If asked "Do you believe in God?" someone replies "No," are they a theist, atheist or agnostic? Why? (details)

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

What role does the label play? What more do you know about the person if you give them one of these labels?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

They could be either Atheist or Agnostic. The label plays the role of solidarity, in my opinion. I firmly believe that many of us agnostics have taken up the mantle of Atheism for the sake of a purpose higher than ourselves, and our own reasons for not believing, or not being sure. I believe that Atheism has more potential to change America, and influence politics than organized agnosticism does, especially for progression, secularism, and the separation of Church and State. And I firmly believe that all "No God" leaning Agnostics should bear the mantle of Atheism for the cause and the greater good of society.

Answer 2

Would not be a Theist
Theist = Theism is belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Would not be an Agnostic
Agnostic = One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

It would be an Athesit
Atheist = One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Regarding Theist, though commonly associated with Christianity, it can pertain to Muslim belief for example. They do believe in a god, however, Christianity usually claims that the God of the Jews is the same as the God of Christianity, but not the same god as the Muslim's Allah. I agree with this claim.

An Agnostic is not sure if there is a god. Many Agnostics believe in some higher power, but not specifically a god or God.

An Atheist denies any sort of god or God at all. Normally associated with pure science and evolution.

Its really hard to associate people based on their label that they pick. An Atheist can be confused about their belief and call themselves an Atheist but would better be called an Agnostic, and vice versa. Many who would consider themselves theist would be called by another an agnostic based on the lack of belief is one true god or God, or belief in dual gods, which actually gets into Paganism and other ancient beliefs.

I don't think that the labels account for much. What does count is the live they live and they way they live it in reflection to what they believe. This is true even in Christianity. Because they pick this to claim as a belief, many are not living in accordance with Biblical truths. They also fail to understand that Christianity is not a label, it is a way of life. Christian means "Christ Like". In other words, their life should be reflecting the life of Chrsit, a model of Jesus' life. Many, obviously, do not do this.

So, all in all, a label doesn't mean much. The most you can tell from a label of these sorts is that some deny gods or God altogether, some believe something is a higher power or possibly gods or God, and some believe in an absoulute god or God. There is still many details after those assumptions from the labels that would have to be taken into account.

Answer 3

You are acting like evolution is some sort of creature out there. It is not. It is a biological mechanism. Do you think that pregnancy has a conscience and can think? Evolution is very simple. There is nothing out there making a conscience decision that a creature will get a certain adaptation or not. It comes down to mutation. We all have mutations. You cannot get thru a day without getting a new one of some sort. They are very insignificant and usually mean nothing. Most mutated cells die quickly. However some mutations can give the animal an advantage. Lets say there is a group of animals. They feast on leaves. In the spring, the leaves on the trees are abundant. The animals feed like crazy. However, as spring passes and summer starts the reachable leaves on the trees are soon eaten. The only stuff left are the leaves further up the tree. The animals in the group that are taller than the others will have an advantage and can eat these leaves. They have a better chance of keeping nourished and have a better chance to keep on living. This means that there will be a better chance that their genes (including the genes that dictate how tall they were) will be passed on. The other animals without the tall gene will probably survive but with smaller odds. They have a smaller chance of passing on their genes. Given enough time, more and more animals of the population will be taller because the tall gene will have a better chance of being passes on. Lets say that an animal in the group has a mutation that gives a slightly longer neck. This gives that animal even more of an edge and a better chance of survival. Once again, the mutated gene that caused the longer neck has a better chance to be passed on. Given enough time, the gene will make it into the population and more animals will have the longer neck. The animals without the gene will have to compete with those that do. The ones with the gene have a better chance of surviving and passing on the gene. Now, multiply this scenario a million times. The animals will change slightly with each generation. In any single generation, the change might not be too noticable but over multiple generations, the change is noticable. Over millenia, the animals would be very different. Evolution works because it is giving the animals a better chance of survival. If it did as you suggest, gave the animals a smaller chance of survival, then the genes that were changed would result in more and more animals dying. Those that had the genes would be more likely to die and if they can pass on the genes, then those offspring would have a better chance of dying. This would result in the extinction of animals. That will not work. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a conscience behind evolution. Your reasoning is based on a leap of logic. "Evolution appears to be ordered therefore there is a conscienceness behind it" is a leap of logic. There is no evidence to support it.

Answer 4

From that answer you have no idea what the answerer is, and you highlight one of the dangers of religious surveys: people tend to read more information into surveys than what they actually say.

If someone says they don't believe in God, we can conclude they are not a Christian. They are also probably not a Jew or a Muslim. However, they may still follow another religion and, thus, can be a theist: they believe in a deity or deities but just not the deity known as "God."

Now, it might just happen that the answerer doesn't believe in any gods (not just the one we call "God") and is, thus, an atheist. But the answer doesn't tell us that.

Agnostic might also answer "no" to this question, especially if "yes" and "no" are the only available answers. They might have preferred to answer "maybe" or "I don't know" but that option wasn't available.

Answer 5

Atheist.
A theist would reply yes,
and an agnostic would reply, not really sure.

I would not call it labeling people. Labeling people is what you would do if you were to prejudge them. It is not labeling if they straight out tell you what they think.

Answer 6

I don't even know if I qualify as an atheist, for I only claim the
Bible god is fake. I haven't expressed any opinions about other gods.

As for labels, there is the label "Christian" -- but I don't know any Christians. Though I do know a lot of church folks.

Answer 7

No is no answer. I am basically a theist but have answered that question with a no. Without elaboration there is no way to know who that person is, unless you are psychic.The labels serve to limit our interaction and help to replace people with concepts in our minds. That way we can feel comfortable, superior and smug about who we are compared to others.

Answer 8

A theist is someone who believes in deity.
An atheist believes in no deity.
An agnostic believes in the possibility of deitys' existence.

Answer 9

Atheist or agnostic; agnostics don't deny the existence of god - they take the view that it's unprovable one way or the other - but they don't personally believe.

Answer 10

Crap, I read your question wrong... hold on...

Ok, so, they answered NO......

Without specifying, it's possible that they are agnostic and/or atheist. Agnostics technically lack belief in that they feel they cannot assert a certainty one way or the other, but in doing so by definition lack belief and therefore can also be considered atheistic.

It's also possible that it's a definite "no" and that they're secure in their disbelief, and therefore an explicit atheist.