Atheists are emotionally stronger than theists

[Crossless2.0]

And I think that you understand; but again to clarify,  when atheists are saying that it is "just a lack of belief" they are not saying anything about an objective truth, but only that they are merely not convinced.  They are just providing information about their mental state on the matter and not claiming that anything is false.   This would be a claim that would have a share in a burden of proof.

I tend to agree with this, insofar as atheism is presented as "just a lack of belief". However, I think atheism stands on firmer ground than that -- especially when dealing with historical claims (i.e., 'special revelation') or particular cosmologies derived from religious texts. But the atheist's burden of evidence, in these cases, is not provided by "atheism" but by commonly accepted standards of evidence in various relevant fields (e.g., archaeology, history, biology, etc.).

I don't think we are really disagreeing here. I'm just clarifying my stance.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm an agnostic atheist overall, but I'm a gnostic atheist about certain proposed deities. I'm agnostic about the God of deism or Tezcatlipoca, my guess is that they're highly unlikely based on lack of evidence, but they're not married bachelors or square circles.

The properties attributed to the God of theodicy are contradictory, that God doesn't exist. Many of the deeds attributed to the God of Abraham did not actually happen (and Abraham probably was not a real person), so that God isn't real because there is no God that did those things that didn't happen.

But I'm not going to knock on people's doors about it, it's not like they'll be tortured forever if I can't get them to agree with me.

I normally try to only concern myself with claims within the context of the discussion. I think it's best not to make too many assumptions because someone calls themselves an atheist or theist.  And I often feel that it's mostly a red herring, when people try to shift to some intrinsic claim based on the label.

---

And I think that you understand; but again to clarify,  when atheists are saying that it is "just a lack of belief" they are not saying anything about an objective truth, but only that they are merely not convinced.  They are just providing information about their mental state on the matter and not claiming that anything is false.   This would be a claim that would have a share in a burden of proof.

I tend to agree with this, insofar as atheism is presented as "just a lack of belief". However, I think atheism stands on firmer ground than that -- especially when dealing with historical claims (i.e., 'special revelation') or particular cosmologies derived from religious texts. But the atheist's burden of evidence, in these cases, is not provided by "atheism" but by commonly accepted standards of evidence in various relevant fields (e.g., archaeology, history, biology, etc.).

I don't think we are really disagreeing here. I'm just clarifying my stance.

I think that is the case for either theism or atheism when they are making claims.   I was just poking fun at the "lack of belief" tactic of running away from claims.  It's just a matter, that if you are asserting something as true, then it is reasonable for another to ask why.

[Mister Agenda]

I think that is the case for either theism or atheism when they are making claims.   I was just poking fun at the "lack of belief" tactic of running away from claims.  It's just a matter, that if you are asserting something as true, then it is reasonable for another to ask why.

Accurately stating my position is not a tactic, though it may seem so to someone who finds my position inconvenient for their tactical purposes.

[robvalue]

Atheism is by default just a lack of belief. Any particular atheist may take a firmer stance, and indeed many do. Examining how emotionally strong atheists are depending on where they place themselves could be interesting.

I'd say you're average atheist is probably someone who believes that the "gods" of religion are fictitious characters, but who has no particular opinion about some generic creator. This seems like a fairly stable position to me.

Those who are less sure, and who aren't convinced either way about the religious gods, would be more vulnerable I would guess. They might be scared about their lack of belief, or about making "mistakes".

Those who feel fairly certain there is nothing creator at all, of any kind, probably feel very secure. But whatever anyone's position, how emotionally strong they are doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how rational their position is.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that is the case for either theism or atheism when they are making claims.   I was just poking fun at the "lack of belief" tactic of running away from claims.  It's just a matter, that if you are asserting something as true, then it is reasonable for another to ask why.

Accurately stating my position is not a tactic, though it may seem so to someone who finds my position inconvenient for their tactical purposes.

I don't disagree.   You may be agnostic in some areas, and more hard atheists in another.   The above only applies if you are making claims, and then fall back to equivocate about the meaning of the word atheist to not have to support those claims.  I'm not saying anything specific about you, and if you do not think it applies to you;  then I'm glad

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheism is by default just a lack of belief.

I lack belief that you specifically just lack of belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

You;ve gone full loon on us.

[Amarok]

I lack belief that you specifically just lack of belief.

And lack belief that you lack belief in our lack of belief 

Unfortunate you need to resort to this tactic as you can't actual deal with our actual position and frustrates you apologetics agenda

---

I don't disagree.   You may be agnostic in some areas, and more hard atheists in another.   The above only applies if you are making claims, and then fall back to equivocate about the meaning of the word atheist to not have to support those claims.  I'm not saying anything specific about you, and if you do not think it applies to you;  then I'm glad 

Atheism is a lack of belief 

Agnosticism is a lack of certainty

[*Deidre*]

Not sure if emotionally stronger is the right phrase, but there might be some merit to it. I didn't make a very good atheist. When my grandmother died, I was an atheist then, that was a little over three years ago, and I remember struggling with trying to process my emotions and grief, without offering it up in prayer, or whatever. She was very special to me, like ...really special, and that is when I started seeking answers again, and didn't feel ''comfortable'' in my atheism. But, I have quite a few friends who are atheists offline, and some are emotionally strong, others, not so much. I don't know if blanket statements on either side, make sense.

[Crossless2.0]

Not sure if emotionally stronger is the right phrase, but there might be some merit to it. I didn't make a very good atheist. When my grandmother died, I was an atheist then, that was a little over three years ago, and I remember struggling with trying to process my emotions and grief, without offering it up in prayer, or whatever. She was very special to me, like ...really special, and that is when I started seeking answers again, and didn't feel ''comfortable'' in my atheism. But, I have quite a few friends who are atheists offline, and some are emotionally strong, others, not so much. I don't know if blanket statements on either side, make sense.

People who make blanket statements are assholes . . . every one of them.