Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Welsh cake]

That there are other positions that people can take on the question...

Exactly. I'm an atheist. I lack belief in gods or anything belonging in the "supernatural" for that matter. Moving on.

You don't automatically have to believe or disbelieve. You could say you don't know, but what you can't say is that you lack a belief in aliens.

You don't understand what "disbelief" means lucent. Yes, a skeptical person can easily say they lack a belief in extraterrestrial life because there's no evidence and we're lacking a concrete definition of the term "life" in unequivocal terms. I lack a belief in gods because no one has ever provided a clear positive ontology of such a being. Get yourself a proper English dictionary for fucks sake.

There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is...

Oh fuck here we go. The God of the gaps fallacy lucent is not an explanation, it is a non-answer that makes no attempt to understand the phenomena lacking scientific knowledge in question.

Also, my claim that Jesus is God is a matter of history.

Shut up, no its not. We have no historical evidence of Jesus. Even with good theological scholarship we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. We have no contemporaries of the life of Jesus, at all. All you have is people who are reporting heresy. That's why when you ask your *educated* Christian friends they will remind you that you have to take the writings on Jesus' life and divinity on faith, because all you have is blind hope he was/is real.

I take nothing on faith.

Are you too rude to go one line without being insulting or condescending? Is this how you normally relate other human beings?

Human beings like you yes. You're in the evil cult that believes some sky daddy created the universe in six days with magic and you condemn non-believers in your fantasy to a make-believe realm of eternal torment and suffering. You should expect, indeed you deserve ridicule, even most Jews I've spoken to think you're barbaric on the doctrine of Hell.

What we reject is your attempt to redefine the debate by making atheism the default position...

Disbelief in a claim until it has met its burden of proof with sufficient evidence IS the default position.

You have an equal burden of proof by claiming God does not exist. You don't get a free ride.

First of all I'm not claming anything, you are.

Second, within epistemology and the philosophical burden of proof, positive and negative ontological claims are asymmetrical. The greater burden is always on the party positing the claim of a supernatural being's existence, because they are making a positive claim to knowledge and seeking to add to what information and data we already possess about reality. Negative claims "God does not exist" (strong atheism) have a lesser burden because its arguing for a negative, the party is not seeking to add any new information to our centralised pool of knowledge. Those who lack a belief (weak atheism) or who don't care either way have no burden.

So, what evidence do you have that atheism is true?

Oh do kindly go and fuck off, what are you now watching that retard shockofgod for trump-cards? Atheism makes NO claims about reality.

By saying that rocks lack beliefs, I am pointing out that the statement is meaningless

I agree, your statement is meaningless and further more, childishly silly.

As a former agnostic, I know what agnosticism is. There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.

Yes there is. I AM an agnostic atheist you dumbass. Most members here are self-confessed agnostic atheists! >_<

It is the standard definition of atheism, I have redefined nothing. It's in the dictionary.

You're making shit up as usual. You have a mental block that is preventing you from understanding what the definition, what the meaning of the label "atheism" actually is. Now, it's up to you to resolve that, or if you can't, seek psychiatric help or whatever.