"We are all born atheists. We seek out faith when...."
Reading through this thread, I think this nails the one underlying difference between atheist, theists, and agnostics that everyone is arguing around without defining.
People who consider themselves atheist consider "There is no god" to be the default position. If given proof otherwise, they will change their mind, but lacking proof of his/her/its/their existence, the atheist will assume that the god(s) do(es) not exist.
People who consider themselves to be theist consider "there is a god/gods" to be the default position. They may be willing to reconsider that position if proof that a god does not exist is presented, but in the absence of any proof they will assume that a god does exist.
People who consider themselves to be agnostic consider "there is no default position" to be the default position. In the absence of any proof that there is a god, and in the absence of any proof that there is not a god, they will withhold judgment on whether there is a god or not until some conclusive evidence has been reached one way or another.
At least that's my take on the issue, for the centrist portions of the argument. Of course there are also people on both sides of the argument who feel that they HAVE had proof that a god does or does not exist. You've conducted your tests, and concluded on a level that satisfies you that there is no god. Others have had experiences that satisfy them that there is indeed a god. Obviously, you would consider yourself an atheist, and they would consider themselves theists. And there are yet others on both sides of the fence who would cling to their theist or atheist positions even in the face of proof otherwise.
But for those who start the statements with "Well, there's no proof one way or the other, but...", I'd define them as atheist, agnostic, or theist based on what their default position is.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 12:46 am (UTC)Reading through this thread, I think this nails the one underlying difference between atheist, theists, and agnostics that everyone is arguing around without defining.
People who consider themselves atheist consider "There is no god" to be the default position. If given proof otherwise, they will change their mind, but lacking proof of his/her/its/their existence, the atheist will assume that the god(s) do(es) not exist.
People who consider themselves to be theist consider "there is a god/gods" to be the default position. They may be willing to reconsider that position if proof that a god does not exist is presented, but in the absence of any proof they will assume that a god does exist.
People who consider themselves to be agnostic consider "there is no default position" to be the default position. In the absence of any proof that there is a god, and in the absence of any proof that there is not a god, they will withhold judgment on whether there is a god or not until some conclusive evidence has been reached one way or another.
At least that's my take on the issue, for the centrist portions of the argument. Of course there are also people on both sides of the argument who feel that they HAVE had proof that a god does or does not exist. You've conducted your tests, and concluded on a level that satisfies you that there is no god. Others have had experiences that satisfy them that there is indeed a god. Obviously, you would consider yourself an atheist, and they would consider themselves theists. And there are yet others on both sides of the fence who would cling to their theist or atheist positions even in the face of proof otherwise.
But for those who start the statements with "Well, there's no proof one way or the other, but...", I'd define them as atheist, agnostic, or theist based on what their default position is.