Being an a-objectivist is much safer ground, but the a-objectivist does not have the luxury the atheists have since they,the atheists get their category through a specific single type of not believing.
How would even an a-objectivist know they are not convinced? How could they be sure. Best to keep mum.
and if they say, they don’t know, but it seems like they are not convinced, how do they know it seems that way. Seeming is still part of the universe and to claim something seems X, is making a claim about reality. If you want to argue it is about internal reality or experienced reality- well how the hell do you know that some things are internal or merely experienced (a certain way) rather than something else.
Most non-objectivists are, in terms of presentation, clear about not believe in X, 100 per cent, but when it comes to their epistemology or their interpretation of the own internal states and beliefs, they are objectivists. And this isn’t even getting into the superiority they give off in relation to objectivists, which is also based on some level in some kind of objectivism. It may be possible to be a consistant a objectivist, but my guess is those guys are not getting into any discussions or debates about stuff. They just eating when hungry, tending their gardens and patting the dog out in the woods somewhere.
I think we also have to not confuse people with what they say they are. People reek their metaphysics and their epistemologies. They reek of it and they act in the world, objectively, from their metaphysics and epistemologies. They can add on disclaimers that they are sure of nothing, and still they affect others and themselves and the world with their certainties. And if they engage in philosophical discussions, well they seem to have little concern about presenting claims all over the place.