The default position...

[Curious George]

No, not at all. Why would that follow? I belong to many different categories - so do you.

Sorry that should have read in some instance fall exclusively...And in other instances fall into a broader category....

 

[ArtieE]

Do you know what I was replying to, or why, or my reasoning for listing such things?
Also have you ever even seen the definition of atheist?

I might refer you back to my OP...

In the post I responded to you confuse atheism and agnosticism and mix them up.

 

[Curious George]

No, of course not. I exclude agnostic theists.What is the difference in practice or evidence?

The difference?? Didn't we just cover several pages that illustrates the difference?

 

[Bunyip]

The difference?? Didn't we just cover several pages that illustrates the difference?

No, you have ignored every one of my explanations. You have not identified any meaningful difference to me between not being a theist and believing there is no god..

 

[Curious George]

No, of course not. I exclude agnostic theists.What is the difference in practice or evidence?

Don't worry though while this solves the problem I still disagree with the inclusion of weak atheists and implicit atheists in the category atheism...But I think we have covered that in other threads.

 

[Curious George]

No, you have ignored every one of my explanations. You have not identified any meaningful difference to me between not being a theist and believing there is no god..

Is an implicit atheist a strong atheist? Or even easier is a baby a strong atheist?

 

[ArtieE]

The default position is agnostic, but in that it rejects belief because of a lack of knowledge or belief that such knowledge is unattainable, is by these definitions a version of weak atheism because they do not believe God exists.

Nonsense. You can perfectly well be an agnostic theist not knowing but believing God exists.

 

[Deathbydefault]

In the post I responded to you confuse atheism and agnosticism and mix them up.

Do I?
I believe I was going by definition when I made that post.

The two are very similar so maybe the wording confused you?
I'm usually careful with what I say, I research definitions repeatedly.
[Edit] I follow the internet equivalent to "think before you speak" 99% of the time.

Could you tell me how I mixed them up?

 

[Curious George]

Nonsense. You can perfectly well be an agnostic theist not knowing but believing God exists.

I suppose this is true. One can say they cannot have knowledge or possess knowledge regarding the truth or falsity but believe regardless... I was referring to agnostics based on the default positions discussed in previous posts.

 

[ArtieE]

Do I?
I believe I was going by definition when I made that post.

The two are very similar so maybe the wording confused you?
I'm usually careful with what I say, I research definitions repeatedly.
[Edit] I follow the internet equivalent to "think before you speak" 99% of the time.

Could you tell me how I mixed them up?

When you talk about just atheists and belief or absence thereof logic and evidence is irrelevant. They become relevant if you talk about agnostic atheists.

 

[Curious George]

No, you have ignored every one of my explanations. You have not identified any meaningful difference to me between not being a theist and believing there is no god..

Btw, I wouldn't ignore you... or your explanation. Once you understand what I was saying...go back and read through. I most certainly did not intend to ignore anything.

 

[ArtieE]

Is an implicit atheist a strong atheist? Or even easier is a baby a strong atheist?

Is there no difference between a person who says "I believe God doesn't exist" and a person who says "I don'tbelieve God doesn't exist"? How is it possible not to see any difference?

 

[Curious George]

Current definitions that are used hold
Weak atheist does not believe God exists
*edit* just realized as I was driving that I should have defined weak atheists as those who reject the the statement God exists as true, such that they do not believe God exists.
Strong atheist believes god does not exist
(The difference is where the negation is placed)

Implicit atheist are those(or things) that do not believe because they have no concept of God.

The default position is agnostic, but in that it rejects belief because of a lack of knowledge or belief that such knowledge is unattainable, is by these definitions a version of weak atheism because they do not believe God exists.

However it is possible to restate an agnostic position such that they believe the statement God exists and the statement God does not exist are true. This then requires further definition of theism if one wishes to continue to define atheism by "not theist"

This is what they are grappling the reason for which they are asserting my statement lacks reasoning.

 

[Curious George]

Is there no difference between a person who says "I believe God doesn't exist" and a person who says "I don'tbelieve God doesn't exist"? How is it possible not to see any difference?

No it is very different. That was the point of the rhetorical question there. Perhaps you were not following or able to follow the discussion.

Bunyip had said there was no difference based on the definition that I used. I said there was. Binyip then stated that I have not identified a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no god. I used the rhetoric to illustrate one of the largest examples that I know. One which I believe bunyip had previously acknowledged by declaring babies as implicit atheists.

 

[ArtieE]

No it is very different. That was the point of the rhetorical question there. Perhaps you were not following or able to follow the discussion.

Bunyip had said there was no difference based on the definition that I used. I said there was. Binyip then stated that I have not identified a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no god. I used the rhetoric to illustrate one of the largest examples that I know. One which I believe bunyip had previously acknowledged by declaring babies as implicit atheists.

Oops. That post was for Bunyip not you. Difficult sometimes on a mobile phone.

 

[Willamena]

No, you have ignored every one of my explanations. You have not identified any meaningful difference to me between not being a theist and believing there is no god..

"Not being a theist" is being a smoker, a pianist, a left-handed person, a goat, or the moon. It's too broad to be any sort of useful definition of atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

"Not being a theist" is being a smoker, a pianist, a left-handed person, a goat, or the moon. It's too broad to be any sort of useful definition of atheist.

A non-smoker can be a pianist, a left-handed person, a goat, or the moon. Only people who want to make themselves look ridiculous would include goats or the moon among non-smokers.

 

[Deathbydefault]

When you talk about just atheists and belief or absence thereof logic and evidence is irrelevant. They become relevant if you talk about agnostic atheists.

Your point is a missed hit.
White for A7.

 

[ArtieE]

Your point is a missed hit.
White for A7.

Sorry you missed it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Sorry you missed it.

Tsk tsk, you'll never sink a battleship with that attitude.