All Asians are Asian; they've that in common. All dogs are dogs; they've that in common. All West Africans are West African; they've that in common. All atheists are atheists; they've that in common. All theists are theists; they've that in common.
As such, they may be validly grouped together based upon that commonality. Is that dehumanizing?
According to your reframe of my questions, there is a biological component to theism, which might actually be true. So, thank you for that.
I'm examining atheism, here, not making any claims about its justifiability. Nor have I rejected any theistic arguments. I'm no atheist. My arguments here aren't exclusively pertinent to atheism, too; your arguments aren't theistic. My beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. I value understanding.
It seems to me that you're the one who operates through appeals to stereotypes (whichever you perceived), now.
No you're not. You're arguing for Antony Flew's definition of atheism. Neither of us made any arguments for or against. We're still squabbling over semantics.
So you lack belief in it.
I no longer lack belief in it because you've introduced the claim. I reject your claim. Lacking and rejecting are different words. Let's try to make this into physical objects.
If I lack a pencil, I can't take a test until offered a pencil. At that point, I can choose whether or not to take the test. Whereas, if I lack a pencil, and reject a pencil when offered one, I don't take the test period.
A child could have never been offered a pencil. It's likely they're unaware there is a test today. Perhaps if we offered the child a pencil, some would attempt to make a pass at the test.
Atheists reject the pencil. Maybe some will accept the pencil, but reject the test. Either way, lacking the opportunity is no longer an option. However, some will study and examine their whole lives for a test they never intend to take.
Another example:
I reject MBTI due to it being psuedoscientific. I can't be said to lack a belief in MBTI because that option is no longer available to me. I will reject it, instead. However, my girlfriend truly lacked a belief in MBTI because she was unaware of the concept, until I introduced it to her. She's an ISFJ, btw, according to one test. Although, she lives her life as if MBTI is of no consequence. She's aware, but indifferent to MBTI. She no longer lacks a belief in MBTI.
(Lack of belief) atheists want to retain the ignorance of (the concept of) God's existence they had when they were young children/virgins. Which is fine, but to me that just seems like a desperate larping at ignorance.
"Do you think I was born yesterday?!?" used to be an insult. In fact, people all born lacking
All beliefs.
Do flat earthers lack or reject the belief in earth's elliptical orbit? Well, it depends on whether that flat earther is a young child or a grown man having had some schooling. The latter can't be said to lack a belief in the orbit having had schooling, while my 3 year old would lack that belief in the truest sense.
I'd respect a flat earther standing at his position of a flat earth over the flat earther who refuses to grow up and maintains that he lacks the belief in a globe. It's a social thing. People respect assertiveness. Defining themselves as "lacking" in anything betrays a turbulence in their own self-image.
Come to think of it, lacking a belief atheism sounds similar to a victim complex.
Like earlier said: My dog also lacks a belief in God.
And yet, that contradicts what you said in your penultimate post.
Oh, so you've made your mind up.
Yes, atheists reject God as a concept.
No, that really seems to be your problem, in virtue of your answering this in the affirmative:
Sounds like (lack of belief) atheists are the ones unable to differentiate ideas and physical objects.
I
don't lack a belief in God because I've been introduced to the idea. I accept the claim that He exists. Atheists don't accept that claim. Neither do atheists lack a belief in God because if they lacked a belief in God, they wouldn't be able to accept
or reject the claim that God exists.
Do
you accept the claim that God (in any form) exists?
That "yes" fundamentally contradicts everything you're saying now.
That "yes" also denotes my being able to stay consistent.
So while you attempt to straighten this paradox out, you might also try to figure out how a non-thing can be a thing.
The paradox here is that (lack of belief) atheists want their cake and eat it, too. Atheists want to lack said belief while rejecting said belief. #notallatheists, mind you, just the "lack of belief" atheists. Both sides (theist/atheist) have arguments, and they debate, while the intention of (lack of belief) atheists is to
avoid presenting any arguments or debating in the first place, unless the subject of debate is whether atheism is a lack or rejection of belief. That seems to be their only position. The position of a child. Of ignorance. If they lack a belief, they also lack the ability to argue for or against a belief, which explains this non-committal response:
I'm examining atheism, here, not making any claims about its justifiability. Nor have I rejected any theistic arguments. I'm no atheist. My arguments here aren't exclusively pertinent to atheism, too; your arguments aren't theistic. My beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. I value understanding.
Sounds to me like you value not having any theological position and are fighting to avoid having to take a position at all costs. Unless proven otherwise, ofc. And if that's what you want, just say so. You could stand on the position of not taking a position. Just know that #notallatheists take the same non-position as yourself:
I'll try to be humble and courageous while waiting.
Maybe by now, you'll have the humility and courage to make a stand about your position regarding theism? Maybe you're still studying for the test?
Do you reject the concept of God? Which God? All of them. What is the (theological) position you're willing to stand for?