seeker wrote:
In synthesis: all agnostics are negative atheists, but not viceversa.

Both agnostics and positive atheists are negative atheists. (Of course, it sounds odd to say that positive atheists are also negative atheists—but it's true.)
To put it more clearly, both neutralistic atheists and antitheistic atheists are nontheists.

seeker wrote:
Also, I don't think agnosticism and neutralism are synonymous. Agnosticism refers to epistemic issues, so a person might reject neutralism and adopt a certain degree of belief or disbelief for other (non-epistemic) reasons or causes (e.g. pragmatism, emotion), and yet this person might remain agnostic about this issue.

"Agnosticism" is sometimes used in the sense of "epistemic agnosticism" and sometimes in the sense of "doxastic agnosticism", the latter of which is synonymous with "agnostic neutralism", referring to the suspension of judgment with regard to theism and antitheism. Doxastic agnostics/agnostic neutralists believe neither in the existence nor in the nonexistence of God/gods.
And when antitheism/positive atheism and agnosticism are directly contrasted with one another in a sentence, then it is clear that in such a context "agnosticism" means "doxastic agnosticism"/"agnostic neutralism".

Now, to express myself more precisely, we can basically distinguish between arguments for antitheism/positive atheism and arguments for doxastic agnosticism/agnostic neutralism.

Xeno wrote:

seeker wrote:

Xeno wrote:seeker, read your own OP. It conflates into a single set of atheist arguments both non-belief and proof-of-nonexistence positions.

The fact that I've define a set with different kinds of things doesn't imply that I'm conflating those things. Saying that you want to buy apples and bananas doesn't imply you cannot distinguish between apples and bananas.

It does if you represent both apples and bananas as a form of citrus. Do you specialise in avoiding points?

Which point was avoided? Apples and bananas are not in the set of "citrus", but they're in the same set of "fruits" (and in the set of "thing to buy" in this example). Arguments for non-belief and arguments for inexistence are in different subsets, but they're in the same set of "arguments that might be used by an atheist to counter theist arguments".

Xeno wrote:

seeker wrote:

Xeno wrote:Is it that you have not given the question any thought, or do not wish to say?

I have thought about the question, and I have said my thoughts in other threads. Why should I repeat my thoughts here, if they're off-topic? If you're interested in my thoughts, you can always ask.

If you think my explicit, multiply asked, question is answered elsewhere then why not provide a link rather than avoiding the question?

Which question was avoided? You've never asked me about my thoughts. You asked me if I have given the question any thought (answer: yes, I have thought) and if I don not wish to say (answer: I have no problem with saying my thoughts). I'm a fictionalist about gods. This means that I think that gods are fictions created by human beings. I think this thought is more justified than non-fictionalism about gods, and I can argue this metathesis if a non-fictionalist tries to counter the plausibility of my claim.

Teuton wrote:

seeker wrote:
In synthesis: all agnostics are negative atheists, but not viceversa.

Both agnostics and positive atheists are negative atheists. (Of course, it sounds odd to say that positive atheists are also negative atheists—but it's true.)
To put it more clearly, both neutralistic atheists and antitheistic atheists are nontheists.

I agree.

Teuton wrote:

seeker wrote:
Also, I don't think agnosticism and neutralism are synonymous. Agnosticism refers to epistemic issues, so a person might reject neutralism and adopt a certain degree of belief or disbelief for other (non-epistemic) reasons or causes (e.g. pragmatism, emotion), and yet this person might remain agnostic about this issue.

"Agnosticism" is sometimes used in the sense of "epistemic agnosticism" and sometimes in the sense of "doxastic agnosticism", the latter of which is synonymous with "agnostic neutralism", referring to the suspension of judgment with regard to theism and antitheism. Doxastic agnostics/agnostic neutralists believe neither in the existence nor in the nonexistence of God/gods.
And when antitheism/positive atheism and agnosticism are directly contrasted with one another in a sentence, then it is clear that in such a context "agnosticism" means "doxastic agnosticism"/"agnostic neutralism".

I think your terminology would be confusing. Agnostic means "lack of gnosis", so I think it is always epistemic. A doxastic neutralist might not be agnostic, and an agnostic person might not be a doxastic neutralist.

seeker wrote:
I think your terminology would be confusing. Agnostic means "lack of gnosis", so I think it is always epistemic.

It's not, simply because, as a matter of fact, many people and most nonacademics use "agnosticism" in the sense of "doxastic agnosticism", and there's nothing linguistically impermissible about doing so, the word's etymology notwithstanding. By "I'm an agnostic" they mean nothing but "I'm neither a theist nor an antitheist".

Teuton wrote:

seeker wrote:
I think your terminology would be confusing. Agnostic means "lack of gnosis", so I think it is always epistemic.

It's not, simply because, as a matter of fact, many people and most nonacademics use "agnosticism" in the sense of "doxastic agnosticism", and there's nothing linguistically impermissible about doing so, the word's etymology notwithstanding. By "I'm an agnostic" they mean nothing but "I'm neither a theist nor an antitheist".

I've said "confusing", not "impermissible". Of course it's permissible, but it doesn't mean that it's not confusing.

Teuton wrote:Now, to express myself more precisely, we can basically distinguish between arguments for antitheism/positive atheism and arguments for doxastic agnosticism/agnostic neutralism.

I would consider something to be an "argument for neutralism" if it weakens both antitheism and theism. If an argument weakens theism but doesn't weaken or strengthen antitheism, I'd say it's an argument for nontheism but not for neutralism.

seeker wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:That seems to be a bit too contrived for me, but anyway - it's your thread!

Why do you think it's "contrived" to focus on arguments and not on unargued positions? I don't think it's artificial to treat them as different phenomena. A baby has a nonbelief position, but a baby has no arguments.

Which is, in and of itself, an argument.

Xeno wrote:seeker, read your own OP. It conflates into a single set of atheist arguments both non-belief and proof-of-nonexistence positions.

seeker wrote:Which point was avoided? ... Arguments for non-belief and arguments for inexistence are in different subsets, but they're in the same set of "arguments that might be used by an atheist to counter theist arguments".

I have retained the reference to your own OP and dropped most of the rest. The basis of argument is different. The intent is different. The burden of proof is different. At this point I am taking it you simply do not understand that, for otherwise I would take you as a classical wibbler.

seeker wrote:

Xeno wrote:

seeker wrote:
I have thought about the question, and I have said my thoughts in other threads. Why should I repeat my thoughts here, if they're off-topic? If you're interested in my thoughts, you can always ask.

If you think my explicit, multiply asked, question is answered elsewhere then why not provide a link rather than avoiding the question?

Which question was avoided?

The explicit question about your reason for this enquiry. It has been asked several times. As I have already suggested, it is now less the answer itself that interests me so much as the extent to which you will go not to answer. Rest assured my interest is waning in concert with expectations of any worthwhile response.

seeker wrote:You've never asked me about my thoughts.

A reason I would not ask you for your thoughts is reinforced post by post.

Take the following as an example. Here in concise form is the original question, your response and the follow-ups:

Xeno wrote:Why have you started this thread, beyond the supposed classification?

seeker wrote:I'm interested in doing what I proposed to do.

Xeno wrote:...what would you do with the supposed taxonomy if you had it? ...
Is it that you have not given the question any thought, or do not wish to say?

seeker wrote:You asked me if I have given the question any thought (answer: yes, I have thought) and if I do not wish to say (answer: I have no problem with saying my thoughts) <off-topic rambling deleted>.

The non-answer in your first response followed by weak prevarication in your last response are obvious. Relax, you need no longer bother. struck out, and another comment deleted, after questions subsequently answered

Xeno wrote:

seeker wrote:
Which question was avoided?

The explicit question about your reason for this enquiry. It has been asked several times.

I thought I've answered your question: I think that the identification of arguments allows me to know different thoughts about a particular issue, and the classification of arguments allows me to know some similarities and differences between those thoughts. The strategy of identifying and classifying arguments has helped me to know the diversity of perspectives about other areas, so I thought it might have the same positive effect in this case. My proposal was broad because I wanted to include the diversity of perspectives that atheists can have when they argue. Does it answer your question?

Xeno wrote:...what would you do with the supposed taxonomy if you had it?

I didn't see this question before, sorry. I'm not planning to do anything in particular with the supposed taxonomy, except to find out if other people think about these issues in a different way than I do, and to explore if I can learn something from those different ways to think. Does it answer your question?

Now let me ask you a question. Do you have any reason to oppose a taxonomy of atheist arguments? Do you think it's somehow harmful or dangerous or something like that? I was surprised by the hostile reactions that some people has had to this thread (for example, I don't understand why Onyx8 wrote about a "rathole").

seeker wrote:Now let me ask you a question. Do you have any reason to oppose a taxonomy of atheist arguments? Do you think it's somehow harmful or dangerous or something like that?

Please remember I distinguish non-belief (atheism) from positive belief-not (anti-theism).

I see no utility in a taxonomy of atheist arguments except as a function of theistic arguments, so a structure I would recommend would be theism argument type then response types. Common elements between response types may be noted, arising largely out of repetition of logical or evidentiary errors in the original theist argument.

I see interest but little utility in anti-theism arguments given I think they are no more successful than arguments for theism.

I see problems where the two above are treated as one.

However, this is yours with which to run. I gave this point of view in shorter form on the first page of this thread; the rest has been a diversion.

Spearthrower wrote:

seeker wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:That seems to be a bit too contrived for me, but anyway - it's your thread!

Why do you think it's "contrived" to focus on arguments and not on unargued positions? I don't think it's artificial to treat them as different phenomena. A baby has a nonbelief position, but a baby has no arguments.

Which is, in and of itself, an argument.

Yes, it is, but I still don't understand why do you think it's "contrived". Could you explain your thoughts?

Xeno wrote:

seeker wrote:Now let me ask you a question. Do you have any reason to oppose a taxonomy of atheist arguments? Do you think it's somehow harmful or dangerous or something like that?

Please remember I distinguish non-belief (atheism) from positive belief-not (anti-theism).

I see no utility in a taxonomy of atheist arguments except as a function of theistic arguments, so a structure I would recommend would be theism argument type then response types. Common elements between response types may be noted, arising largely out of repetition of logical or evidentiary errors in the original theist argument.

That sounds like an interesting taxonomy. Do you have any further ideas about how it would look?

Xeno wrote:I see interest but little utility in anti-theism arguments given I think they are no more successful than arguments for theism.

Mmmm, I wouldn't say that they have little utility. I think that the utility of an argument is not necessarily measured by the effectiveness to persuade an interlocutor. Other consequences might be valuable too. When a person learns or creates an argument and uses it in his interpersonal or intrapersonal dialogue, the argument might cause changes in some interpersonal relations, or in some subjective feelings, or in some goals of the person, even if the interlocutor is not persuaded. Those changes might be valuable or disvaluable, and I think they should be included if we assess an argument's utility. Would you agree?

Xeno wrote:I see problems where the two above are treated as one.

OK, I agree that it's better to distinguish them. Anyway, I think both kinds might be valuable and might be used by the same person in different moments. Would you agree?

This whole idea that atheism is a lack of belief in a deity is a funny one, it doesnt correspond to how the term is used within the scholarship. But nevermind that. Posters here should at least recognize that there are atheological arguments which argue for the nonexistence of god whether they use such arguments or not.

Mick wrote:This whole idea that atheism is a lack of belief in a deity is a funny one, it doesnt correspond to how the term is used within the scholarship.

It does correspond to what scholars (e.g. Michael Martin) call "negative atheism".

Mick wrote:But nevermind that. Posters here should at least recognize that there are atheological arguments which argue for the nonexistence of god whether they use such arguments or not.

I agree: there are arguments which argue for the nonexistence of god. Also, there are arguments which argue for other theses (e.g. agnosticism, neutralism, nontheism).

seeker wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

seeker wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:That seems to be a bit too contrived for me, but anyway - it's your thread!

Why do you think it's "contrived" to focus on arguments and not on unargued positions? I don't think it's artificial to treat them as different phenomena. A baby has a nonbelief position, but a baby has no arguments.

Which is, in and of itself, an argument.

Yes, it is, but I still don't understand why do you think it's "contrived". Could you explain your thoughts?

Because your OP conflicts with your later demands. You want positive arguments, rather than looking at all the types arguments, which means your taxonomy will necessarily be incomplete.

Mick wrote:This whole idea that atheism is a lack of belief in a deity is a funny one, it doesnt correspond to how the term is used within the scholarship. But nevermind that. Posters here should at least recognize that there are atheological arguments which argue for the nonexistence of god whether they use such arguments or not.

What scholarship?

I don't recall ever saying that there aren't arguments for the non-existence of god. All I recall doing is saying that there are also implicit positions which also constitute atheism, regardless of whether that's 'funny' to you, or not.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mick wrote:This whole idea that atheism is a lack of belief in a deity is a funny one, it doesnt correspond to how the term is used within the scholarship. But nevermind that. Posters here should at least recognize that there are atheological arguments which argue for the nonexistence of god whether they use such arguments or not.

What scholarship?

I don't recall ever saying that there aren't arguments for the non-existence of god. All I recall doing is saying that there are also implicit positions which also constitute atheism, regardless of whether that's 'funny' to you, or not.

This is what I am talking about Spearthrower. You take a completely mundane statement and perceive some phantom attack on you. Mick never stated you said that there weren't arguments for the non-existence of God. He made a completely innocent statement "This whole idea that atheism is a lack of belief in a deity is a funny one..." , and you come back at him stating, "All I recall doing is saying that there are also implicit positions which also constitute atheism, regardless of of whether that's 'funny' to you, or not." It seems like you are trying to pick a fight. Mick isn't making any claim about what you did or did not do.

Disagreeing with Mick, or anyone, is fine. Just try not to misrepresent them by implying that they are attacking you. Mick's response was directed at your words, not you. If you think that Mick was claiming that you said there weren't arguments for the non-existence of God (which can only be implied, and perceived, because that conclusion is in no way made explicit by Mick), all you need to do is clarify your statement, i.e. "I never claimed that there aren't arguments for the non-existence of God. What I said is that there are implicit positions which also constitute atheism." You could even throw in a "I don't think the idea of 'lacking belief' is funny at all, and regardless of whether or not you, or anyone else, thinks it's funny, it is the position held by many contemporary atheists, and that in and of itself has merit."

(Hopefully) No one is trying to attack you. There is no need for you to defend yourself. Simply defend your statements. This can be done without bringing the character of someone who attacks your statements into question.

Spearthrower wrote:

seeker wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

seeker wrote:
Why do you think it's "contrived" to focus on arguments and not on unargued positions? I don't think it's artificial to treat them as different phenomena. A baby has a nonbelief position, but a baby has no arguments.

Which is, in and of itself, an argument.

Yes, it is, but I still don't understand why do you think it's "contrived". Could you explain your thoughts?

Because your OP conflicts with your later demands. You want positive arguments, rather than looking at all the types arguments, which means your taxonomy will necessarily be incomplete.

Where have you found such conflict? What has made you think that I only want positive arguments?
I'm not, you're wrong with that: I want to include any argument that atheists might use.
My objection was that some people talked about "lack of belief" as an unargued position, and a person denied that there were atheist arguments at all. I don't have any personal problem with unargued atheism, but if it doesn't include any argument, then it would be outside the topic of this thread. Anyway, the claim that "atheism as lack of belief exists before being able to offer arguments" could be used as a premise, if someone wants to include it in an argument, and then it would be on-topic (but this hasn't happened yet).

seeker wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

seeker wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Which is, in and of itself, an argument.

Yes, it is, but I still don't understand why do you think it's "contrived". Could you explain your thoughts?

Because your OP conflicts with your later demands. You want positive arguments, rather than looking at all the types arguments, which means your taxonomy will necessarily be incomplete.

Where have you found such conflict? What has made you think that I only want positive arguments?
I'm not, you're wrong with that: I want to include any argument that atheists might use.
My objection was that some people talked about "lack of belief" as an unargued position, and a person denied that there were atheist arguments at all. I don't have any personal problem with unargued atheism, but if it doesn't include any argument, then it would be outside the topic of this thread. Anyway, the claim that "atheism as lack of belief exists before being able to offer arguments" could be used as a premise, if someone wants to include it in an argument, and then it would be on-topic (but this hasn't happened yet).

I presented ignosticism and posttheism within a few posts of the OP.

Some lists of arguments (most of them for positive atheism):
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... nce_of_god
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsag ... theism.htm

seeker wrote:Some lists of arguments (most of them for positive atheism):
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... nce_of_god
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsag ... theism.htm

All 3 of those links hold the same two arguments I set forth on the first page, but which weren't addressed.