No, what I'm telling you is that you are equating not-theist with anti-theist. Words have meaning based on etymology and to me that matters. I know you probably consider me a pedantic twat but that is fine with me as long as you understand the words I'm using to communicate with you from now on. I'm just making sure we're all on the same page and your quip towards wolfe is simply based on your misunderstanding of what not-theist (not-believer in a god(s)) means.
He did NOT call you a fence sitter, he simply corrected your mistaken usage of the word.
If you persist I'll just ignore your posts from now on, there is no point in this meaningless discussion about you not understanding the words you're using and getting angry about others accusing you for things they did not.
Re-read what I wrote, and re-read what I just quoted from you. I'm not angry at all. I'm enjoying the exchange. That said, you appear to be angry because of the semantics behind roots of words. To me, getting into a semantic argument about "belief" and "knowledge" is just that, semantics that are unimportant in describing beliefs OR knowledge.
I do not believe in any particular God. I also do not believe that a God cannot exist (I believe that a God can exist). This does not make me an atheist. It makes me someone who doesn't "believe" one way or the other. To me this is a distinction from an atheist who "doesn't believe in ANY God" and who in any non-semantic argument would (probably) extend that to say that THERE IS NOT ANY GOD. I would never say "there is not any God", or, "I do not believe a God can exist". I wouldn't say that, which an atheist probably would or could. This distinguishes my "belief".
I don't know if there is a particular God that exists. I don't think that it's possible to know that there is a God, or that there is not a God. This is why I describe myself as agnostic.
The fact that I can be "further" categorized from an "atheist" to an "agnostic atheist" or "weak atheist" is, again, part of my argument on why I am not "an atheist", because I don't fit in that column, except for the semantic roots of words that are pretty unimportant to the larger argument on whether "there is or isn't a God". Belief and knowledge are two sides of the same coin. There can be 'incorrect" knowledge, and it would then be more of a "belief" than knowledge. It's degrees, not entirely separate concepts, here in reality, and not just on a piece of paper when attempting to categorize into neat categories.
It pretty much isn't that. It's a belief in the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe and affects every natural law and every aspect of existence.
If you think it's just a thought experiment then you are certainly not a theist.
You've got one thing right, I'm certainly not a theist. But that doesn't rule out that the entire Universe is just a thought experiment of a God, and we're just just wondering WTF is going on. Prove me wrong on that one.
Thought experiments, Gods, Beliefs vs. Knowledge...
Oh my!
He's not telling you what you believe, he's telling you what those words mean.
That's fine. We can get all deep into "knowledge vs belief", but that has almost zero actual relevance to whether you "believe" in God or "know" there is or isn't a God, because in reality, the question is whether "there is a God or there is no God". Belief and knowledge are just shades of that.
I can have false knowledge of a God, but it could be described as a "belief". If I say that at some point in the past I had some experience that proves to me the existence of God, that would make me a theist because I would claim that I "know" that there is a God. That same experience could be the very reason/only reason that I believe there is a God. So, that experience could also be the foundation of a "belief". Whether I'm focusing on the "knowledge" or "belief" is pretty irrelevant to whether I am saying "There Is A God".
How many books do we want to write trying to distinguish belief vs. knowledge? You think Merriams can nail that one down in a few lines, because I'd argue that it's something that two individuals could disagree on even on an infinite timeline.
I could say I don't believe in any God that's ever been described by another human, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't believe in a God if I, for example, had some personal experience that couldn't be explained (by someone else anyway) as natural, or not supernatural. Is that "belief" knowledge that you can never know but I can? If I was correct, that experience would be knowledge, but you'd probably describe it as belief.
Can personal knowledge that I say I have be automatically dismissed as simply a belief, or incorrect knowledge? Who does the categorizing there? And who is right and wrong? Would it take a third party to decide? Could a third party just up and say that my experience wasn't real and that my knowledge is just a belief?
Look, words mean what they mean, that's fine. But when we're getting all up in Atheism vs Theism, the separation of "knowledge" and "belief" as two separate concepts starts to lose its meaning, and I think it becomes counterproductive to try to say that belief and knowledge are two completely separate things, especially when we're actually dealing with subjective consciousness and our roles in the universe that is objective and observable, and the part of the universe that we can't even begin to perceive or measure.
You can label me an "agnostic atheist" if it allows you to categorize my "belief", but I'm literally saying that as an agnostic, my "distinguishing" feature is that I don't hold a belief one way or the other, because I don't think it's even possible to know one way or the other. OK, then I'm an agnostic atheist! Or a weak atheist! But again, your focus is on the Atheism because I don't believe in any particular God, when to me, the important thing is that because I don't think I can know one way or the other, I don't believe in any particular God, and I don't believe that there cannot be a God. Maybe Jesus is hanging out in the 11th dimension curled up inside of everyone and we are all really one and the separation we perceive is just a limit on our ability to observe the universe. Hell, maybe the FSM is curled up in there playing Dominos with Jesus. Fuck if I'll ever know, unless there's an afterlife or whatever, but I'm not holding my breath on that one, either.
I'm defining my belief based on my knowledge. You are trying to categorize my knowledge based on my belief or lack thereof right at this particular moment in regards to all of the Gods so far described. That's the semantic argument here, and I'm not angry, or saying "You are wrong", I'm just saying that just because I don't believe in any particular God as described by any human that has or does exist, doesn't mean I wouldn't believe in a God that I had a personal experience with, or "conjured" from my own observation of reality. But, I have a feeling (belief, knowledge?!?) that you probably would automatically disbelieve/unbelieve/not believe any argument for a brand new God, whereas I'd still probably go, eh, maybe, I don't know. And that would, in my warped mind, distinguish my agnosticism from your atheism.
My lack of knowledge is what defines me as an agnostic. I don't really care about belief one way or the other, unless my knowledge changes, which I don't think it will. Hence, I'm a-gnostic, I don't believe the knowledge exists or will exist, hence the belief part is useless anyway. I don't even get that far in the belief department, because of my agnosticism.
I think therefore I am. Philosophy. Belief. Knowledge. All just shades of observation. Observations that are clearly incomplete and comically indefinite. Etc, ad nauseam, until the heat death of the Universe or whatever.