three types of atheist????

[Zwing]

Obviously there are different reasons for not having a belief in God - or Gods

That may be true, but there is only one good reason, and that is that theism is irrational. Obviously, people do all types of things bassed upon affect. Anybody, however, who becomes an atheist based upon an emotional reaction to life events needs to go back to square one, and perform a logical analysis. An emotional reaction against theism can but only lead one further astray. I was prompted to reevaluate by beliefs by emotion, but I became an atheist by means of the rational evaluation of the question, and not as a kneejerk reaction to my affective response.

Someone who thinks that claims for the existence of god can't be evaluated as true or false because the term "god" is incoherent is an ignostic.

What would the etymology of this be? Perhaps Latin in- ("not") + Greek γνωστός (gnostos, "known")? It would be a bit strange, and would have the same essential meaning as "agnostic".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That may be true, but there is only one good reason, and that is that theism is irrational. Anybody who becomes an atheist based upon an emotional reaction to life events needs to go back to square one, and perform a logical analysis.

What would the etymology of this be? Perhaps Latin in- ("not") + Greek γνωστός (gnostos, "known")? It would be a bit strange, and would have the same essential meaning as "agnostic".

"... that is that theism is irrational." Evidence for that and evidence for what rational is.

 

[Eddi]

Precisely. Different ways of becoming an atheist,​

​

Not different types of atheist as you stated in the OP​

So why then is it so irrational and objectionable for me to create a typology based on the different life-stories individuals may have gone through on their Atheist journey?

 

[Zwing]

"... that is that theism is irrational." Evidence for that and evidence for what rational is.

It is irrational because of the specific type of proposition the theistic proposition is, and the type of evidence demanded to prove the validity thereof. You know this already.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is irrational because of the type of proposition the theistic proposition is, and the type of evidence demanded to prove the validity thereof.

Free floating claim without evidence. You simply state that it is so and that is not evidence.

 

[Zwing]

You simply state that it is so and that is not evidence.

What requires evidence, the type of proposition, or the type of evidence required for validation? The type of proposition is obvious, and obvious things require no evidence. The type of evidence needed for validation is based upon sound rules of logical argument, as indicated by the famous atheist Lord Russell (I think that he knew a thing or two about formal logic, eh?)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What requires evidence, the type of proposition, or the type of evidence required for validation? The type of proposition is obvious, and obvious things require no evidence. The type of evidence needed for validation is based upon sound rules of logical argument, as indicated by Lord Russell (I think that he knew a thing or two about formal logic, eh?)

Okay, then explain how that works for the following claims or if it doesn't work.
The universe is physical.
2+2=∞
The cat is multicolored.
Killing another human is wrong.
The universe is logical.
You, Zwing, are rational.

The order is random, so just lay out, how it works in general or state how you do it for the individual ones.
Or if you have a link to the methodology, I will read it.

 

[ChristineM]

So why then is it so irrational and objectionable for me to create a typology based on the different life-stories individuals may have gone through on their Atheist journey?

The journey is not the same as the destination. If you want to muddy atheism then you can expect opposition

Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The journey is not the same as the destination. If you want to muddy atheism then you can expect opposition

Well, you still have to account for strong and weak atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would the etymology of this be? Perhaps Latin in- ("not") + Greek γνωστός (gnostos, "known")? It would be a bit strange, and would have the same essential meaning as "agnostic".

It was a neologism coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine in 1964, apparently:

Ignosticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Eddi]

The journey is not the same as the destination. If you want to muddy atheism then you can expect opposition

Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Nothing more, nothing less.

OK, we're obviously going nowhere here.......

I'd say that there are different ways to lack belief in God (or Gods) and that looking at these can help understand disbelief

You obviously disagree

There's no point carrying on with this

 

[ChristineM]

OK, we're obviously going nowhere here.......

I'd say that there are different ways to lack belief in God (or Gods) and that looking at these can help understand disbelief

You obviously disagree

There's no point carrying on with this

What you said was...

So, does this mean there are three types of Atheists?

I say no the route to becoming atheist may differ but once there disbelief in the existence of gods is universal for all atheists.

Several people have told you this. But feel free to hold your own opinion

 

[Eddi]

I say no the route to becoming atheist may differ but once there disbelief in the existence of gods is universal for all atheists.

I agree

That all atheists don't believe in God/Gods

And that that is how you define "Atheist"

But I stand by my typology

 

[ChristineM]

I agree

That all atheists don't believe in God/Gods

And that that is how you define "Atheist"

But I stand by my typology

You are welcome to do so.

Don't forget the atheist who was once a god believer but read the bible, the whole bible and grew out of god belief

 

[Zwing]

Okay, then explain how that works for the following claims or if it doesn't work.
The universe is physical.
2+2=∞
The cat is multicolored.
Killing another human is wrong.
The universe is logical.
You, Zwing, are rational.

The order is random, so just lay out, how it works in general or state how you do it for the individual ones.
Or if you have a link to the methodology, I will read it.

Dude, I don't have time to logically evaluate, in writing, six differing propositions. WTF? That resembles "work" too much, and is not a reasonable request. Why not stick with the instant proposition?

 

[Zwing]

It was a neologism coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine in 1964, apparently:

Ignosticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Igtheism" doesn't even obey proper morphological usage if the prefix "in-"; proper use would result in "intheism". See here:

in- - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Also, mixing a Latin prefix with a Greek lemma is not good practice. With all respect to Rabbi Wine, if we are going to create new words, we should at least attempt to do it properly. I do kind of like "ignosticism", nonetheless, if only for addressing a semantic blind spot. For a neologism meaning "unaware", I might recommend "inscient", from a hypothetical Latin "inscius", from Latin "in-" ("not") + Latin "scius" ("cognizant").

 

[Zwing]

I say no the route to becoming atheist may differ but once there disbelief in the existence of gods is universal for all atheists.

There is a difference between affirmatively stating that “there is no god which exists”, and stating that “I have no evidence for the existence of any god, but it might be possible that a god could exist”. Do you see the distinction?

 

[Heyo]

"Igtheism" doesn't even obey proper morphological usage if the prefix "in-"; proper use would result in "intheism". See here:

in- - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Also, mixing a Latin prefix with a Greek lemma is not good practice. With all respect to Rabbi Wine, if we are going to create new words, we should at least attempt to do it properly. I do kind of like "ignosticism", nonetheless, if only for addressing a semantic blind spot. For a neologism meaning "unaware", I might recommend "inscient", from a hypothetical Latin "inscius", from Latin "in-" ("not") + Latin "scius" ("cognizant").

The term "ignosticism" is more a reaction to the watering down of the term "agnosticism". While Agnosticism originally meant the same as ignosticism, the colloquial "agnosticism" has become the state of "fence sitting", "I don't know if gods exist". You could call me an Ignostic but I prefer (philosophical) Agnostic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dude, I don't have time to logically evaluate, in writing, six differing propositions. WTF? That resembles "work" too much, and is not a reasonable request. Why not stick with the instant proposition?

Okay, short brutal answer for logic, truth and the other words floating around. I can get away with do it differently in some cases. And no matter how indirect you do your answer, you run into the problem of, if it is true, that what I do, is not true, then how can I do it?

In other words. You are in effect a positivist for truth and I am a negativist as a skeptic. You try to do truth, I just test if I can do not true for any version of true.

 

[ChristineM]

There is a difference between affirmatively stating that “there is no god which exists”, and stating that “I have no evidence for the existence of any god, but it might be possible that a god could exist”. Do you see the distinction?

Yes, the second is agnostic