Can we all agree on these defintions?

Question

Given the proposition P = "God exists".

The theist asserts P is true.

The atheist asserts not-P is true.

The agnostic says either P or not-P is true.

Tofu Jesus: At the moment we are just looking at the definitions of atheist, theist and agnostic. If you'd like to ask a question of your own, feel free, but it will cost you five points.

theagitator: We are explictly follow Aristotle's law of the excluded middle. In other words, not-not-P=P.

Explicitly following, that is.

Eby: It's called logic.

ChooseRealit...: That sounds like run-of-the-mill agnosticism to me.

Matt The Strong: That's an interesting suggestion, but doesn't that effectively undermine the agnostic position?

Steve: That's incorrect. A "weak atheist" is merely a label used by atheists to try to claim agnostics as beling to their camp. Your attempts to try to distinguish between weak atheists and agnostics are sloppy and contrived. For example, you claim agnostics say P is unknowable. What on earth does that mean in terms of logic? P is either true or false in ordinary logic.

churchmusicgirl: I did NOT say agnostics assert both P and not-P. I said that an agnostic says that EITHER P or not-P is true.

Answer 1

If you change your proposition to

P = "It is highly likely (a near certainty) that God exists."

Then I would agree to the rest.

Answer 2

The theist asserts P is true.

The atheist asserts not-P is true.

The agnostic says either P or not-P is true.
***************************************
I can agree on the first, but not the second or third.

ATHEISTS:
Some atheists assert that not-P is true, but most assert that P is not true. It's a subtle but relevant distinction.

Some athests say, "I don't believe in God" which assumes there is a god but he doesn't believe in it. This is a weak atheist. Other athests say, "There is no god" which assumes there was nothing there to believe in in the first place. This is a strong atheist.

AGNOSTICS:
The agnostic says he cannot prove if P is either true or not true. He makes no definitive statement of truth, either positive or negative, only that he doesn't have enough proof one way or the other and thus, cannot commit.

There is another group of agnostics that would say they know there is an all-supreme being but they're not sure how it fits into this reality. Either way, your definition doesn't work for them either.

Theists are the only ones who say definitely that P = True and that truth is not based on any facts whatsoever, so how can they KNOW it's true?

Answer 3

Can we agree that definitions are man made?
If people choose P, just because a man named webster decided to make a book, would that even make the theory of P viable?
And if the theory of P is not viable or proven, would there even be atheists or agnostics or theists?
There were no dictionary's in the time of Jesus.
This is true. There were also no theists, atheists, nor agnostics either. So basically, those 3 exist only because they had to read some man's dictionary to find out what they in fact were.
So the answer to your question would be, that all 3 exist only in the minds of those that believe they do. We can't agree on these definitions, if they don't exist to us. For I don't care what man defines it as, I believe in God. Call it what you like.

Answer 4

If you are facing a contradiction, check your premises, you will find one is wrong.

If you start with the proposition that God exists, then only the theist is logically correct. The atheist and agnostic are illogical definitions based on the original premise.

You can not start with the proposition that God exists. That's putting the cart before the horse. It works like this:

1. Do I exist?
2. I think, therefore I am. Thus, I exist. Read Descartes.
3. How did I get here?
4. My existence is impossible without a creator. Thus, a Creator, a God must exist.

Of course, the proposition in Step 4 must be proven to be accepted. Email me if you are interested on how to show this.

Answer 5

I agree with your definition of theist, but your atheist and agnostic definitions are lacking. There is more to consider with those:

The "active" atheist asserts not-P is true.

The "passive" atheist asserts P or not-P is true. (Your agnostic definition.)

The agnostic asserts P or not P is true, and P is unknowable.

Will: The agnostic believes that the human mind cannot know
whether there is a God or an ultimate cause. Your simplistic
definition doesn't account for that. My definition does.

Your inability to understand that is not my concern.

Answer 6

The whole thing boils down to your given, which isn't given. All we know for sure (and on early Monday mornings even that is highly suspect) is that we exist. At least individually. This usually brings up the question of "how did I get here." A theist would say that some form of higher power put me here and I owe my existence and loyalty to said higher power. An agnostic would say I don't know but I am open to any possibility especially the possibility of hot coffee early on Monday mornings. The atheist just says screw it all, I am here, here kinda sucks but lets get on with it coffee or no coffee.

Answer 7

What about the agnostic atheist? or the agnostic theist?

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. This meaning that i believe ~P to be true but am open to the possibility of P being true due to my avowed lack of knowledge of all things.

My ~P stance is supported by evidence while my P stance is supported by lack of evidence. Therefore i am open to receiving credible evidence to support P, however until such time i will stand by ~P

Answer 8

My philosophical logic skills are a bit rusty, but I'm not sure about the agnostic part of your arguement.

Agnostics don't know whether or not God exists. They don't assert P but they don't contradict it. They don't assert not-P, but the don't contradict that either.

Answer 9

Missing another possibility: multiple P

Answer 10

Lol, define existence my brother.