Is belief binary?

[rhythmicidea]

Atheists I have talked to claim that you either believe, or don't believe. And that there is no middle ground.

So I ask, why does belief have to be positive or negative? Why can't it be neutral?

I consider myself agnostic, which is to say that I don't believe either way for certain. I lean towards theism, but I still accept the possibility of a lack of a higher power.

To me, it breaks down like this:
-1 = Atheist: You don't believe in god
-.5 = Agnostic atheist
0 = Agnostic
.5 = Agnostic theist
1 = Theist: Belief in god

[urangutan]

You still only have two steps in belief. Those who believe and those who are unsure, uncertain, undecided or whatever else they may be. The issue may have many aspects to level of belief but believing in God or not, is not a different belief, rather a difference in belief. The Athiest and the Theist are both still believers.

[Deftil]

I think if you are unsure then you don't really believe. If you really believed, then you wouldn't be unsure! (as obvious as it sounds)

To clarify - this is specifically in regards to belief in a god.

I don't think it's accurate to say that agnoticism is "kind of" believing. It's cognitive realization that there may or may not be a god, but that isn't the same as actually believing in a god, even partly.

[Victor Eremita]

Agnosticism is like knowledge, and Atheism/Theism is like belief. We lack knowledge of the truth value of "God Exists"; but we can still have an opinion of it (or not).

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by rhythmicidea

Atheists I have talked to claim that you either believe, or don't believe. And that there is no middle ground.

I'm an atheist, and like theists although we share a basic assertion, we don't all say the same thing. I personally would answer your basic question with: Of course there's middle ground, the one that says, "I don't know if I believe or not".

But if I can offer some unsolicited advice, I think it a good, productive and enlightening experience for everyone to discover where they stand. It's very easy (even natural) for folks to just kind of, "... let the issue sit" without taking a stance. The only problem I see with this is that every action we take, every decision - even down to our very value system - is underpinned by our concept of mortality and continuance. To not explore this, within yourself, places a life on "autopilot"... ungrounded and done in ignorance of the "self".

Making this journey is not so much a "let's look at evidence!" as it is the *discovery* of where you are now. Read, talk, pray, debate, ponder, research and most importantly: Think about it. For those who sit on the agnostic fence (which is, of course, everyone's right) there is - I believe - a basic feeling inside them, leaning one way or the other.

Its only after some very serious, very private introspection that you can find wherein you lie.

Hope this makes sense, Cheers!

-------

[jgweed]

Logic tells us that it is impossible to be a member of contradictory classes at the same time. But in this discussion, can we clearly define either the classes or the copula?
God
Existence
Belief
Faith
Knowledge

As we consider the definitions of the words we use, and existential examples of the many variations (definitions), does not this open a possibility of many variations that might tend to invalidate a strictly either/or viewpoint? And are we not talking about human opinion?

The original posts seems to serve as an useful reminder.

[nameless]

There is evidence of an entire spectrum of 'belief', from none to all and every degree of belief between. Some have little belief, not even enough to act upon (but it does tend to grow.. self validate, propagate), others more so...
Thats this experience, anyway..
Peace

[Khethil]

Hmmm, well...

Yea, there's an entire spectrum in belief intensities (whether positive or negative). No doubt about that. And for sure, the wide range of human opinion varies. But whether it's +.00001 or +9,999,999, that's still a "believer". This isn't pigeon-holing folks, it's a method of defined syntax (the terms we're discussing here) that gives the listener/reader an idea where the communicator's coming from. Nothing more...

I dunno, I guess I fail to understand the hesitation to classify one's theology as believing, non-believing or "not sure how I believe". And although I can't speak for others, I'm guessing that most of us are open to input, sharing and experiences; it's not like ones belief system can't change. Could it be the horrid stigma many cultures have placed on being a "non-believer"?

But it's all good! I'm with you folks - as long as I can come play in the sandbox with y'all, I'm happy.