[Csihar]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yes, why couldn't you? Adopting or rejecting a belief demands a decision, which is established with an argument. If you don't know, you don't decide and make no argument. Or are you arguing that belief is necessarily impulsive?

I do think belief is necessarily impulsive.
I like to differentiate between my thoughts and my opinions. Thoughts are an automatic process but I'll only call something my opinion once I think that I have enough information, thought it through properly and have a high degree of certainty. This distinction is arbitrary though. If you don't know you refrain from making claims of certainty.

What would be the logic behind saying "I don't know whether or not I believe that I have a bag of Cheetos"?

I do have to say that one issue here is that semantics is very important here.

Q: "Do you have a bag of Cheetos?"
A: "I believe so".

That answer means "I think I do". The word believe is used in a bunch of different ways and it can be confusing.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

:3 there is a belief or there is not. you believe or you do not. arguing that the absence of a belief does not constitute disbelief is arguing that disbelief is either not itself, or something else entirely.

In regards to your first two sentences: I agree entirely. I think that ties in with belief being impulsive.
In regards to disbelief equaling a lack of belief, I disagree entirely. And that's the key point.

I posted this before:

A person tells a story to three people.

Person one thinks the story is true.
Person two thinks the story is a lie.
Person three doesn't quite know.

Does person one (who thinks it's true) believe the story? Yes.
Does person one disbelieve the story? No.

Does person two (who thinks it's a lie) believe the story? No.
Does person two disbelieve the story? Yes.

Does person three (who doesn't quite know) disbelieve the story? No.
Does person three believe the story? No.

That is the distinction between lack of belief and disbelief.

Lets just take the common usage of the word agnostic and speak on a person who hasn't been convinced of the existence of a god/gods. Does this person believe in any gods? Does this person hold a belief in a god/gods? The answer is no.
A person who doesn't believe/hold a belief in a god/gods is an atheist. An agnostic in the common usage of the word is actually an atheist. But common usage doesn't really mean much in terms of truth. "I could care less" is incorrect, no matter how much it is used.
'Atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are all misapplied.

Wikipedia isn't exactly a source but in this case it can be helpful since we're talking about the usage of a word. A dictionary isn't an authority source on proper definitions either but both a dictionary and in this case Wikipedia do provide information on usage.

Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it does not necessarily follow that failing to be convinced by either the bible or qur'an would mean you do not hold belief in any gods, only that you do not hold belief in those gods. If we expand on the cheeto analogy, you do not believe you have a bag of jalapeño cheetos and you do not believe you have a bag of limon cheetos. Do those beliefs make you believe you do not have any bags of Cheetos?

You're right that it doesn't necessarily follow but I wasn't implying that it did. I only spoke on the Abrahamic god (for reasons I think are obvious) but I haven't been convinced by any.
Christians reject all other gods except for one. So you're right that their disbelief/lack of believe doesn't mean they don't hold belief in any gods.

I don't really see your point here though.

There seems to be some implication of belief limbo but that would be contradictory with what you said earlier ("there is a belief or there is not. you believe or you do not"). But I don't think that's your point. Maybe this is something that we agree on. That's logic 101.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

sure it is, you have made a decision. decisions are based in arguments whether they are sound or true or unsound or untrue.

not having a belief in god <in general> is different though from not having a belief in a <particular> god, which is why I asked my follow-up Cheetos question above :3

What decision was made? I don't think decision is the right word here though. Wouldn't 'making a truth claim' be more appropriate?

This is why the term 'positive atheist' exists. A positive atheist is someone who doesn't hold a belief in any gods [belief] and claims that there are no gods (knowledge). This is a positive assertion and requires evidence. That is a decision/truth claim.

To go back to my comment about babies and atheism. The terms 'atheist' and 'theist' can't exist without the other. So if a person can't be a 'theist' applying the term 'atheist' is inappropriate.
Lets use a term that used to be quite popular (I'm reading "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas" now and it's ripe with the word) 'savage'. Imagine there was a group of savages that never had any contact with the outside world. They don't have gods in their culture and no concept of such a being. Therefore they don't hold any beliefs in gods. If they don't even have a concept of god they can't logically reject it. Yet they still lack a belief in any gods. This is what being an atheist boils down to.