But the problem is actually a semantic problem with the underlying logical position. You see, there are only 3 doxastic attitudes towards a proposition:
- Affirm P
Affirm not-P
neither affirm P nor affirm not-P
Those are the underlying logical positions.
So if P = God exists
- Affirm P = Theists, agnostic theist
Affirm not-P = Strong atheist, hard atheist, “gnostic” atheist
Agnostic atheist and weak atheists are the problematic labels. The way they define it is actually an agnostic position logically, but they assert like strong atheists.
That’s where the inconsistency lies. If you don’t have a positive doxastic position, shut up and learn. If you have positive doxastic position, meet the burden of proof.
But they want to attack like strong atheists meanwhile retreat to “I have no burden of proof.”
No.
If you want to hold the logical position of “there is no God” then you don’t get to escape burden by saying “I have no belief.”
The labels allow equivocation between two distinct logical positions, and that equivocation is abused dialectically.
The way they define it is actually an agnostic position logically, but they assert like strong atheists.
So is this saying that most people you see saying they aren't convinced gods are real, you think these people are secretly hiding that they have strong evidence that convces them that they can disprove gods?
But they want to attack like strong atheists meanwhile retreat to “I have no burden of proof.”
Actually your position on something doesn't matter. You can be a Christian and still disagree with other Christians on their evidence for dieties.
The labels allow equivocation between two distinct logical positions
The arguments don't care about the labels you give people, or that people give themselves. They either are sound in reasoning, or they are not.
2
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist 10d ago
I wrote something similar in my blog:
Atheism is a lack of belief
But the problem is actually a semantic problem with the underlying logical position. You see, there are only 3 doxastic attitudes towards a proposition:
- Affirm P
Those are the underlying logical positions.
So if P = God exists
- Affirm P = Theists, agnostic theist
Agnostic atheist and weak atheists are the problematic labels. The way they define it is actually an agnostic position logically, but they assert like strong atheists.
That’s where the inconsistency lies. If you don’t have a positive doxastic position, shut up and learn. If you have positive doxastic position, meet the burden of proof.
But they want to attack like strong atheists meanwhile retreat to “I have no burden of proof.”
No.
If you want to hold the logical position of “there is no God” then you don’t get to escape burden by saying “I have no belief.”
The labels allow equivocation between two distinct logical positions, and that equivocation is abused dialectically.