William wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:58 pm
Even so, your retort did nothing to clear up that confusion, which is the point I am making re the claims folk make as to what makes an atheist an atheist. Presently the answer to that question appears to be unclear.
It's clear if you stick to this definition or definitions alone the same line, this is what makes an atheist: anyone who does not affirm the existence of god(s).
They do not lack care - they lack belief in gods. Folk who lack care, can be non-theists or theists
If that's what makes an "essentially atheists," then I am essentially an atheist given that I also lack beliefs in gods, same as those Asian/European I mentioned. I differ from them, not because of this essential feature, but how because I care enough to debate theists.
I am arguing that they are actually being atheists because lacking belief in gods is not a position of activity but of lacking.
If anything they are MORE atheistic than active non-theists/anti-theists, which is what the OP topic appears to be examining.
Okay, how do you propose we measure the level of atheistic-ness?
I proposed a simple binary yes, no. As per my first point in this post. What advantage does your proposal have?
It describes folk who are active in giving argument for why they lack belief in gods.
Then according to this, I am a non-theist.
To affirm something is to state emphatically or publicly.
According to this, I am also an anti-theist.
Atheists who quietly get on with their lives unperturbed by theism, appear to be displaying 'what an atheist is' whereas active non-theist/anti theists take their lack of belief in gods, a step or two further... but do not acknowledge this as being the case, thus confusion arises as a result of that lack of acknowledgment.
Careful there about what we acknowledge or don't acknowledge:
We readily acknowledge that I take steps to address theism, unlike those atheists who just get on with their lives.
What we do not acknowledge however, is that this difference does not make me any more or any less atheistic then they are, as per my first point re: binary yes, no.
Does it confuse you?
Well, it did. I had different impression of what a non-theist is and what an anti-theist is. Now that's you've explained what you meant, there is no more confusion. But confusion would arise again, the next person I speak to, because I won't know what they mean by non-theist and anti-theist, and they won't know what I mean by them.
Just as there are 'types' of theists [you acknowledge that don't you?] there are also types of atheists. What is so 'confusing' that uncommon terms should not be created in order to acknowledge the reality? Why resist such terms if they can help clarify where the source of confusion appears to lie?
The confusion lies in what the terms meant: being uncommon, there is no common understanding on what they mean. There would be no resistance if such terms does in fact help clarify what one's position is.
Perhaps more to the point, the actual resistance here is that somehow, I am seen as less of an atheist for being an anti-theist and non-theist. Being a Christians doesn't make one less of a theist, yet there you were, suggesting those atheist who don't argue here, are more atheistic. That's what I resist.
How did you reach that conclusion?
Because they are unable to affirm that they are unsure whether gods exist, unable to affirm that gods are unknowable.
If they are unsure whether gods exist or not, that is what the label 'agnostic' signifies.
That's the point. They don't hold the position of being unsure whether gods exist or not, hence not agnostic.
Then why behave contrary to that position?
I don't think I am behaving contrary to that position at all. What behavior am I exhibiting that you would not expect from someone who is not sure whether gods exist or not?
Is it a case that you are in two minds and sometimes you are unsure and other times you are being anti-theist, implying that you are sure?
I think my previous answer would suffice. I am unsure about whether gods exists - making me an agnostic, I am sure about theists' argument being rubbish, sure enough to state it publicly, making me anti-theist. These are compatible positions.
Because theist and non theist positions can be expressed positively and negatively.
When someone antagonistic is against theism or anti-theism, they are being negative.
Why insist on this being negative instead of leaving room between positive and negative. re: not-positive? I can attack a position without affirming the opposite conclusion.
Agnosticism is neither positive or negative but remains neutral, in the "I don't know" position. Positive and negative expression implies one does know - at least enough to attack or defend said positions.
Why can't one attack a position, while saying I don't know? See my marbles analogy presented elsewhere. An "oddist" says there are an odd number of marbles in this jar because the jar is red. I say, that's irrational, the color of the jar has no bearing on the number of marbles there in. I am anti-odd without being pro-even.
Agnosticism cannot be attacked and need not be defended.
What if a theist present an argument of knowing God for sure? What if an anti-theist presents an argument of disproving God for sure? These would count as attacks on agnosticism.
You are both neutral and negative?
How is that a real position?
I am sticking to my previous answer. It is real position: I am unsure as to gods' existence, making me a neutral. And I am sure theists arguments are faulty, making me a negative. (I'd rather say not positive here, but lets leave that aside for now.)
Unless what you are meaning is that some times you are neutral and other times you are negative...then you are switching position depending on whatever motivates you to do so at the time you do so.
I meant I am neutral all the time about subject A, and I am negative all the time about subject B. Which position is relevant, depends on the context. I am not changing position, the context is changing.
Would you say that you are not sure whether gods exist or not?
Yes, let me make that very clear. I am not sure whether gods exist or not.
Is that some, or all theistic arguments are faulty?
All the ones I have been presented with. Presumably, theists are not holding some arguments secret.
How can you be sure that is the case, if you are not sure whether gods exist? {or not}
A faulty argument can have a true conclusion, and it can have a false conclusion. As such whether gods exists or not, have no bearing on whether an argument for god is faulty or not. I can be sure because I can examine each argument as they are being presented, whether gods exist or not is not a factor here.
One can hold the neutral position of Agnostic [being not sure whether gods exist or not] and find fault in theistic arguments, even without resorting to being anti-theist.
Sure. I just so happens to care enough to make it public.
following the evidence replaces "No idea" agnosticism with some evidence or arguments to base a conclusion on. Yes, indeed. Even though the arguments and evidence is approached with a god -belief or a lack of one. Which is why control of education and the media is vital for either side.
