A person who has never even considered the possibility of a god would be a negative atheist by default.
And I’m saying they’d be null by default. You can’t assign a value to something that has no value for that field. There is no default for a question that hasn’t been asked. You’re the one defining the question as binary in nature when others might see it differently. You’re treating agnosticism as a journey rather than a sustainable state until death.
Christians will often assert that people are theists by default. This just feels like atheists doing the same.
“Null” is not the correct philosophical term for that, but it means the same thing as “negative atheism.”
You absolutely can assign a value to something that has no value for that field. This is philosophy, not mathematics.
The unasked question is the default state. Humans are not born with this conception of god already in their heads. This is an example of negative atheism, not “null.”
The question itself is not binary, but whether or not the question has been asked at all is binary.
I believe that you are assigning way too much meaning to the phrase “in the process of considering.” If you start something and have not finished it, then you are in the process of doing it. It does not imply any kind of journey whatsoever.
Except they aren’t binary. A lack of belief is to have no value in the field either way. Disbelief is to not believe in the specific subject of the question (in this case, a deity) or to put it another way, to believe that it doesn’t exist.
It’s possible to neither believe something exists nor believe it doesn’t exist. Maybe the chupacabra and the Loch Ness monster exist. Maybe they don’t. I don’t know. I’m agnostic on the topic.
A process assumes change occurs. It’s entirely possible I will die without having changed from where I am today in terms of my lack of belief or disbelief. There’s no considering happening without new evidence. If that evidence doesn’t come, there is no process. It may be a static state. You’re assuming that theism and atheism are natural results of a process that may not exist for some people. This is like telling non-binary people that they have to choose a gender when their experience doesn’t fit into your neat little obtuse classifications.
You’re not getting it. And after a whole thread, I’m tired of beating my head against this particular wall. I’ll leave it to y’all.
Again, I think that you are placing far too much weight on the meaning of the word “process,” which has a somewhat different meaning from the prepositional phrase “in process.” It does not necessarily include “progress,” which is an entirely different thing.
I am doing no such thing. It is perfectly fine with me if you never reach a conclusion on the question of the existence of god. It is fine with me if you do not even want to reach a conclusion. But asking the question is something that agnostics, theists and “positive atheists” all do. Where the question leads, and whether it leads anywhere at all, is a highly personal matter that is up to each individual. However, people who have never even heard of this “god” person are, by default, “negative atheists,” as they cannot believe in something that they have never even heard of.
No, I get it. When I was raised as a theist, I thought it was binary too. I understand your perspective. I’ve been there. I just disagree now with such a limited perspective.
But asking the question is something that agnostics, theists and “positive atheists” all do.
Except they don’t all do that. I don’t. Do I not exist?
However, people who have never even heard of this “god” person are, by default, “negative atheists,” as they cannot believe in something that they have never even heard of.
That’s your classification though. You don’t get to dogmatically tell other people what they are and aren’t. I might consider most Christians to actually not be Christians because they don’t fit a biblical description of what a Christian would be, but I also recognize I don’t get to tell them that they can’t call themselves Christians. Atheists don’t get to tell agnostics they’re atheists anymore than Mormons get to baptize dead Jewish people in the Mormon faith.
You have never once pondered whether or not a god or gods exist? Not on any occasion whatsoever?
I have literally never met such a person before. There are cultures where people grow up without ever being exposed to the idea of a “god,” but I have not visited any such culture. I suppose I have met toddlers who fit this description. How many people do you know who have never heard of god? How do you think they would prefer to be classified?
Are you perhaps confusing me for somebody else in this thread? I am not the one who was saying that agnostics are actually atheists. In fact, if you look at my first post here, I said, quote: “It’s a spectrum.”
I consider myself an agnostic. I might have got the definition wrong, but for me, it’s not a matter of not knowing whether some god or other exists or not, it’s a matter of not giving a toss. I don’t care if it exists, and I don’t care if it doesn’t. I’ll just muddle on through regardless.
The fairly recent coinage “apatheist” would seem to suit: how do you feel about that?
To be fair, I think agnostic covers it.
I mean:
Well, neither does anyone else, whatever they claim.
But apatheist? Sure, why not? Bovvered, me?
Whatever works for you! Sorry, I wasn’t trying to gatekeep.
No, no, none taken. It’s always good to discuss.
I’ve never heard any atheist claim this. Only that the evidence for God is unconvincing. This is what atheism means.
You are describing antitheism.
Penn Jillette is one prominent atheist who likes to stress the difference between what he sees as atheism vs agnosticism.
Of course he takes one step beyond that in his personal beliefs, per this essay where he describes how he actively believes that there is no god:
I’m an atheist, and I don’t get the difference between saying “I don’t believe there is a God” and “I believe there is no God.” It seems like a distinction without a difference.
Consider these two:
-
I don’t believe the moon landings were faked.
-
I believe the moon landings were not faked.
Aren’t they saying exactly the same thing?
Unless #1 means “I neither believe nor disbelieve that the moon landings were faked: I am reserving judgment,” which is not how atheists typically use the phrase “I don’t believe in God.”
The distinction is purely epistemological.
The difference is that neither statement is trying to prove a negative, which is the thing that self-identified agnostics tend to accuse atheists of doing. See the xkcd cartoon above.
People who don’t like atheists, or the word atheist, often buttress this opinion by saying, “You can’t know there is no God”, which is a straw man. Most atheists do not claim to know that. I’m sure some do, but it’s not a common position that is staked because trying to die on a hill proving a negative is never worthwhile.
However, and I think this may be what you are alluding to, there is a such thing is an open hypothesis that is so silly as to not be worth considering. I don’t believe there is a teapot orbiting Mars*, even though I can’t prove it. It’s a silly thing to try and prove because there’s no good evidence supporting it, and the likelihood of the hypothesis is extremely low because it goes against everything else we know about the world. That’s not the same as saying it’s impossible there could ever be or ever has been a teapot orbiting Mars. Again, not trying to prove a negative, even if it is a silly negative. It’s just not worth the energy to consider given the state of the evidence for the idea.
These distinctions are semantic and subtle, sure, but very important. Wars have started and empires risen and fallen on these distinctions.
*With apologies to Bertrand Russell
