Thomas Eshuis wrote:

scott1328 wrote:
Non belief is more useful when one hopes to avoid these quibbles.

Agreed, however theists and atheists (Scot being a resident example) will still interpet that to mean the believe in non existence.

I don't see the problem here when someone describes themselves as an atheist the exact meaning isn't clear until there is some clarification.

For example an agnostic atheist might say I don't know if god exists but could go on to say but I disbelieve god exists. Alternatively the agnostic atheist might say I don't believe god exists, (the negative form).

So long as atheism is defined in terms of an active disbelief and/or a passive lack of belief who cares?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:Oh, so you want to try to correct my posts, but not engage in productive discussion when doing so. OK, I guess.

I would love to engage in a productive discussion with you, but given your incessant condescension, failure to adress or defend points and general unwillingness to adress the point rather than the poster, I see no reason to waste more time on trying to have one with you.

I'd be delighted to engage in a productive discussion with you, too. Your own approach to discussion prevents this, unfortunately.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
In that case: except it isn't, linguistically speaking, alpha privative understood.

Ah, blindly asserting your initial blind assertion, always a strong argument, especially when it fails to adress the point being made.

I did, and not at all blindly, address the point being made, though: you declared "except it is [as straightforward as that], linguistically speaking" and told me that "The prefix a- tends to denote an absence of something, in this case theos or theism". So, I declared that "except it isn't [as straightforward as that], linguistically speaking", even with the alpha privative understood.

I'm just carrying on discussion (with you, anyway) at the level you establish. If you dislike that, you're welcome to not respond to my posts.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Wed Aug 2, 2017
…
1. Definitions of “Atheism”

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

First of all, according to the platonistic concept of a proposition, it is an abstract object, viz. the language-independent meaning of a declarative sentence. Such propositions are expressible by sentences belonging to the same language or to different languages, and they can even exist without being expressed by any sentence in any language. For instance, the English sentence "Snow is white" and the German sentence "Schnee ist weiß" express the same proposition.

[To be more precise, there is a strong and a weak platonistic conception of propositions: According to the strong one, propositions are neither rigidly nor generically dependent on language; that is, they are not only independent of a particular language such as English but also of all languages, such that their existence is independent of the existence of languages. According to the weak conception, propositions aren't rigidly but generically dependent on languages; that is, they don't depend on a particular language such as English, but they cannot exist unless there is one language at least. For the distinction between rigid and generic existential dependence, see this!]

I find it pretty odd to call theism a proposition. One of Draper's reasons for doing so is that "this is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false;" but if theism is defined as a belief, it makes equally sense to say that it is true or false, since beliefs can be true or false. Propositions are often regarded as the primary bearers of truth-values, but e.g. Bertrand Russell thought otherwise: "Truth is a property of beliefs, and derivatively of sentences which express beliefs." (Human Knowledge, 1948, 135)

One may call <God exists>/<Gods exist> the theistic proposition, but theism isn't this proposition but a certain propositional attitude toward it, viz. affirmation or belief. To be a theist is not just to entertain the thought that God exists/gods exist, but to entertain it "combined with a yes-feeling" (Russell). (Correspondingly, if you disbelieve that p, then you entertain the thought that p combined with a "no-feeling".)

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

scott1328 wrote:
Non belief is more useful when one hopes to avoid these quibbles.

Agreed, however theists and atheists (Scot being a resident example) will still interpet that to mean the believe in non existence.

I don't see the problem here when someone describes themselves as an atheist the exact meaning isn't clear until there is some clarification.

Neither do I.
I have some objection however, to people who seem to think themselves superior to both, because they're 'agnostics', as if that's some sort of inbetween or those who think only atheists who've pondered/investigated the topic can be considered True Atheists.

romansh wrote:For example an agnostic atheist might say I don't know if god exists but could go on to say but I disbelieve god exists.

Yep, I would fit under that catagory.

romansh wrote:So long as atheism is defined in terms of an active disbelief and/or a passive lack of belief who cares?

Theistic apologists who try to redefine the term to mean exclusively those who have an active belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:Oh, so you want to try to correct my posts, but not engage in productive discussion when doing so. OK, I guess.

I would love to engage in a productive discussion with you, but given your incessant condescension, failure to adress or defend points and general unwillingness to adress the point rather than the poster, I see no reason to waste more time on trying to have one with you.

I'd be delighted to engage in a productive discussion with you, too. Your own approach to discussion prevents this, unfortunately.

Fine, let's try again.
I am willing to have a productive discussion with you.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
In that case: except it isn't, linguistically speaking, alpha privative understood.

Ah, blindly asserting your initial blind assertion, always a strong argument, especially when it fails to adress the point being made.

I did, and not at all blindly, address the point being made, though

Nope, I made a point about how the prefix a- is commonly used.
You responded by making a pedantic assertion about linguistics rules, which turned out to be false anyway.

Tracer Tong wrote: you declared "except it is [as straightforward as that], linguistically speaking" and told me that "The prefix a- tends to denote an absence of something, in this case theos or theism". So, I declared that "except it isn't [as straightforward as that], linguistically speaking", even with the alpha privative understood.

Which is a blind assertion.

Tracer Tong wrote:I'm just carrying on discussion (with you, anyway) at the level you establish. If you dislike that, you're welcome to not to respond to my posts.

Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense.
You established the level of the discussion, since I was the one who was responding to your earlier post, which was nothing but a blind assertion that was factually incorrect when it comes the modern use of the English language.

But let's drop all the personal stuff and focus on the topic at hand:
1. Do you deny or affirm the fact that, as I demonstrated with current linguistic facts, that a- tends to denotes an absence or negation of the word it is affixed to?
2. Do you deny or affirm that, according to the etymological dictionary I linked to atheism orginates from atheos meaning without gods?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Fine, let's try again.
I am willing to have a productive discussion with you.

So you say, but the rest of this post suggests otherwise. So, you're going to get another post at the level you've established. If you want to try again, you can do so; if not, I repeat that you're welcome not to respond to my posts.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Nope,

Yep.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I made a point about how the prefix a- is commonly used.

A point which I addressed, yes.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You responded by making a pedantic assertion about linguistics rules, which turned out to be false anyway.

I didn't make a pendantic assertion about linguistic rules, and nothing I've said has "turned out to be false". This is just another blind counterfactual assertion of yours.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense.

Much as this is absolute nonsense. Blind and counterfactual, too.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You established the level of the discussion, since I was the one who was responding to your earlier post, which was nothing but a blind assertion that was factually incorrect when it comes the modern use of the English language.

I can't have established the level of discussion between us, since my first post wasn't directed towards you. Further, it didn't involve any blind assertions that were factually incorrect when it comes to anything. This is another blind, and indeed counterfactual, assertion about blind assertions, on your part.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:But let's drop all the personal stuff and focus on the topic at hand:

Sounds good.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 1. Do you deny or affirm the fact that, as I demonstrated with current linguistic facts, that a- tends to denotes an absence or negation of the word it is affixed to?

You've already got an answer to this (therefore blind) question.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 2. Do you deny or affirm that, according to the etymological dictionary I linked to atheism orginates from atheos meaning without gods?

I don't know which link you're talking about; please provide a quote.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Theistic apologists who try to redefine the term to mean exclusively those who have an active belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Here is the current online Oxford Dictionary definition:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Here is the entry from my 1990 Concise Oxford Dictionary (trust me you would not want this concise edition dropping on your bare feet)

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

So it would appear it is not so much a case of redefining atheism, as sticking to an older definition?
Which apologists redefine theism solely in the positive form?

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Theistic apologists who try to redefine the term to mean exclusively those who have an active belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Here is the current online Oxford Dictionary definition:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Here is the entry from my 1990 Concise Oxford Dictionary (trust me you would not want this concise edition dropping on your bare feet)

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

So it would appear it is not so much a case of redefining atheism, as sticking to an older definition?

I question whether the second definition is the original or older definition.

romansh wrote:
Which apologists redefine theism solely in the positive form?

Like I said; apologists, those with an agenda to paint atheists in an as negative light as possible.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Fine, let's try again.
I am willing to have a productive discussion with you.

So you say, but the rest of this post suggests otherwise.

I apologise if that is the impression you got, it was not my intention.

Tracer Tong wrote: So, you're going to get another post at the level you've established.

With all due respect, if you're looking for a productive discussion, stooping to your interlocutors level, real or imagined, isn't helpful nor rational.

Tracer Tong wrote: If you want to try again, you can do so; if not, I repeat that you're welcome not to respond to my posts.

I am trying my best and would appreciate it if you could resist making comments like the bolded bit.
I am endeavoring to post non-hostile and abrupt.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Nope,

Yep.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I made a point about how the prefix a- is commonly used.

A point which I addressed, yes.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You responded by making a pedantic assertion about linguistics rules, which turned out to be false anyway.

I didn't make a pendantic assertion about linguistic rules, and nothing I've said has "turned out to be false". This is just another blind counterfactual assertion of yours.

Could you restate/rephrase your actual point then, since I don't seem to understand it.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:But let's drop all the personal stuff and focus on the topic at hand:

Sounds good.

Excellent.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 1. Do you deny or affirm the fact that, as I demonstrated with current linguistic facts, that a- tends to denotes an absence or negation of the word it is affixed to?

You've already got an answer to this (therefore blind) question.

Like I said earlier in this response, I seem to have missed/not understood your answer, could you please rephrase/re-explain it?

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 2. Do you deny or affirm that, according to the etymological dictionary I linked to atheism orginates from atheos meaning without gods?

I don't know which link you're talking about; please provide a quote.

Apologies, I thought I had added them to the same post where I provided links about the alpha privative.
These:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

atheist (n.) Look up atheist at Dictionary.com
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

Definition of atheism in English:
atheism
noun
mass noun

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin

Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

Teuton wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Wed Aug 2, 2017
…
1. Definitions of “Atheism”

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

First of all, according to the platonistic concept of a proposition, it is an abstract object, viz. the language-independent meaning of a declarative sentence.

Teuton wrote: Such propositions are expressible by sentences belonging to the same language or to different languages, and they can even exist without being expressed by any sentence in any language. For instance, the English sentence "Snow is white" and the German sentence "Schnee ist weiß" express the same proposition.

[To be more precise, there is a strong and a weak platonistic conception of propositions: According to the strong one, propositions are neither rigidly nor generically dependent on language; that is, they are not only independent of a particular language such as English but also of all languages, such that their existence is independent of the existence of languages. According to the weak conception, propositions aren't rigidly but generically dependent on languages; that is, they don't depend on a particular language such as English, but they cannot exist unless there is one language at least. For the distinction between rigid and generic existential dependence, see this!]

I don't know how to phrase this non-abruptly but, why should I care?

Teuton wrote:I find it pretty odd to call theism a proposition.

I would not call it a proposition either, but a positive belief, ie the belief that X exists, rather than withholding belief or believing that X does not exist.

Teuton wrote: One of Draper's reasons for doing so is that "this is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false;" but if theism is defined as a belief, it makes equally sense to say that it is true or false, since beliefs can be true or false.

I think the risk there is conflating whether someone truly believes X, or whether X is true.

Teuton wrote: Propositions are often regarded as the primary bearers of truth-values, but e.g. Bertrand Russell thought otherwise: "Truth is a property of beliefs, and derivatively of sentences which express beliefs." (Human Knowledge, 1948, 135)

Again, I fail to see how this is particularly relevant.

Teuton wrote:
One may call <God exists>/<Gods exist> the theistic proposition, but theism isn't this proposition but a certain propositional attitude toward it, viz. affirmation or belief. To be a theist is not just to entertain the thought that God exists/gods exist, but to entertain it "combined with a yes-feeling" (Russell). (Correspondingly, if you disbelieve that p, then you entertain the thought that p combined with a "no-feeling".)

I get why some people keep thinking that, but it isn't a true dichotomy.
It isn't:
A. X is true. (yes feeling)
or
B. X is false. (no feeling)

It's:
A. X is true. (yes feeling)
or
B. X is false. (no feeling)
or
C. I don't know whether X is true or false therefore I withhold belief. (neither yes, nor no feeling)

Anyway, what's your feeling on stanfords defintion of atheism Teuton?

Since you've committed to adjusting the level of your posts, I'll do likewise.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Could you restate/rephrase your actual point then, since I don't seem to understand it.

Of course. Scott1328 volunteered that "a-theos means "without God"". I suggested that this was an oversimplification, and added that the meaning he had assigned to the term looked christianised, even while the term predates Christianity by a considerable margin. After Scott's thoughtful reply (for which I remain grateful), I elaborated that atheos has a broad semantic range, often serving as a term of moral evaluation, without corresponding doxastic content, and can even be used of theists. I suggested that, for the purposes of thinking about the meaning of our term "atheism", citing this Greek forebear might for this reason, among others, not be particularly helpful.

I'm happy to expand on these points if you wish.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Like I said earlier in this response, I seem to have missed/not understood your answer, could you please rephrase/re-explain it?

In prior posts, I indicated I was aware of the alpha privative ("alpha privative understood"-I even was the first to use the term in our exchange!), which is hopefully not too surprising. But it's not clear how citing this challenges any position I've taken, and in fact suggests that position hasn't been securely grasped.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Apologies, I thought I had added them to the same post where I provided links about the alpha privative.
These:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

atheist (n.) Look up atheist at Dictionary.com
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

Definition of atheism in English:
atheism
noun
mass noun

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin

Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

That seems like a plausible derivation, but I do wonder how the etymologists have determined that "atheism" doesn't derive equally from one of atheos' cognates: atheotes is the noun, for example. But then I'm not up on modern lexicography, I guess.

Tracer Tong wrote:Since you've committed to adjusting the level of your posts, I'll do likewise.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Could you restate/rephrase your actual point then, since I don't seem to understand it.

Of course. Scott1328 volunteered that "a-theos means "without God"". I suggested that this was an oversimplification, and added that the meaning he had assigned to the term looked christianised, even while the term predates Christianity by a considerable margin.

I think, if anything, that's more of a typo than any intentional confusion on Scott's part.

Tracer Tong wrote:After Scott's thoughtful reply (for which I remain grateful), I elaborated that atheos has a broad semantic range, often serving as a term of moral evaluation, without corresponding doxastic content, and can even be used of theists. I suggested that, for the purposes of thinking about the meaning of our term "atheism", citing this Greek forebear might for this reason, among others, not be particularly helpful.

I see.

Tracer Tong wrote:I'm happy to expand on these points if you wish.

Seems clear so far.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Like I said earlier in this response, I seem to have missed/not understood your answer, could you please rephrase/re-explain it?

In prior posts, I indicated I was aware of the alpha privative ("alpha privative understood"-I even was the first to use the term in our exchange!), which is hopefully not too surprising. But it's not clear how citing this challenges any position I've taken, and in fact suggests that position hasn't been securely grasped.

I misunderstood your initial point, it's pretty irrelevant at this juncture.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Apologies, I thought I had added them to the same post where I provided links about the alpha privative.
These:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

atheist (n.) Look up atheist at Dictionary.com
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

Definition of atheism in English:
atheism
noun
mass noun

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin

Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

That seems like a plausible derivation, but I do wonder how the etymologists have determined that "atheism" doesn't derive equally from one of atheos' cognates: atheotes is the noun, for example. But then I'm not up on modern lexicography, I guess.

I think the etymology isn't from (a) supposed greek word, but a modern word created out of the root words/concepts of the Greek: A- and theos.
That is to say, the word was constructed if you will, from the Greek/Latin prefix of without (a-) and the root Greek word for god(s) (theos).
I don't think the etymology dictionary is saying it orginates from the (ancient) Greek word of atheos.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: I think the etymology isn't from (a) supposed greek word, but a modern word created out of the root words/concepts of the Greek: A- and theos.
That is to say, the word was constructed if you will, from the Greek/Latin prefix of without (a-) and the root Greek word for god(s) (theos).
I don't think the etymology dictionary is saying it orginates from the (ancient) Greek word of atheos.

Well, the idea seems to be that the word comes into English from a French term, which itself comes from the Greek: "from French athéisme, from Greek atheos". My question is why it needs to be "from Greek atheos": why not also/instead "from Greek atheotes", for example? Again, though, this could be the result of an etymological convention I don't know about. Maybe I'll write to the OED, or something.

Tracer Tong wrote:

scott1328 wrote:a-theos means "without God"

It's not quite as straightforward as that, though. In fact, that seems to be a christianised meaning of a term that long predates the religion.

VazScep wrote:The etymology of "proposition" interests me, but I think I'd need Tracer Tong to help me out with it. The standard translation of Euclid's Elements uses the word "proposition" as mathematicians would nowadays use the word "theorem." But in many cases, what Euclid is proposing is something he can do.

Do you have an example of where Euclid is translated like this? I can have a look at the text to see what term he uses.

Literally from the get-go. Half of all of Euclid's propositions have this form, and they end Q.E.F rather than Q.E.D, since it's about constructing something rather than demonstrating something.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I question whether the second definition is the original or older definition.

Like I said; apologists, those with an agenda to paint atheists in an as negative light as possible.

Well if necessary I can post a picture of the dictionary definition and the ISBN page if this is required.

You see yourself as a strong atheist; you think that paints you in a negative light?
Personally I am a strong atheist regarding personal Gods but a bit more agnostic on the vaguer gods. Having said that I live my life as though there is no god. Is this a negative light?

I was hoping to have an example of an individual or two who have been painting weak atheists in a negative light.

romansh wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I question whether the second definition is the original or older definition.

Like I said; apologists, those with an agenda to paint atheists in an as negative light as possible.

Well if necessary I can post a picture of the dictionary definition and the ISBN page if this is required.

Half of them will just quote a different dictionary at you, or use the agnosticism is the real word for lack of belief, at you.

romansh wrote:You see yourself as a strong atheist; you think that paints you in a negative light?

I don't. The exact opposite.
I am only a strong atheist with regards to gods with self contradicting qualities.

romansh wrote:
Personally I am a strong atheist regarding personal Gods but a bit more agnostic on the vaguer gods. Having said that I live my life as though there is no god. Is this a negative light?

To the apologist it is, as this 'allows' them to twist 'living as though no god' into 'believing there is no god', thereby shifting the burden of proof onto you.

romansh wrote:
I was hoping to have an example of an individual or two who have been painting weak atheists in a negative light.

Maybe negative light isn't the right phrasing, what I mean is words like disbelief are ambiguous enough for apologists to claim atheism means believing no gods exist.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:... what I mean is words like disbelief are ambiguous enough for apologists to claim atheism means believing no gods exist.

I am one of that kind of atheist myself, because a supernatural being is definitely a violation of the established laws of nature, so the chances of it existing are negligible.

The apologists are doing what they do best, moving goal posts, obfuscating, cherry picking, and generally lying their asses off. I don't care what they call me. I don't care if they think that I have a "belief" that is just like theirs. I don't care if they "believe" in evolution or the scientific method, or think the world is 6000 years old, or that penguins swam from Antarctica to the middle east and back again, or whatever other utter nonsense they subscribe to. Same goes for homeopaths, chakra diddlers, juice detoxers, and other assorted woo-heads. I try to have as little to do with them in real life as is reasonably possible. When I must deal with them I don't talk about their delusions.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Teuton wrote:
One may call <God exists>/<Gods exist> the theistic proposition, but theism isn't this proposition but a certain propositional attitude toward it, viz. affirmation or belief. To be a theist is not just to entertain the thought that God exists/gods exist, but to entertain it "combined with a yes-feeling" (Russell). (Correspondingly, if you disbelieve that p, then you entertain the thought that p combined with a "no-feeling".)

I get why some people keep thinking that, but it isn't a true dichotomy.
It isn't:
A. X is true. (yes feeling)
or
B. X is false. (no feeling)

It's:
A. X is true. (yes feeling)
or
B. X is false. (no feeling)
or
C. I don't know whether X is true or false therefore I withhold belief. (neither yes, nor no feeling)

Of course, one can entertain the thought that p without any associated yes-feeling or no-feeling; that is, one can think that p without thinking either that p is true or that p is false. (In ordinary-language usage, "to think that p" is used synonymously with "to believe that p", but here I don't do so.) But to think that p with a yes-feeling is to believe that p, and to think that p with a no-feeling is to believe that not-p. The trichotomy is yes–no-neither.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Anyway, what's your feeling on stanfords defintion of atheism Teuton?

As a matter of fact, we have two definitions, neither of which is "the true one":

1. negative atheism =def the absence/lack of the belief that theism is true.
2. positive atheism =def the belief that theism is false.

I prefer 1 as the default definition.

Teuton wrote:
As a matter of fact, we have two definitions, neither of which is "the true one":

1. negative atheism =def the absence/lack of the belief that theism is true.
2. positive atheism =def the belief that theism is false.

I prefer 1 as the default definition.

What about the proposition that deities are characters from fantasy stories invented by people living in pre-scientific cultures? It doesn't address directly whether the stories are true or false descriptions of deities, so you can draw your own conclusions. It looks for all the world like deities are the product of ignorant pre-scientific people's wishful thinking that there's somebody out there who cares, and cares enough to wreak havoc on people who don't accept the stories.

Some people still say they don't deny the existence of deities, despite knowing where the stories originate, but denying their existence is overreaching on the basis of crummy stories we have no idea how to rework in original ways. But, just in case some deity might exist, don't deny the existence of deities so as not to make the poor fucker(s) feel unloved.