theism. — AmadeusD

I do not claim you must use that term. I claim your term is wrong, and we/you need a new one for the position you hold. I stick to that.

Claiming to be Catholic is not enough to be Catholic.
Speaking of, is there a single thing that is true in virtue of stating it? I can't think of anything where "I am X" is proof of being X.

Claiming to be Catholic is not enough to be Catholic. — Lionino

What's the criteria?

Speaking of, is there a single thing that is true in virtue of stating it? — Lionino

Cogito, ergo, sum. LOL

Already skipped after this. — Mikie

I will do you one better. I skipped after that and gave my take on the topic anyway :strong: :cool: :up:

What's the criteria? — AmadeusD

Baptism. I don't know how it is for converts. But for people baptised as a baby, just that is not enough, you must go through catechism to receive the eucharisty and then confirmation — otherwise you are just a non-practicing Catholic which might as well be apostate. Baptism and eucharisty however are the two most important sacraments, confirmation is not the most important and the other 4, like marriage, are good but not required — one of them is healing, so it is better if you never need it.

Cogito, ergo, sum. LOL — AmadeusD

Well in that case you become by thinking, not by saying; non sum quia dico, sed quia cogito. :^)

Baptism. I don't know how it is for converts. But for people baptised as a baby, just that is not enough, you must go through catechism to receive the eucharisty and then confirmation — otherwise you are just a non-practicing Catholic which might as well be apostate — Lionino

This is not my experience of the Catholic view. They are Catholics-in-waiting :P But, fair enough, thank you.

Well in that case you become by thinking, not by saying; non sum quia dico, sed quia cogito. :^) — Lionino

But hte claim is still sound :)

This is not my experience of the Catholic view. They are Catholics-in-waiting — AmadeusD

Right, officially they are still Catholics, but in practice we know it is bullshit. If they believe it truly they would have done the other sacraments; they don't do so 99% because they don't believe it or don't care.

Do you, though? ;)