"God is an imaginary friend"

[Habitat]

Greetings Habitat.

There is a difference between believing in a "life force" that some atheists for lack of a better word call God. There is a difference between believing in a 'life force' that doesn't involve some aged dude in the sky that takes a personal interest in us. So does that life force qualify as God? I suppose it rests on the individual atheist for that answer.

SINcerely,

According to all the sages, pondering the nature of God is fruitless, unless it leads to a cessation of such speculation. That cleans the slate for true insight.

"Only the hand that erases can write the true thing."

Meister Eckhart

[Dying Seraph]

According to all the sages, pondering the nature of God is fruitless, unless it leads to a cessation of such speculation. That cleans the slate for true insight.

"Only the hand that erases can write the true thing."

Meister Eckhart

How poignant and beautiful. Thank you for providing perspective.

SINcerely,

[ChloeB]

Chloe and Para

It's very difficult to say that the term atheism, understood in its present sense, arose in response to there being a word for its opposite.

Theist seems to have been coined as a word to mean (approximately) what the obviously related (Latin rather than Greek roots) word deist means today: believing in a god, but not a revealed god.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theist

So, theist must have divided from deist at some point, during the modern era.

In contrast, atheist is a very old word, but originally meaning "not in the service of the same gods" as the speaker, audience or some understood normative group. See Ephesians 2: 12, quite likely not written by Paul, but possibly later First Century, where the pagans-turned-Christians were formerly "atheos:" without the God of Israel... even though they must have had plenty of gods. For a note on more recent usage, see

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheism

So, Chloe's question stands, I think.

We know that before Huxley, no distinction was made in English between those who believed there was no god and those who neither believed in God nor believed there was no god. It would be easy to argue, then, that the modern sense of atheist couldn't have arisen before there was a word for that distinction.

If we look for the first person to do what Chloe described, call himself atheist and mean it in a modern sense, we seem to find Paul-Henri Thiry, an 18th Century figure.

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhoeighteenth.html

Cool. but he's a contemporary of Hume, and as noted on the same page, nobody knows whether Hume was a deist (rejecting revelation) or an atheist in the modern sense. When Hume uses the word atheist himself, he may simply mean "non-Christian Gentile of European descent." So, it would be a long time after Hume before the sense of the word standardized.

In fact, the words may still be labile, since some people deny the Huxleyan distinction. This seems to be based on the work of Robert Flint, a Scottisn theologian with an axe to grind, and a dead man as his immediate adversary. Well, at least they were evenly matched. I don't know anybody except some atheists who deny the distinction today, however, and then only on the web. There're all kinds of wisdom that're only found on the web .

Anyway, great question, Chloe.

Thank you. I got all excited, Eighty made a thread! I remember reading about that and talking about it with Leo, I think, the Christians being called Atheists. The way I see it now, and I was thinking about this and what's been said.....so difference is why people don't have a name for themselves for their lack of belief in leprechauns is because believers in leprechauns don't have a name for themselves, as in believers in God have a name, theists, so people who don't believe in God have to come up with a name for themselves? Well doesn't that sound like the believers are running that show sort of - their behavior dictates the behavior of the nonbelievers? Like these people who have nothing going on that makes them think that something exists, they still want a word to define them because these other people have a word, but doesn't that sound very much like they are emulating those people, those RELIGIOUS PEOPLE? I kinda think it's weird personally or strange to me, if you don't think it exists, then it really means nothing to you, why label yourself then, unless and this is what it seems to me, always boils down to this, that atheism is a reaction to theism really, and hence is its counter opposite and kind of just makes it sound like the inversion of theism, which doesn't do much to make it not sound like a religious stance. To me, that's kind of where you end up when you use the defense that believers in God have a name, then atheists must too, keeps it in that same category, which is religion. If you just didn't care, you'd blow it off, assigning that name to yourself seems to me to indicate you have some kind of emotional investment in it or something, and that does hint more towards a belief system, imho. I don't know why they care, if I thought there wasn't a God, and some days I do, I'd tell ya, sure I believe there is no god, I believe it and it's a belief system, so what? People get their panties all in a twist over it, and to me, that's one of the most obvious indicator of your religious atheists, they are so involved in being the opposite of theist, which again that opposite of it to me categorically falls in the domain of religion.

Edited January 25, 2012 by ChloeB

[ChloeB]

How poignant and beautiful. Thank you for providing perspective.

SINcerely,

Habitat has a way with words, even when they're quotes, he says a lot of things I like, his words and others.

[aquatus1]

The difference though, is that you can prove apples do not walk around by themselves (namely: look at apple, note absence of legs), therefore changing it from a statement of belief to a fact. For this analogy to be appropriate, an atheist must be able to prove why god cannot exist. Before anyone says the burden of proof lies with the believer, asking you to prove that god cannot exist is not the same as asking you to prove it doesn't exist.

The problem here is that while a walking apple may be falsifiable (although, frankly, I could readily make up all sorts of silly ways it could ambulate around that didn't require legs), God is not falsifiable. Heck, God is not even definable. How can you show God does not exist when God has not been shown to exist in the first place?

Which is where my objection to the whole argument comes in. The fundamental assumption being made here is that anything having to do with the supernatural is a belief. Just read all the arguments:

If you belive in a deity, it is a belief. A lack of belief is also a belief. Therefore, not believing in a deity is a belief.

Really, what sort of argument is that? You (the general "you", not you specifically) are assuming ahead of time that anything to do with deities, anything at all, is a "belief", and then claiming victory because "not believing" has something to do with believing and is therefore a "belief".

That's an absurd argument. It is utterly unworkable, it is so far gone that even calling it circular doesn't begin to encompass the sheer lack of logic. It intentionally goes out of its way to negate its own falsifiability. It literally defines its falsifiability as evidence of its existence. That is just silly!

An argument that cannot be falsified is no argument. Demanding that one falsify something that has neither been validated nor defined is not valid falsification. It is a logical failure. An argument that defines a word that is already defined as a null state (atheism) as a word that encompasses a set (theism) is a critical thinking failure.

The belief in deities, like the belief in walking apples, or the sun rising in the East, is not a matter of degrees. Believing in the supernatural is not a question of how much or how little. As I said before, there is no positive/negative influence calculation. Either you believe, or you do not believe. There is no negative belief. There is no belief that is less than zero. The above arguments are trying to make you think that belief is a default position, and even when there is no belief in deities, that is still a belief. This is incorrect. A belief of zero is not a belief. By definition, a belief is the assumption that something is true or existing. If someone is at zero belief in deities, they have zero assumptions that something is true or existing. You cannot define a state of zero assumptions of belief as a belief.

If you believe in deities, you are a theist. How you choose to express that is up to you. If you do not believe in deities, you are an atheist. How you choose to express that is up to you. Nothing that you do is going to change those basic definitions.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I don't believe in any gods. I find the idea to be childish, akin to belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Do I base my life around not believing in any gods? No.

Hell, the though even rarely crosses my mind for day to day.

You can call me an atheist. I don't care.

You can say atheism is a religion. It's not, but I still don't care.

You see, I have a distinct level of apathy for all things god related. It's not like redefining what the word atheism means i'm going to suddenly believe in an invisible sky dad.

[Habitat]

All arguments about God dissolve into absurdity. If reality (including any deities) is "all of a piece", (and the best argument for that, short of first-hand experience of the 'altered state' of unity consciousness, aka as 'mystical union'), is that it sounds so ridiculously implausible, and at odds with everyday experience, that no liar could have invented it !) there is no God to go looking for that isn't already right here and now,inseparably stitched into the fabric of existence. You are God(s), if you dare to imagine you must be !

If then you do not make yourself equal to God, you cannot apprehend God, for like is known by like. Leap clear of all that is corporeal, and make yourself grow to a like expanse with that greatness which is beyond all measure; rise up above all time and become eternal; then you will apprehend God. Think that for you nothing is impossible; deem that you are too immortal, and that you are able to grasp all things in your thought, to know every craft and every science; find yourself home in the haunts of every living creature; make yourself higher than all heights and lower than all depths; bring together in yourself all opposites of quality: heat and cold, dryness and fluidity; think that you are everywhere at once, on land and at sea, in heaven; thing that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you are in the world beyond the grave; grasp in your thoughts all this at once, all times and places, all substances and qualities and magnitudes together; then you can apprehend God. But if you shut up your soul in your body, and abase yourself, and say: I know nothing, I can do nothing, I am afraid of earth and sea, I cannot mount to heaven; I do not know what I was, nor what I shall be, then what have you to do with God? For it is the height of Evil not to know God. But to be capable of knowing God, and to wish and hope to know It, is the road which leads straight to the Good……..

"....for there is nothing that is not God. And do you say 'God is invisible?' Speak not so. Who is more manifest than God?"

(from the teachings of Hermes Trismegistos)

Edited January 25, 2012 by Habitat

[+Link of Hyrule]

I think there are many names/paths for g-d or lack of g-d and this is my way of honoring/including all paths.

Similar to the Namaste meaning. the g-d or lack of g-d honors/tolerates the same for all others.

So you honour all paths to God/lack of God by choosing an exclusively Jewish approach to the word g-d..... weird Edited January 25, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[__Kratos__]

God is an imaginary friend. Choose reality. It will be better for all of us.

Hard to argue with that... Considering the recent example of the girl who got the prayer mural removed from her school getting death threats or the atheist in Indonesian recently arrested after getting attacked by a mob and is facing the death penalty all because he said gods weren't really real.

Religions top the hate group charts easily and we shouldn't support hate groups when they cause so much misery for humankind. So yes, it would be better for all of us.

Evidently, some atheists feel differently about their own atheism. God is an imaginary friend is an affirmative proposition about the divine. It is also strictly stronger than "God doesn't really exist," since it proposes a specific psychological mechanism to account for God.

No, it isn't. It's still saying there are no sky faeries.

If you said, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) was imaginary, would that say you really believe in her because you gave some account of her?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Baldness is not a hair style.. a shaved head is a hairstyle.. Actual loss of hair leaving you with not even a stubble to where it never grows back, is not classed as a hair style, we have been over this before

People request to have their heads shaved, that is a style the shaved head.. Over here is is called- Skinhead... But no one would enter a hair salon for any reason to ask - Can you make my hair permanently fall out.. I fancy a new look..... Many people who loose hair naturally is due to what is hereditary or unfortunate due to an illness ... Not seen as some hair style as would a shaved head look is... Big difference..

If you see someone with a shaved head you say they are bald. Not "skinheads", at least not where I'm from. In Australia (and from what I read, the term originated in England), the term "skinhead" refers to a White Supremacist who has shaved their head and hates anyone who is not Anglo-Australian (if you've ever seen the Australian movie "Romper Stomper" that will give you an idea - or even "American History X" has similar "skinhead" approach). Someone with a shaved head in Australia would be offended if you called them a skinhead, they'd say "I'm not racist". I once shaved my head to raise money for a youth camp, I would have been offended if I was called a skinhead because of it. Someone with a shaved head, anyone I know who would describe them to someone else, they'd say "bald". Consider Captain Benjamin Sisko (because you know I'm a Trek fan - although now that I think of it, I think the actor was in American History X also):

If I were to describe him to you and you had never heard or seen him before, I'd say he was African-American, he had a goatee, and he was bald. I would use the specific word "bald", not "shaved head", and definitely not "skinhead". Describing someone as "bald" does not mean they have a genetic loss of hair, they might have chosen to go bald by shaving their head.

~ PA

[The Silver Thong]

If you said, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) was imaginary, would that say you really believe in her because you gave some account of her?

Exactly...

[ChloeB]

Hard to argue with that... Considering the recent example of the girl who got the prayer mural removed from her school getting death threats or the atheist in Indonesian recently arrested after getting attacked by a mob and is facing the death penalty all because he said gods weren't really real.

Religions top the hate group charts easily and we shouldn't support hate groups when they cause so much misery for humankind. So yes, it would be better for all of us.

I mean if we're talking reality, tossing out some religious whackjobs means that everyone, all the people who just believe in God and don't harm anyone with it, should stop believing in God, well how realistic is that?

[__Kratos__]

Exactly...

Well all know though that the Purple Oyster has plans for those people however.

I mean if we're talking reality, tossing out some religious whackjobs means that everyone, all the people who just believe in God and don't harm anyone with it, should stop believing in God, well how realistic is that?

Even taking out the religious wackjobs doesn't really help us all. Even the common believer has some prejudices against those the faith preaches against... Women status, nonbelievers, homosexuality and reproductive rights to name a few.

Plus if you want to dream, dream big.

[ChloeB]

Well all know though that the Purple Oyster has plans for those people however.

Even taking out the religious wackjobs doesn't really help us all. Even the common believer has some prejudices against those the faith preaches against... Women status, nonbelievers, homosexuality and reproductive rights to name a few.

Plus if you want to dream, dream big.

LOL, well I guess I kind of separate those things from a belief in God, but I know what you mean, often they accompany the other.

[The Silver Thong]

Well all know though that the Purple Oyster has plans for those people however.

What Purple Oyster...... oh crap now I have to have some sort of belief in it lol

[aquatus1]

If I were to describe him to you and you had never heard or seen him before, I'd say he was African-American, he had a goatee, and he was bald. I would use the specific word "bald", not "shaved head", and definitely not "skinhead". Describing someone as "bald" does not mean they have a genetic loss of hair, they might have chosen to go bald by shaving their head.

Exactly. All it means is that they have no hair on their head. Nothing else that is tacked on to that will change that basic definition. Baldness equals no hair. It says absolutely nothing about whther there could be hair, or what color it might be if there was. It is certainly not considered an invisible hair color.

Similarly, an atheist is someone who has no beliefs in deities. It doesn't matter if one says "But some atheists do this and some atheists do that!" None of that matters. The basic definition remains unchanged. The atheist does not believe in deities. Nothing else they believe in will affect that. It doesn't matter if they believe God is an imaginary friend, or a walking apple, or what have you. What they do not believe is that God is a god, no more than they believe the pharaoh of Ancient Egypt was a god. And because they exist in a state where they do not believe in deities, they are referred to as atheists.

[eight bits]

Copa

So out of curiosity are you and Leo agnostic about;

Well, of course, I can't speak for Leo. So, as always anyway, I just answer for myself.

You apparently seek to frame the question of god(s) based upon case-by-case disposition of the god-claims that happen to have to come to your attention. While you are welcome to frame any open problem any way you like, I don't frame this problem that way.

What I see on your list is a partial record of human thought about the possibility of a god. As it happens, however, I am already aware of the possibility. Consequently, the list really doesn't help me in my investigation.

An agnostic is agnostic about the answer to the question of gods, which does not exclude making an adverse finding about any number of specific god-claims. That the question of God is open does not imply that the question of whether Jesus is divine, say, is open.

That cannot be surprising, since there are about a billion board-certified theists, Muslims, for whom the question of Jesus' divinity has been resolved in the negative.

In general, then, I cannot infer anyone's answer to the question of gods from any finite number of god-claims about which the person reports an adverse finding. Under the circumstances, then, I adopt a different strategy for this problem.

Chloe

It seems to me that almost nobody identifies themselves spontaneously as a "theist." A theist is typically something more specific, like non-denominational Christian, or whatever. I really doubt, then, that atheist arose as a modern label in reaction to there being a name for its opposite. I can't see that there was a name for that, especially since there are two distinct and incompatible ways not to be an atheist, and there is no name for that.

I think the dead mouse on the kitchen floor is that there were modern-sense athesists in the ancient world, people who believed there were no gods. What did they call themselves? Lots of things, but one of them was Platonist. We say "neo-" today.

So, the label reflected what the group was concerned about, what they had in common as they saw it. In this case, that wasn't just their belief about gods' existence, but rather a comprehensive tradition of inquiry rooted in a particular teacher.

I cannot object to anyone labeling themselves according to their religious opinions, since obviously, I am ever-ready to identify myself as agnostic. The history of that word is interesting, though. Huxley really tried to make it a word like "(Neo)Platonic," something comprehensive which included a stance towards the question of gods, but that also had much else besides.

It didn't take. Even during Huxley's lifetime, people abstracted out the bit about gods, often along with the idea that the sticking point was the lack of persuasive evidence or argument either way, and discarded the rest. All they had in common was their distinction from theists and atheists alike. Reason enough to celebrate .

PA

So you honour all paths to God/lack of God by choosing an exclusively Jewish approach to the word g-d..... weird

It's not specifically Jewish. Many eloquent explanations of the practice have come from people of Jewish heritage, but the practice is widespread throughout academic disciplines where the divine might be discussed, especially if the discussion is secular in character, like this one.

_Kratos_

If you said, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) was imaginary, would that say you really believe in her because you gave some account of her?

No, I would be asserting my belief that the IPU (2b3h) doesn't exist.

-

Edited January 25, 2012 by eight bits

[Copasetic]

Copa

Well, of course, I can't speak for Leo. So, as always anyway, I just answer for myself.

You apparently seek to frame the question of god(s) based upon case-by-case disposition of the god-claims that happen to have to come to your attention. While you are welcome to frame any open problem any way you like, I don't frame this problem that way.

What I see on your list is a partial record of human thought about the possibility of a god. As it happens, however, I am already aware of the possibility. Consequently, the list really doesn't help me in my investigation.

An agnostic is agnostic about the answer to the question of gods, which does not exclude making an adverse finding about any number of specific god-claims. That the question of God is open does not imply that the question of whether Jesus is divine, say, is open.

That cannot be surprising, since there are about a billion board-certified theists, Muslims, for whom the question of Jesus' divinity has been resolved in the negative.

In general, then, I cannot infer anyone's answer to the question of gods from any finite number of god-claims about which the person reports an adverse finding. Under the circumstances, then, I adopt a different strategy for this problem.

Don't obfuscate it I'm a simple guy and a simple yes or no will sate my curiosity. Are you also agnostic to the aforementioned deities, sprites, mythical beings and legendary creatures as well?

Thanks for the honesty

[Beckys_Mom]

If you see someone with a shaved head you say they are bald. Not "skinheads", (SNIP)

I am not talking about those who CHOSE to have their hair shaved off.because you can tell it was shaved off and it is considered a hair style so to speak..Even though I do not personally class no hair a hair style.. I call it a look but not a hair style look.. I am talking about natural loss of hair that is hereditary OR worse those who loose their hair due to an illness or stress.. It is not considered a hair style of any kind, it is not through a choice as those would do in a barber shop or salon... Not the same thing... And we call those over here with saved heads.. it is known as the skinhead look... feel free to check it out -> http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Skinhead No hair does not equal to hair style.there is no hair to style. IMO..Baldness simply means no hair ...

Anyway we have made our points, and I see no reason to hang on to a comment about baldness or shaved head looks in a thread about Atheists being considered some sort of a belief system...

What I said earlier in general - To call it a belief system , it should be based on a series of beliefs as belief system is just that, It is not one single belief that their is no God.. cannot class one belief as part of a belief system ...This is a point I have raised earlier and prefer to stick by that .

Edited January 25, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Habitat]

Anyway we have made our points, and I see no reason to hang on to a comment about baldness or shaved head looks in a thread about Atheists being considered some sort of a belief system...

Thank God for that ! Whoops.....Thanks for that !

[Leonardo]

So out of curiosity are you and Leo agnostic about;

I would suggest that neither agnosticism nor atheism are terms that are applicable to specific instances of deity, but describe the over-arching belief about the existence of divinity as a class.

For example, I could believe the Christian god does not exist as described, yet be uncertain whether some form of divinity does exist. This is agnosticism - although I note that it has also begun to be referred to as 'negative atheism'. I do not use that term as I consider agnosticism and atheism to be 'class-entity beliefs' and not 'specific-entity beliefs'.

[__Kratos__]

_Kratos_

No, I would be asserting my belief that the IPU (2b3h) doesn't exist.

-

So you don't understand the different meanings of "belief"?

It's my belief that mt dew is the best soda. Is far different then a belief IN A higher power for religious purposes.

Or does it mean that I now hold mt dew as a godly figure and now am no longer a soda atheist?

[Beckys_Mom]

If you belive in a deity, it is a belief. A lack of belief is also a belief. Therefore, not believing in a deity is a belief.

Really, what sort of argument is that? You (the general "you", not you specifically) are assuming ahead of time that anything to do with deities, anything at all, is a "belief", and then claiming victory because "not believing" has something to do with believing and is therefore a "belief".

That's an absurd argument. It is utterly unworkable, it is so far gone that even calling it circular doesn't begin to encompass the sheer lack of logic. It intentionally goes out of its way to negate its own falsifiability. It literally defines its falsifiability as evidence of its existence. That is just silly!

I agree it is most certainly an absurd argument, as is any argument based on a mere play on words.. The word belief is inserted both ways, and because it can be, it all of a sudden means it is a belief or worse a belief system... Like - Not collecting stamps or coins is a hobby

Too many like to insert their own definitions of many terms used.. and in this case I have seen a few insert their OWN definition to the term - Atheist ... Inserting different definitions is in my opinion tricky ..We have no official arbiter of the English language so it is easy for so many of us to add in our definitions as we see them.. I would normally plump for what is widely accepted and understood, than make the mistake to attach a definition that I have made up in my own head, therefore I can look at the best definition that best describes the reality ...I can see clearly that Atheism is not a belief but lack of belief in Gods.....

......To an atheist they view it as you simply have not proved these gods exist, I see no evidence that can be observed as fact, therefore I do not hold that belief in your God or Gods ......The burden of proof should always be on those who make the claim that these Gods exist, more so if they place it as actual fact ... I have heard some lay out - I will suspend my disbelief in gods until I see real evidence, to me that is not atheism, it leans more on to the agnostic side of the fence, therefore not really considered much of an argument either IMO

[eight bits]

Copa

No, I am not agnostic about any specific god claim(s).

I see that Leo has already explained, in his reply to you, why "no" is the correct forced-choice response.

----

_Kratos_

It's my belief that mt dew is the best soda. Is far different then a belief IN A higher power for religious purposes.

We are in agreement.

If I said "I believe Mountain Dew is an imaginary substance," then I would be voicing an opinion that Mountain Dew doesn't exist. If I said "I believe Mountain Dew tastes like a racehorse's drug test," then I would be saying it exists, but I dislike it.

The Boulder Atheists said "God is an imaginary friend." I think everyone here is clear about what that means.

----

BM

I don't think theism or atheism or agnosticism "is" or "is not" a religion. However, the subject matter to which all refer is religious. While the membership criterion in each group is a single belief, one belief entails related beliefs, which add up.

For example, if you believe in God, then you probably have beliefs about what he's like, but maybe you are unsurprised that so many people believe in God, and you probably don't wonder how anybody ever came up with the idea of God. On the other hand, if you believe there is no God, then you don't theorize about what he is like, but maybe do have beliefs about why so many people disagree with you, and where the idea of God came from in the first place.

"God is an imaginary friend" is a dual-purpose belief, apart from asserting that God doesn't exist. According to it, God originates in a widespread human experience, childhood imaginary friendship, which remains prevalent because of a developmental disorder, that many people old enough to have cell phones and use the QR still have an imaginary friend.

Not every atheist agrees with the Boulder Atheists about those things, but atheists typically will have some beliefs on the same subjects, and not have beliefs on other subjects. System-ness emerges.

And so we end up with a religious belief system, and whatever else depending on the conversational context.

Not collecting stamps or coins is a hobby

No, but taking an out ads alleging developmetal impairment in those who do collect stamps or coins surely qualifies as a pastime.

-

Edited January 25, 2012 by eight bits

[Setton]

The problem here is that while a walking apple may be falsifiable (although, frankly, I could readily make up all sorts of silly ways it could ambulate around that didn't require legs), God is not falsifiable. Heck, God is not even definable. How can you show God does not exist when God has not been shown to exist in the first place?

I've not asked anyone to prove that God doesn't exist. I very clearly stated that, to say categorically "your God does not exist", you must prove why that God cannot exist. That's a very different thing to proving He doesn't.

Which is where my objection to the whole argument comes in. The fundamental assumption being made here is that anything having to do with the supernatural is a belief. Just read all the arguments:

If you belive in a deity, it is a belief. A lack of belief is also a belief. Therefore, not believing in a deity is a belief.

Really, what sort of argument is that? You (the general "you", not you specifically) are assuming ahead of time that anything to do with deities, anything at all, is a "belief", and then claiming victory because "not believing" has something to do with believing and is therefore a "belief".

Not believing is not a belief, agreed. That's the position taken by agnosticism. The three different positions are:

I believe God exists - theist

I do not believe/don't know if God exists - agnostic

I believe God does not exist - atheist

Despite what atheists love to claim, it is not the default position. The default position is agnosticism as that is the only position not requiring consideration of the question of God's existence. Theist and atheist positions both require a consideration of evidence provided (or lack thereof) and a conclusion based on that consideration since they are definite positions.

If you believe in deities, you are a theist. How you choose to express that is up to you. If you do not believe in deities, you are an atheist. How you choose to express that is up to you. Nothing that you do is going to change those basic definitions.

Again, that's the problem. Sorry, but your definitions are just plain wrong. Rather:

If you believe in deities, you are a theist. How you choose to express that is up to you. If you do not believe in deities, you are an agnostic. How you choose to express that is up to you. If you are an atheist, you believe God does not exist. How you choose to express that is up to you.

Those are the actual definitions of theist and atheist according to every dictionary I've been able to lay my hands on. If you can find one that disagrees, I'd be interested to know which. If you want to discuss how these words are misused in everyday speech, that's an entirely different issue.