Gleiser seems to be referring to positive atheists who are mentally aware of and vocally or even politically assertive of their cognitive orientation. As opposed to a passive condition of lacking theistic beliefs, just having the classification pinned upon such by an outside establishment -- plus agnostics.
positive & negative: "Positive" atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not explicitly assert it is true that no deity exists. Those who do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert such non-belief, are included among implicit atheists. Among "implicit" atheists are thus included the following: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who have heard of deities but have never given the idea any considerable thought; and those agnostics who suspend belief about deities, but do not reject such belief. All implicit atheists are included in the negative/weak categorization.
implict & explicit. . . "implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further. [...] Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. [...] The terms "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", also known as "negative atheism" and "positive atheism", are usually used by Smith as synonyms of the less well-known "implicit" and "explicit" categories.
###
Like Sam Harris, I've never quite understood the apparent conceptual conflict of being passionately anti-God and yet preferring to be distinguished in the population by an identity-label that contains the very word "theist".
Considering the intensely personal, injured or antagonistic feelings that a positive atheist may contingently feel, it's kind of similar to running about the neighborhood proclaiming "Hey, everybody, I'm a non-murderer!" Or "Hey, everybody, I'm a non-pedophile!" I wouldn't remotely want those two sub-components mentioned in association with my identity even with the prefix indicating a diametric relationship to them.
###
It is amazing -- depending upon the passages and their interpretations by a denomination or group -- how a life of good acts can really not amount to a hill of beans. Making it to the Kingdom of God revolving centrally around repeatedly being conscious of accepting slash appreciating Christ dying for human sins and being a ritualistic groveler (but truly feeling that way inside, not outer pretense). My aunt[*] once talked about this Baptist(?) they knew who'd often pontificate (paraphrasing) "Saved is saved. I could go out and rape a 16-year old girl, but I'd still be going to Heaven -- just need to repent for it and keep loving the Lord.".
Yeah, really promotes and ensures civilized behavior when a lifestyle of moral behavior or "good acts" is diminished as a requirement for getting their reward.
- - -
[*] footnote: Some relative, anyway. Memory's so jumbled nowadays that I'm like a homeless Bag Lady attributing Silla to Drew instead of Dru, half the time.
###
positive & negative: "Positive" atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not explicitly assert it is true that no deity exists. Those who do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert such non-belief, are included among implicit atheists. Among "implicit" atheists are thus included the following: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who have heard of deities but have never given the idea any considerable thought; and those agnostics who suspend belief about deities, but do not reject such belief. All implicit atheists are included in the negative/weak categorization.
implict & explicit. . . "implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further. [...] Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. [...] The terms "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", also known as "negative atheism" and "positive atheism", are usually used by Smith as synonyms of the less well-known "implicit" and "explicit" categories.
###
(Mar 21, 2019 05:27 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: I am an atheist but only in the sense that I am also an a-mermaidist, an a-satyrist, or an a-unicornist. There's simply no reason to posit a being for which there is not a shred of evidence. And the fact that many people believe in God is an argument ad populum. IOW, it doesn't make it true that people believe in it.
Like Sam Harris, I've never quite understood the apparent conceptual conflict of being passionately anti-God and yet preferring to be distinguished in the population by an identity-label that contains the very word "theist".
Considering the intensely personal, injured or antagonistic feelings that a positive atheist may contingently feel, it's kind of similar to running about the neighborhood proclaiming "Hey, everybody, I'm a non-murderer!" Or "Hey, everybody, I'm a non-pedophile!" I wouldn't remotely want those two sub-components mentioned in association with my identity even with the prefix indicating a diametric relationship to them.
###
(Mar 21, 2019 07:11 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: . . . She told him that she needed reassurance and asked him if he believed that Jesus died for our sins. He said, yes. She then asked him if he accepted Jesus as his savior. He said, yes.
Next up, pastor so-and-so, who then gave a salvation message and went on and on about his concern over this man and all of us making into heaven.
[...] In my mind* "We sent him there, you fucking idiot. He was only nineteen. If there was a heaven, your ungrateful ass would never make it in. So, STFU!" (Keep quiet and walk away. It’s just people being people.)
It is amazing -- depending upon the passages and their interpretations by a denomination or group -- how a life of good acts can really not amount to a hill of beans. Making it to the Kingdom of God revolving centrally around repeatedly being conscious of accepting slash appreciating Christ dying for human sins and being a ritualistic groveler (but truly feeling that way inside, not outer pretense). My aunt[*] once talked about this Baptist(?) they knew who'd often pontificate (paraphrasing) "Saved is saved. I could go out and rape a 16-year old girl, but I'd still be going to Heaven -- just need to repent for it and keep loving the Lord.".
Yeah, really promotes and ensures civilized behavior when a lifestyle of moral behavior or "good acts" is diminished as a requirement for getting their reward.
- - -
[*] footnote: Some relative, anyway. Memory's so jumbled nowadays that I'm like a homeless Bag Lady attributing Silla to Drew instead of Dru, half the time.
###