One is either an atheist or one is not.There are are no shades of atheism.
You identify as anti theist. This is not a position taken because a person is an atheist.In fact there are no beliefs or philosophical positions inferred by atheism .
Why do you feel the need to defend your position? Speaking for myself only,I am indifferent to you being anti theist.
I beg to differ. There is gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism. Richard Dawkins also elaborated on his own idea of a scale, which makes quite a bit of sense to me.
Is a lack of a belief in god not a philosophical position?
Thank you for your input, If you are indifferent, then good for you. As should be be pretty clear what I wanted was opinions on the matter of anti theism, and I have gotten more than enough, but still, thanks for getting your thoughts in the record
I disagree. Being an atheist is an answer to one simple question. It is a purely binary choice. If you beoeive in a god or gods, you are a theist. If not, you are an atheist.
If it were purely binary, agnosticism would not exist. You would be saying that agnostics are atheists because their answer to the question “Do you believe in god?” is not “Yes.”
Are you implying an equivalence between agnosticism and atheism?
Of course not.
You are conflating belief with knowledge. And confusing a VERY simple position.
Belief answers the simple question whether a person believes in a god or gods. Agnosticism answers the question on why a person believes or not.
Agnostic literally means “without knowledge” it does not do what you are claiming. There is no ‘why’
If you ask a theist if God exists they will say they believe so
If you ask an atheist they will say they do not believe so
If you ask an agnostic they will say they do not know.
Agnosticism is a refusal to take a belief one way or the other.
Agnosticism is distinct from atheism and theism so the matter is not binary as you say. It is possible not to take a position as agnostics do.
An agnostic does not accept the god proposition. Therefore, because they do not believe in a god, agnostics are atheists.
This is simple, you are the one conflating different issues. If you believe in a god or gods, you are a theist. If you do not, no matter what the reason, you are an atheist.
So is atheism - non-belief (no convincing reason to believe) in “god”.
So, ask me about alien life in the universe. Do I “believe” (for me a more appropriate use is “trust” or have confidence in) … could I out and out say “no” - I don’t “believe”? I would give the same answer as above with “god” (but I don’t think there is an “a” word for this)…
Here’s my thinking 
: Specific info needed - eg
What are we defining as “alien life” (reptilians disguised as humans? No! compared to “bacteria” type life form under Europa? Yes). Now - do I have evidence of either? Nope. Which is more likely and why? AND if asked do I have “knowledge” [again, demonstrable evidence for either position] - I don’t …but that wouldn’t make me agnostic, because I don’t limit our ability to gain this “knowledge”.
Ugh - having a smoke hurts my brain…I do too much deep thinking when I take a break from “my day to day activity”. So really we can’t “define and pigeon hole” people or ideas 
. They run deep and in all sorts of places with all sorts of reasonings (poor or strong evidence backing them). Mankind’s scientific advances have tried to be verbally limited throughout history (I can’t imagine finding or inventing anything “new”) yet our drive and curiosity brings us new ways of understanding or inventing and testing “limits”. We push beyond our self-imposed boundaries or boundaries set by nature.
I classify myself as a straight up atheist. As far as “knowledge” is concerned, I don’t “know” so I can’t say gaining knowledge regarding god or aliens or multiple universes or living in a simulated world or “life after death”, etc would continue to be unobtainable by humanity.
HOWEVER, it doesn’t mean I believe any of the above. I am without belief. I don’t “live my life” according to these various imaginings, nor lose sleep over them nor feel any particular obligation towards these ideas. They “exist” only in men’s minds (so to speak) until there is evidence of their effects on reality that is measurable.
Hope some of this rambling makes sense.
You are contradicting yourself David. I asked you this
And you said
But now you are saying
So which is it?
There are what are called GNOSTIC atheists who not only disbelieve, but claim to be absolutely certain that God does not exist, this is the direct opposite of GNOSTIC theists, who claim to know for certain that is God is there. Both views are equally invalid in terms of epistemology and within the context of proof.
By what you are saying you are an AGNOSTIC atheist, you don’t believe god exists and you live your life as if no god exists (i.e you do not pray, attend church etc.) but you do not claim to know for sure, because you acknowledge that you cannot know for sure because you can neither prove nor disprove god.
Then there are AGNOSTIC theists who do believe in god, live as if god existed but will never claim to know for sure.
That is the whole business of knowledge and belief summed up. I personally subscribe to this idea though not all philosophers agree on it and it is still heavily debated today, as we are doing lol
Do you know Christopher Hitchens? Anti theism is an extension of atheism so when I call myself an anti theist let that man and his life’s work come to mind.
See I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I’m an agnostic atheist only because I use or relate to the “ability” or “can” know…
…a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Ha, see - I have a “disbelief” of knowing what can be known as I don’t know what we are capable (as a species) of knowing.
In other words I don’t know a fucking thing 
Not so.
‘Atheist’ comes from the Greek’atheos’ ; no/without god, It’s about BELIEF
’
NO it is not
‘agnostic’ comes from the Greek ‘gnosis’ ,knowledge. It is not about choice, but an admission of lack of KNOWLEDGE .
I am an agnostic atheist. That means I do not believe in gods, but make no claim to KNOW.
In fact I make no claims, about the existence of god or any of his attributes . I am also agnostic about life on alpha centauri; I simply do not know.
On this occasion you’re simply wrong. That’s all I have to say to you on this topic
I’ve begun to question if Reiza is capable of seeing beyond his own opinions.
Agnosticism
noun
I usually ask at this point if you generally believe things you can know nothing about.
Yes agnosticism is distinct from atheism and theism, in that it deals with a knowledge claim, and not a belief claim. However it is not mutually exclusive with either theism or atheism, but as I have said, it seems absurdly irrational to me to believe a claim one admits we can know nothing about. Thus my rational leads me to be an atheist as no objective evidence has been presented for any deity or deities, but an agnostic where god claims are unfalsifiable, and therefore by definition nothing can be known about them, or as scientists often describe unfalsifiable claims, are “not even wrong”.
Snide comments? really?
Question away…
Is this not why we debate? Debates usually have opposing views and If your view does not convince me then I am not convinced. What is true does not depend on whether one or a billion people believe it.
I think your comment says more about you than it does me.
Thank you. That I definitely agree with.
I believe that is what you did when you claimed that atheists are agnostics. You still haven’t commented on the internal inconsistencies of your own argument.
There I concede that I was wrong.