Like who?

Can you prove this? Do you think that because this is a poker forum people are smarter?

Trust me, calling you an agnostic over an atheist is a good thing for you.

If you don't hold the view that there is no God, when you have heard of the possibility of God, the belief is not absent, you cannot by definition, be an atheist.

I think they are saying that the belief is absent. They are just acknowledging that they cannot prove that there is no God.

An example, I do not believe that an Islamic theocracy is the best form of government long term. However, if you asked me to prove it, I could make some arguments, but they would fall short of an undeniable proof.

You are correct that it is open to misunderstanding in exactly the way you describe. However, this is because we don't always use language literally. That is, we sometimes use a sentence that means one thing to mean something else. For instance, if I say, "Some athletes smoke," many people take this to imply that "Some athletes do not smoke." However, strictly speaking, this is not an correct implication.

What is going on here is what the philosopher H. P. Grice called an "implicature." That is, he claimed that there were conversational features of language that directed how we were to interpret the meaning of utterances (this is known in philosophy and linguists as pragmatic meaning). He claimed that our conversation was guided by several principles structured around the idea that conversation is cooperative and so we use the assumption that the listener also accepts these principles to give clues to our listeners about the meaning we are trying to convey using words and statements that might mean something else.

So, in your rain example, the reason the confusion can arise is because while the literal sense of the question is about your beliefs, in most situations the questioner is just interested in whether it is going to rain. So if we interpret the question as being, "Is it going to rain tomorrow?" We can answer, I don't know. If however, we interpret the question as asking, do you believe it is going to rain tomorrow?" Then you can say no. However, one of the the pragmatic principles is that we should strive to be as complete as necessary in our answer. So we might say, I have no view on the matter. This way we alert our listener to the fact that we are interpreting her questioner in the second way.

Anyway, as you can see, the analysis of language can get very technical here, but if you are interested in more, here is the SEP on Grice and "implicature."

Oh, my.

GL.

Then they cannot be agnostic.

So Gunth, you never said whether you agreed with me that there is a distinction between saying that

1) I believe that the number of stars is not even.

and

2) I do not believe that the number of stars is even.

Do you?

Yes there is a distinction if 1.) You believe the number of stars are odd, and 2.) You do not believe that the number of stars are odd or even.

People who i have told i have no belief in there God?

Yes stop by and ill introduces you to some of them.

No doubt smarter people understand the definitions better so will play around with them more.
Trust me i dont care what you call me.

Ive been thinking of calling myself a Christian and using a combination of Christian nazarene, ebionite and gnostic doctrine to justify it. What do you think?

How about this, then. Is there a distinction between:

1. I do not believe that there is a God.

and

2. I believe that there is no God.

If so, what is it?

Good. Now you understand why Gunth has tended not to answer your question "Do you believe there are an even number of stars?" with a yes or no.

He already took the bait though.

Yes, you can't have both 1 and 2.

Yes, he did. I made the point that I wanted to make which is that the as language is commonly interpreted the statements can have similar meanings. Beyond that I am not particularly sympathetic to Gunth's point. Ultimately this is an argument about terminology without much real significance. As long as I know how the term is used in this forum, it really doesn't matter to me.

Yes. Because he is unable to properly distinguish between logical and conversational implication. I have done all I can to try to get him to focus on logical implication, but so far he has refused or been unable to see the difference. I hope you can see why this is a reflection of a basic lack of knowledge about the the nature of language in general, and semantics and syntax in particular, making his claims about the meaning of words not to be trusted.

Incidentally, I have always understood this to be Gunth's mistake. I had almost this exact same conversation months ago--even linked to the same SEP page back in January. Main difference back then was that the discussion advanced a bit further.

This is false. If (2) is true, then unless you hold contradictory beliefs about the existence of god, (1) is true. Thus it would seem that for most people, if (2) is true, then (1) is also true. For instance, both (1) and (2) are true when applied to me.

Try again?

Hint? The logical implication is not symmetric. That is, (2) implies (1), but (1) does not imply (2). Thus, if (2) is true of John, then (1) is also true of John. If however, (1) is true of Sarah, it is possible that (2) is not true of Sarah.

The confusion you have is that you are assuming that the implication is symmetric, so that there is no relevant difference between (1) and (2) since they both logically imply each other. So if an person assents to (1) (i.e. a lack of belief in God), this does not imply a belief that (2) (i.e. the belief that God does not exist).

So, would you say that if someone says that she does not believe in God that she is an atheist?

I have already explained why you can't have both views, feel free to respond to that. I will play your little game later.

Its not really just used that way in this forum. I would think if you ask most atheists if they absolutely deny the possibility of a creator God they would say no.

Here is your explanation: It feels to me like it is missing something.

I mostly agree. There is an issue around the definition of atheist that goes beyond this forum though. There are people who are commonly identified to be atheists in this forum (probably correctly given the definition as used here) who nevertheless have very specific quotes denying that they are atheists. Einstein and Sagan to name two that I am aware of.

I am not raising this to try to put them in the theist camp. I really do not care one little bit which camp they are in. I raise the point simply to illustrate that there is some ambiguity about the word, and that ambiguity does not reside solely in the minds of theists.

Uh... am i not the one distinguishing it here?

You cannot have no belief it is not even if you consider it possible the number is even.

Therefore that belief is not absent.

You can believe it is not even, but you are wrong in doing so since you do not know. And since you do not know, you should see it possible that it may be odd.

And I'll say it again... It's because the word atheist shouldn't exist. It's a silly word. It's a silly thing to try and label people who do NOT have a belief that a proposition is true. Just think if we had to label every possible non belief.

What? It is so simple. Theists believe there is a God, Atheists don't.

Even if you don't believe God exists, but still believe that the possibility is there, you are not an atheist, since there is still some belief that God could exist, so the belief in God is not absent.

No i agree the terms are a little wishy washy they are debated form all sides of the discussion inside and outside this forum. Its just i have seen you signal out this forum as having a certain definition of atheism before. But its not just some in this forum which go by the weak or agnostic atheist definition.

Its also wrong to say this forum has one definition of atheism because there are a few posters who wont fit into the weak agnostic atheist definition you are apparently applying to this forum.

I other words the term is used in all its variations inside and outside this forum so there is no need to signal out this forum as being unique in anyway and no need to treat i differently then the "real world" in anyway.