Neither a theist nor an atheist.

[no-one-particular]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.

No I'm not agnostic either.

Sometimes the answer to the question is that it's the wrong question to be asking.

Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Rhea]

That works when the question has been so weird. ~nods~

 

[Juma]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.

No I'm not agnostic either.

Sometimes the answer to the question is that it's the wrong question to be asking.

Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?

You have the right to be wrong.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'll never understand the need to always look for a middle ground. Sometimes there just isn't one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, do you object to making a decision or do you just object to being labeled?

 

[dystopian]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.

No I'm not agnostic either.

Sometimes the answer to the question is that it's the wrong question to be asking.

Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but that still makes you an atheist. If you don't believe (including saying you don't know, or some variation thereof) in god then you're an atheist. It's a binary position; you either do, or do not. Saying "I don't know" is an added qualifier, but doesn't represent some third option: it's functionally the same as saying you don't believe. Saying that the question/notion doesn't make sense to you in the first place automatically is also an added qualifier, but similarly doesn't put you in some third, undefined, position: you still either believe or don't believe.

 

[Underseer]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.

No I'm not agnostic either.

Sometimes the answer to the question is that it's the wrong question to be asking.

Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?

Then you don't understand the basic meaning of the words. This is elementary school-level etymology you're getting wrong. The a- prefix means "non" or "not" or "against," so a-theist means "not a theist." If you are not a theist then you are an atheist. Most atheists simply reject the claims of theists but do not make positive claims about the existence or non-existence of any god or gods.

After all, we cannot disprove with 100% certainty the existence of the Abrahamic god any more than we can disprove leprechauns or fairies, but as with leprechauns and faeries, there simply is no reason to take such claims seriously unless and until someone shows up with absolute proof.

 

[braces_for_impact]

As others have mentioned, you're either one or the other, there really is no middle ground. If you don't wish to be labelled, that's fine and I can respect that, but although I concede that language has power, sometimes it's still just representations for things or concepts - words. I agree also that often we may think the wrong questions are being asked, and sometimes that's true. I think however, the question of whether or not a god exists is an important one, and one that needs discussion, if only because belief translates into action, sometimes very negative actions, so it's a moral duty of sorts to work this through.

P.S. Welcome to the forums!

 

[no-one-particular]

you are demanding a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer.

A rational person could answer the question "do black people exist" with a yes or no. A rational person would not be able to answer the question "Do ni--ers exist" with a yes or no. A bigot would expect a simple yes or no and would not be able to understand why rational people refused to answer with a yes or no.

the false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.

The middle path, on the other hand, is cooperation vs competition.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

you are demanding a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer.
the concept of God like the concept of ni--er is too poorly defined

if I asked you whether black people exist then the answer would be yes or no.

the false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.

The middle path, on the other hand, is cooperation vs competition.

Actually, the question of whether or not God exists is a yes or no question. He's either a real being or he's not. There's zero difference between that question and the questions of whether Darth Vader or Barak Obama exist. One is a real person and the other is a fictional character (I won't spoil the surprise by telling you which is which) and God fits into one of those two categories. One can argue that we don't know the answer to the question, but it is a question which has an answer.

You are correct that God is always really poorly defined and nobody ever really knows what someone is talking about when they use the word, but that's actually a really poor reason to assume a middle path in regards to the question. If someone asks you if Nidulasdfaasdsers are real, the fact that that's a made-up word without a definition isn't a reason to hedge one's bets about their existence. If a person can't define what they're talking about, they're talking about a nonexistent thing.

 

[dystopian]

you are demanding a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer.

The concept of God like the concept of ni--er is such that its impossible to answer the question "does God exist" with a simple yes or no.

That's complete nonsense though; the question 'does x exist' can *always* be answered with a simple yes or no, assuming you have the necessary facts to make that determination. Similarly, the question 'Do you believe in X' can ALSO always be answered with either yes or no.

The middle path, on the other hand, is cooperation vs competition.

This doesn't make any sense in the context of the discussion. You are incorrectly assuming that to be a theist or an atheist automatically means you're in competition with the other; and from that flawed assumption then making another incorrect assumption that because the opposite of competition is cooperation that therefore there is somehow a middle path between atheism and theism: there isn't.

Just because you're on this supposed 'middle' path of cooperation, *does not* mean you've found some third alternative to either believing in god or not believing. You still either believe or do not believe, you've just decided to 'cooperate' with the people who do (or do not) believe.

 

[PyramidHead]

The question isn't even "does x exist," which can reasonably be answered agnostically. It's "do you believe x exists." If you hold that belief, you're a theist. If you don't (whether through lack of knowledge, disbelief, apathy about the whole thing, or whatever), you are an atheist.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The question isn't even "does x exist," which can reasonably be answered agnostically. It's "do you believe x exists." If you hold that belief, you're a theist. If you don't (whether through lack of knowledge, disbelief, apathy about the whole thing, or whatever), you are an atheist.

I don't conform to labels, man! Fight the power!

 

[Underseer]

you are demanding a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer.

A rational person could answer the question "do black people exist" with a yes or no. A rational person would not be able to answer the question "Do ni--ers exist" with a yes or no. A bigot would expect a simple yes or no and would not be able to understand why rational people refused to answer with a yes or no.

the false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.

The middle path, on the other hand, is cooperation vs competition.

No, we are not. You're missing the distinction.

You cannot disprove the existence of bigfoot with absolute certainty. If you try to look for bigfoot, I can always say he was in the shed while you were searching the garage. I can play an endless series of games that leave open the possibility that bigfoot exists despite the lack of evidence. This kind of existence claim is non-falsifiable and always will be, but that doesn't mean it is reasonable to assume that bigfoot, faeries, leprechauns, etc. exist.

You are an abigfootist. You are an abigfootist and an afaerieist, and an aleprechaunist. Why? Because you lack belief in their existence. This doesn't mean you are 100% certain they don't exist (you can't possibly be certain of that), but you lack belief that they are real and it is reasonable for you to ignore claims of their existence unless and until someone furnishes proof.

As I said earlier, your problem is that you are getting the definitions confused. You forgot what the a- prefix means, and so you think you cannot label yourself an afaerieist unless you are 100% certain that faeries do not exist, and that simply is not the case. If you are not convinced of the existence of faeries, then you are an afaerieist.

 

[no-one-particular]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
No I'm not agnostic either. I'm not undecided. I have decided and I choose neither.

Sometimes the answer to a question is that it's the wrong question to ask.
Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?

A rational person could answer the question "do black people exist" with a yes or no but a rational person would not be able to answer the question "Do n-----s exist" with a yes or no. A bigot would not be able to understand why not and would keep insisting that the answer must be either yes or no.

The difference between a black person and a n----- is that we see the latter as being all bad
The difference between poo and s--- is that we see the latter as being all bad. Good for nothing. Fit only for damnation.

In reality nothing is all good or all bad. Even God would have a shadow, though many people, consciously or unconsciously, think otherwise.
(the difference between a God with a shadow and a God without a shadow might seem trivial but a little leaven leavens the whole)

The concept of God, like the concept of n----, is such that its impossible to answer the question "does God exist" with a simple yes or no.

The false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.
The middle path, on the other hand, is not all-or-nothing. It is cooperation and competition.

all-or-nothing thinking is like an infectious disease or a computer virus

 

[none]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
No I'm not agnostic either. I'm not undecided. I have decided and I choose neither.

Sometimes the answer to a question is that it's the wrong question to ask.
Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?

A rational person could answer the question "do black people exist" with a yes or no but a rational person would not be able to answer the question "Do n-----s exist" with a yes or no. A bigot would not be able to understand why not and would keep insisting that the answer must be either yes or no.

The difference between a black person and a n----- is that we see the latter as being all bad
The difference between poo and s--- is that we see the latter as being all bad. Good for nothing. Fit only for damnation.

In reality nothing is all good or all bad. Even God would have a shadow, though many people, consciously or unconsciously, think otherwise.
(the difference between a God with a shadow and a God without a shadow might seem trivial but a little leaven leavens the whole)

The concept of God, like the concept of n----, is such that its impossible to answer the question "does God exist" with a simple yes or no.

The false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.
The middle path, on the other hand, is not all-or-nothing. It is cooperation and competition.

I found the solution to labeling you, <edit>

 

[jonJ]

But it's quite reasonable to ask someone: "What is your definition of God?" and "Do you believe right now that a being matching that definition exists?" To which the only possible answers that make any sense are 'yes' and 'no'.

 

[Underseer]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
No I'm not agnostic either. I'm not undecided. I have decided and I choose neither.

[...]

Words mean things.

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. We've been over this. You can pretend you don't understand gradeschool English all you want, but that doesn't change things. Your problem is that you clearly don't understand what the word "atheist" actually means despite multiple people explaining it to you in a fair amount of detail.

 

[no-one-particular]

But it's quite reasonable to ask someone: "What is your definition of God?" and "Do you believe right now that a being matching that definition exists?" To which the only possible answers that make any sense are 'yes' and 'no'.

I believe that God is a glob of earwax.
I believe that globs of earwax exist therefore I am a theist.

 

[none]

But it's quite reasonable to ask someone: "What is your definition of God?" and "Do you believe right now that a being matching that definition exists?" To which the only possible answers that make any sense are 'yes' and 'no'.

I believe that God is a glob of earwax.
I believe that globs of earwax exist therefore I am a theist.

well that rules out ignosticism.
still <edit> though.