I find dictionary definitions to be severely lacking, especially in philosophical context. I am willing to accept the one for theism, which I will use, but not the one for atheism, which to me is the source of your problem of non-classification. You're also right, I've merely asserted belief and disbelief are complementary to each other. Allow me to take a step back and say that "I am a theist" is a proposition, which is by definition (axiomatically) either true or false. You did accept that, so forget about the belief and disbelief comments I left. So here goes my argument, formally:

D1: Theism - the belief in the existence of a god or gods.
P1: You are a theist
C1: If P1 is true, you believe in the existence of god or gods.

C2: If P2 is false, you do not believe in the existence of god or gods - you either (a) lack the belief in the existence of god or gods, or you (b) believe that god or gods do not exist.

All I am arguing, is that (a) and (b) are both, by virtue of P1 being a proposition, atheist positions. I can't think of any other way to express this.

Yes, you're right - I did screw up the syntax there. I am trying to say what you think I am saying. One can indeed live one's life without any reference to a god. It doesn't take away the fact that I could denote that lifestyle as atheistic.

Look at it this way. I can divide all people in those who have accepted theism, and those who haven't. The latter one, I call atheists. If you are not sure, but certainly not convinced of theism, you are by definition a-theist. Belief and disbelief are two complementary states of mind; you can't be in them both, but you also can't not be in either of them.

I'm undecided about certain definitions of "God" as well, but because I have not made a choice yet, I am by default a(n agnostic) atheist about these particular definitions of God.

Thanks for replying, I hope this clarification was useful for you. :-)

Yes, I was thinking of doing a post on atheism on a philosophical level like this article. The position in the first case is gnostic atheism, which I reserve for very specific definitions of God. I do agree that science has not disproved some conceptions of God, first of all because science can't prove anything and secondly because these conceptions of God fall outside of the scope of science.

"Impossible" may have been a bad choice of words, but I mean the impossibility of answering "agnostic" to "what are you with regards to the existence of god". That's what I'm trying to argue: you are either theist or atheist, and you can be gnostic or agnostic about those two possible outcomes. It is not an answer in itself.

I don't know about you, but if something is logically inconsistent it can't exist. Square circles are the prime examples. I may have beliefs that are logically inconsistent, but that I hold them may simply mean that I have not uncovered this logical inconsistency. If I do see a logical inconsistency in my beliefs, I must go back to the drawing board.

"God exists" is a proposition. A proposition is always either true or false. You can either be convinced of it's veracity or not. If someone doesn't have a notion of what "God" is, that person is by default an atheist. If someone claims not to have sufficient knowledge to accept the premise as true, that someone is by definition an atheist. What data do you expect to find of a non-existent being?

Similarly, "I live my life as if there were a god" is also a proposition. It can be either true or false. You can't not live your life as if there were a god and at the same time not live your life as if there were not a god. It's logically impossible!

Agnosticism roughly means "not knowing". When people answer the question whether they believe in a God, they usually mean they don't know, which I am arguing here is an impossible and useless position to take. Agnostics can believe in a higher being. You can be agnostic about anything. For most definitions of God, I am an agnostic atheist. For some, I am a gnostic atheist - I claim to know that particular version of God does not exist, for example due to logical inconsistency. Another example: I am an agnostic theist with regards to the pantheistic god. I just think using "god" to mean "the universe" is doesn't add anything, so I don't use that terminology.

It seems that the people who call themselves agnostics don't actually know what it means, in your case.

Why is it stupid? I thought I was pretty explicit, but let me put it this way: I can claim not to believe in God and I can claim not to know whether God exists or not. They are not contradictory statements. I treat theism as a proposition, and a proposition is always either true or false. That means no middle ground. If you aren't convinced of theism, you are de facto without theism: a-theist. That doesn't mean you know there is no God.

What do you suggest one does, if one neither believes nor disbelieves? To me, that's impossible. You either believe in something or you don't.

Chad, you may want to give credence to the people you copy-pasted this text from. In the future, please include more information in your blatant copying, for example the 122 constants, how those odds were derived, &c.

1. Even though science operates under a causa efficiens, there are things in science for which there is no apparent cause. Consider the sudden popping into existence of pairs of so-called virtual particles. We know they're there as evidenced by the Casimir effect, but we don't know really what causes them to jump into existence - there seems no cause at all - in fact, it seems rather random and left to chance, just like a lot of other things in quantum mechanics. The "law of causality" is bogus.

2. You don't understand the anthropic principle. When correctly applied, it is a tool qualitatively analysing statements by taking into account our existence. If some model of reality excludes our existence, then that model is wrong. Of course our universe allows for human life - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion! If we lived in a universe that had constants that didn't allow life and yet we would still be here, that would be something to break our heads over. The anthropic principle is like a necessary marker on our map (model) of the territory (reality). We can also use other markers - for example the flu virus marker. In any map, we must be sure to include a marker for the flu virus. The anthropic principle does not in any way prove that the universe was designed, because we can use a shitload of markers that we know must be on the map. Did the creator have humans in mind, but did that also mean to allow for flu viruses; or did the creator have viruses in mind, with the side effect that humans would arise also? Which do we decide is the important one to determine the causa finalis of the universe? I argue that there is no way to determine this, hence it is a senseless and also unscientific question.

3. It doesn't matter that the universe seems fine-tuned to us. Pick a random integer from 1 to 10. The number you have picked is not special. It had a chance of being picked of 1/10. Similarly, the universe's constants could have been anything. This combination of constants is in no way statistically more significant than any other combination. It is like winning the lottery and saying "the teleological purpose of the lottery was for me to win it!" It's just silly.

While you may think that this comment is an argument for your case, it is actually a case in point for what jorizza was saying. You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, which is why you use it as an argument against evolution. It doesn't stack up.

Thanks for playing.

Did you even read the article? I don't see how your comment is relevant.