Can you persuade me from Agnostic to Atheist?

[Ben Davis]

Don't conflate those; they are three different things. 

Not necessarily

Antitheists are against theism.  They think it would be better if theists deconverted.

Not necessarily. The base definition relates to any position in opposition to theistic claims. Consequently a gnostic/strong atheist is an antitheist. There are further actions that could result from antitheism, such as the idea you listed, but those are not required to be an antitheist, just that you believe that god/s do not exist. This is an example where terms pick up additional baggage, as 'atheism' has.

Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.  You can't be a gnostic weak atheist, because that would mean you knew something without believing it.  So any gnostic atheist is a strong atheist, specifically one who believes gods do not exist, and who also knows (or thinks she knows) that gods do not exist.

I already understand the definitions. I spend much time correcting people on them

Strong atheism is just believing that gods do not exist.

As is antitheism.

[wiploc]

Don't conflate those; they are three different things. 

Not necessarily

Antitheists are against theism.  They think it would be better if theists deconverted.

Not necessarily. The base definition relates to any position in opposition to theistic claims. Consequently a gnostic/strong atheist is an antitheist. There are further actions that could result from antitheism, such as the idea you listed, but those are not required to be an antitheist, just that you believe that god/s do not exist. This is an example where terms pick up additional baggage, as 'atheism' has.

Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.  You can't be a gnostic weak atheist, because that would mean you knew something without believing it.  So any gnostic atheist is a strong atheist, specifically one who believes gods do not exist, and who also knows (or thinks she knows) that gods do not exist.

I already understand the definitions. I spend much time correcting people on them  

Strong atheism is just believing that gods do not exist.

As is antitheism.

Some people try to discourage the atheism by defining the word in ways that make it hard to justify.  For instance, if you define an antheist as one having absolute certainty that no gods exist, or as one who would refuse to believe that gods exist even if compelling evidence for gods was produced, then you make atheism seem unreasonable and unattractive. 

When people use "antitheist" to mean "strong atheist" I assume they are doing a similar move, trying to make atheism unattractive by making it sound hostile. 

(Note that I'm not talking about your motives.  You seem reasonable.)

So I'm not going to use antitheism to mean strong atheism.  Should I avoid the word entirely, or does it have some useful meaning?  I hadda look it up. 

I went to dictionary.comm.  It offers only one definition:  "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god."  That's a useful word then.  It even describes me. 

But it doesn't describe all strong atheists. 

-

So that's the reason and dictionary support for my position.

[Ben Davis]

---

Some people try to discourage the atheism by defining the word in ways that make it hard to justify.  For instance, if you define an antheist as one having absolute certainty that no gods exist, or as one who would refuse to believe that gods exist even if compelling evidence for gods was produced, then you make atheism seem unreasonable and unattractive. 

When people use "antitheist" to mean "strong atheist" I assume they are doing a similar move, trying to make atheism unattractive by making it sound hostile. 

(Note that I'm not talking about your motives.  You seem reasonable.)

So I'm not going to use antitheism to mean strong atheism.  Should I avoid the word entirely, or does it have some useful meaning?  I hadda look it up. 

I went to dictionary.comm.  It offers only one definition:  "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god."  That's a useful word then.  It even describes me. 

But it doesn't describe all strong atheists. 

-

---

So that's the reason and dictionary support for my position.

That's fair enough but it seems that dictionary.com has attempted to conflate all the usages of antitheism in to a single definition. There are fuller ones available (eg. OED, Websters) but the basis is this:

Theistic position: There is/are a god/s

A-theistic position: Absence of belief in a god/s

Anti-theistic position: There is/are no god/s

That's where I'm coming from but I acknowledge the definition you listed as an accurate one.
Modern usage has Antitheism encompassing opposition to religious practices and religions themselves even though not all religions are theistic. It's a broad word so there's value in understanding all usages.

[MJ the Skeptical]

If you want to continue straddling the fence, go for it, I don't care to persuade you unless we were actually engaging in that conversation one on one. But like many have said, they're not mutually exclusive terms anyway. They address different things, for example the majority of Christians I've met are Agnostic Christians when you boil down what they actually believe and their overall skepticism that comes with the modern era.

[Whateverist]

---

Some people try to discourage the atheism by defining the word in ways that make it hard to justify.  For instance, if you define an antheist as one having absolute certainty that no gods exist, or as one who would refuse to believe that gods exist even if compelling evidence for gods was produced, then you make atheism seem unreasonable and unattractive. 

When people use "antitheist" to mean "strong atheist" I assume they are doing a similar move, trying to make atheism unattractive by making it sound hostile. 

(Note that I'm not talking about your motives.  You seem reasonable.)

So I'm not going to use antitheism to mean strong atheism.  Should I avoid the word entirely, or does it have some useful meaning?  I hadda look it up. 

I went to dictionary.comm.  It offers only one definition:  "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god."  That's a useful word then.  It even describes me. 

But it doesn't describe all strong atheists. 

-

---

So that's the reason and dictionary support for my position.

That's fair enough but it seems that dictionary.com has attempted to conflate all the usages of antitheism in to a single definition. There are fuller ones available (eg. OED, Websters) but the basis is this:

Theistic position: There is/are a god/s

A-theistic position: Absence of belief in a god/s

Anti-theistic position: There is/are no god/s

That's where I'm coming from but I acknowledge the definition you listed as an accurate one.
Modern usage has Antitheism encompassing opposition to religious practices and religions themselves even though not all religions are theistic. It's a broad word so there's value in understanding all usages.

For me to adopt the antitheist stance that there are no gods I would first need to know what is meant by the word "god".  If that is something out there and eternal with total causal control over everything and the decider supreme over moral matters .. then that is just ridiculous.  But some theists hold more nuanced notions and I'm not ready to say they are wrong.  So I'm just a garden variety atheist holding no belief in any god I've heard described, but not ready to render a categorical pronouncement based on so little.

[wiploc]

That's fair enough but it seems that dictionary.com has attempted to conflate all the usages of antitheism in to a single definition. There are fuller ones available (eg. OED, Websters) but the basis is this:

Theistic position: There is/are a god/s

A-theistic position: Absence of belief in a god/s

Anti-theistic position: There is/are no god/s

That's where I'm coming from but I acknowledge the definition you listed as an accurate one.
Modern usage has Antitheism encompassing opposition to religious practices and religions themselves even though not all religions are theistic. It's a broad word so there's value in understanding all usages.

For me to adopt the antitheist stance that there are no gods I would first need to know what is meant by the word "god".  If that is something out there and eternal with total causal control over everything and the decider supreme over moral matters .. then that is just ridiculous.  But some theists hold more nuanced notions and I'm not ready to say they are wrong.  So I'm just a garden variety atheist holding no belief in any god I've heard described, but not ready to render a categorical pronouncement based on so little.

Our positions are pretty close.  I know that some gods don't exist.  I believe that no gods exist, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong about that. 

If you told me that animists worship gods that are little piles of rocks, and that little piles of rocks exist, I'd say that a little pile of rocks isn't what I mean by "god."  When I say I don't believe in gods, I don't mean that I disbelieve in everything anyone could possibly call a god.  I have a friend who wonders whether hydrogen is god.  I definitely believe in hydrogen.  Some people think the entire universe is god, and I believe in the universe. 

I just don't believe those are gods. 

If you can leap over tall buildings with a single bound, does that make you a god?  Maybe.  I don't know.  But if you can only leap over a fire hydrant, that definitely does not make you a god.  So, if you can't do things that are extremely unlikely, you aren't a god. 

So:
If you are unlikely enough to be a god, you presumptively don't exist. 
If you are likely enough to probably exist, you aren't a god. 

Those are just presumptions, but they make sense.  They allow for the lightly-held belief that no gods exist. 

If somebody shows me something that actually does exist, she'll need to explain in what sense it is a god.

In the meantime, I have the believe (not the knowledge) that no gods exist.

[wiploc]

Can anyone here persuade or convert me from being agnostic to being atheist?

Are you still with us? 

If you read my post immediately above, you'll see an abbreviated version of my third bullet point below, "Why gods generally are tremendously unlikely. 

That may be all you need to make you a strong atheist.  But you still haven't given any guidance as to what you're after.  We'd appreciate feedback.

I can talk about, for instance,

• Why we know the standard Christian god doesn't exist,
  
• Why any particular theist argument (not including the thing about polonium halos) is garbage,
  
• Why gods generally are tremendously unlikely, or
  
• Why it's fair to believe that theists don't have any reasonable arguments. 
  
  

But I don't want to write a book.  I need feedback from you. 

Is one of those points above what you're after?  Are there any specific theist arguments that you have trouble refuting?  Where would you like me to start?

[Whateverist]

If you told me that animists worship gods that are little piles of rocks, and that little piles of rocks exist, I'd say that a little pile of rocks isn't what I mean by "god."  When I say I don't believe in gods, I don't mean that I disbelieve in everything anyone could possibly call a god.  I have a friend who wonders whether hydrogen is god.  I definitely believe in hydrogen.  Some people think the entire universe is god, and I believe in the universe. 

I just don't believe those are gods. 

I think it is most appropriate to allow that whatever it was that gave rise to god belief is what gods actually are, as opposed to the institutional versions religions turn out. On that basis I think God/gods is a capacity of the mind. Your mind gives rise to your conscious sense of personhood. It also gives rise to dreams, fantasies and hallucinations. Somewhere in there it also gives rise to what are called gods and for millennia people have found it worthwhile to take them into account.

So if you can acknowledge that the god you believe in is an aspect of your own consciousness, I have no beef with that. My mind doesn't seem to be running any god subroutine. But if it decides to kick in I don't see why I couldn't deal with that without projecting 'god' out there into the world. If anyone enjoys the experience of god belief and can maintain enough perspective to acknowledge that this entity they feel in connection with is just a mystery about which they know nothing at all .. I'll buy them a drink.

[robvalue]

I actually figured out what a reasonable candidate for god is: me.

Hear me out!

I'm only defining god relative to this reality, being the entity responsible for its creation. Whatever is happening in the reality that entity inhabits, or where that reality came from, are yet further beyond the scope of science, at least for now.

I could be dreaming. That means this whole "reality" I'm experiencing is being generated solely by my (real) brain. So in that case, I'm god.

Theists should hopefully now see what a non-answer god really is. You straight away want to know where "I" came from, and where the place I live in came from, don't you? In other words, you're asking the same questions you tried to answer with three letters.

[Whateverist]

Oh great, when will the tithing start?  If we miss a month will you send it to a collection agency or will you be a debt forgiving god.  (Do you accept personal checks?)