You do not get to force your definition of atheism on atheism. Atheism (logical belief -position) is non belief in one claim - the god -claim. You do not get to force on us an untenable claim of gnostic - type denial of a god. Especially as the only point I can see in doing that is to logically wrongfoot atheism. Atheists (myself included) may be very much convinced that none of the personal gods exist, and I also think the logic and evidence is against any sorta god. But I know I can't be sure.Non -belief has to be based on non -knowledge.
It is also a ploy that I'd propose rejecting (1) to point to this atheist or that and argue as though that individual was a spokesbod for all atheists. Your plonking assertion that the 'non -belief' position that is correct for atheism makes theists of us all is far wrong and damn near impudent in trying to frogmarch atheists into an untenable extreme claim. Hoo Boy. I will have a look at the Stanford article,but last time I read Stanford on atheism it was a disgrace and written by someone who did not understand atheism and didn't want to.I trust he's been sacked by now.
(I had a look and it's still a disgrace.It perhaps can be justified as cataloguing the misunderstandings of old philosophers and the misrepresentations of religion, but if that was the case,it should say so. I still think the writer should be sacked.)
(1)perhaps you'd explain how non belief in a god claim makes us 'maybe' theists. If you can't do it, I think atheism deserves an apology. (p.s -I guess you misinterpret 'agnosticism'as a 'half -belief that God is real'. .No,that is Deism/irreligious Theism, not agnosticism).
viewtopic.php?p=1089337#p1089337
