Opinion on this Creed

[Statler Waldorf]

Please stop telling me what I believe. It's unbecoming. Also the word "agnosticism" has to do with knowledge, not belief, which you would *know* if you were such a great student of philosophy.

 
If you do not believe what atheists believe then don’t call yourself an atheist; that seems pretty simple.  All I can go by is what the definition of atheism is. 
 
Agnosticism is still a belief system (i.e. the belief that it is impossible to know whether gods exist or not).    
 

Also, what's up with the large font? Feeling angry? Want to yell?

 
Nope.
 
   

    Atheism in not a philosophy.  It is a state of mind, a state lacking a belief in god. And there is nothing particularly authoritative about a philosophical dictionary with the exception of description of various philosophies.  But even then the adherents of those philosophies would not better. .

 
Atheism is not a philosophy according to whom?  You?  I’ll stick to the actual experts on such matters. 
 
 

    Good.  Can I call you an atheist?

 
In reference to all gods other than YHWH absolutely!  I positively affirm their non-existence.
 

  Currently among self described atheists you are wrong.  Atheists do not have a belief in a god or gods.  That's it.

 
Well the self-described atheist who edits the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says you’re wrong.  Now what? 
 
       

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 
 
Wikipedia is a user-generated website.  Secondly, if you check the three sources it references after defining atheism as “an absence of belief” you’ll see that none of them actually define it that way.     
 

        Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

 
    http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

 
So I can start up my own website and redefine terms however I wish?  You need to stick to the actual authoritative literature on such matters. 
 
 

    The usage has changed get over it.

 
People use words incorrectly all the time so that’s irrelevant; we do not define words by how people use them rather we are supposed to use words based on how they are defined. 
 

The word bachelor is not an argument for bachelorhood just a term describing men who are not married.

 
What if men who are married insist they are bachelors and they insist that the usage has changed and since they are self-described bachelors they can define it however they want?  I imagine you’d do exactly what I have been doing, point to the actual references to demonstrate that the word has never changed.    
 
       

   Hardly.  It merely clarifies.  Gnostic atheist believe there is no god.  Agnostic atheists lack a belief in god.  You apparently believe there is a god.  Regardless of which opponent or both you choose you still have the burden of proving there is a god, should you want to debate the issue.

 
Why would I have the burden of proof?
 

 So? Let them be offended.  I find your insistence that I must either be sure god exists or he doesn't offense.  Oh wait. . . didn't you say it was a either or proposition?  You did.  So if you can only believe there is a god or believe there isn't who would agnostics be?  You've already defined them out of existence.

 
I did no such thing.  An agnostic is usually defined as someone who believes we cannot know whether any god exists or not.  They generally do not like to be referred to as atheists because atheists affirm the non-existence of gods.  I have heard some people use the term agnostic to describe someone who simply does not know whether any gods exist, but this seems to be another misuse of the word rather than an actual philosophical term.    
 

    If there is not lack of belief or uncertainty then who are these agnostic people you are defending?  You can't have it both ways either people like me who know about god but lack belief exist or we don't. 

 
See above. 
 
       

    Lay persons?  There is a philosophical laity?  Giggles.  This philosophical body of authorities is non-existent.  There are philosophers and people who read and or study philosophy.  There is no body of philosophical authority.

 
This is just flat out wrong.  There are philosophical encyclopedias (which ironically enough the Wikipedia article you cited used) and peer-reviewed journals of philosophy.  This is as silly as saying there is no such thing as the scientific community.      
    
 

    Actually no.  The burden of showing the existence of anything is always on the person claim that thing.

 
Well that’s not actually how it works, but I’ll play along.  I guess then I am an anti-naturalist.  Now the burden of proof is on you since I am merely rejecting naturalism.  Get to it!
 
        

    Well look who's back...and you open it up by bitching about the burden of proof?  How very typical.  I take it that you still haven't found a way to -meet- that burden....given your reintroduction?

 
We’re actually discussing the proper definition of a term here.  I see your ability to follow the topic of discussion has not improved any. 

 
This isn't accurate. Millions of people claim to have experienced god; however, without demonstration the claim remains dubious. As I stated, god is invoked as a cause for any number of things; however, god is always mysteriously absent to other observers. Without corroboration, the claim cannot be verified. I have experienced any number of intense emotions that elicit real physical responses: nausea (burning bosom to Mormons), flushed skin, muscle tension, crying, headaches, etc. States of mind and attending physical responses are not the presence of god.

 
You seem to be moving the goalposts.  You simply stated that, “At no time has anyone ever perceived any god.”  This claim runs completely contrary to the testimony of millions of people; so I have to ask how you could possibly know they are all wrong since you claim to know this somehow. 
 
  

Don't be obtuse. The point is that personal testimony based on an experience that can only be known to a particular person is insufficient information for the basis of a truth claim to be generally accepted. People like Paul may convince others to believe his tale; however, no matter the number of believers, his experience should not be accepted as truth because nobody else can experience it. Citing an example of a particular person that is deprived of a particular sense misses the point. Besides, a blind person can perceive the warmth of light so it isn't impossible for a blind person to experience light. 

 
A blind person could just say that heat is not the same thing as light and until you prove otherwise you have not met the burden of proof.  The Bible does say that the unbeliever is dead in sin, having scales over his eyes and a heart of stone.  Perhaps you are merely the blind person in this case?  You might have simply misspoken, but you did say that any person has to be able to perceive the entity in question.  This also makes the assumption that all minds perceive reality in the same way, and this is simply an unfounded assumption.  Far more people have claimed to have perceived the existence of god than have claimed to have perceived a neutrino, and yet I am sure you have no problem believing in the existence of the latter intriguingly enough.  Maybe this will work better, how about you propose a method for proving the existence of god, fair?
 
 

My conclusion is more reasonable. All you have to do to prove me wrong is produce this god of yours so I can experience it and I'll admit I'm wrong.

 
What!!?  You just claimed that every person who has experienced god throughout history is being deceived and then you turn around and ask to personally experience god?  How on Earth is this reasonable?  That’s the very definition of special pleading.  
 
     

 
            Of course there is.  My lack of belief stems from my disbelief in every god presented to me so far.  However, I reserve the right to change my mind if exposed to new evidence.

…so you believe no god exists?
 
   

Really, if you're going to play word games, you might want to understand the words you're using.  Disbelief doesn't somehow negate a lack of belief.  It often informs it.  Moreover, you haven't explained why anyone should give a crap about a/an encyclopedia(s) written and/or edited by philosophers.  Just because they state the definition is something doesn't make it so.  I'm not convinced of their authority on the issue.

 
Well then please present me with a better authority on the issue. 
 
   

To use your marriage/bachelor analogy correctly, perhaps the definition of marriage is incomplete if most/all bachelors actually claim they're married....  Of course, your analogy fails anyway because, as I said before, disbelief and a lack of belief are not diametrically opposed terms. 

 
The pigeon turd on my front porch lacks a belief in god, however it would be silly to say that it disbelieves in the existence of anything. 
 
   

But, please, continue to flail at definitions as though you actually have a point.  It's amusing.

 
Continue to argue against the actual authoritative literature on the matter even when it’s written by atheists, it’s amusing.
 
   

 
I suppose you'll need to look up "evacuated-middle fallacy" while you're there, that should be under the "logic" heading. The reason being is that atheism can be either of those things, and rather than hammer a complex human being into one of your overly simplistic pigeonholes, you'd do better to listen to them as they describe their attitude towards your pet deity.

 
Asserting that atheism can mean either of those things demonstrates nothing.  I have already provided several sources that demonstrate that that position is false.    
 

And -- I chose the phrase "lack of faith" very carefully. There are differing connotative shades that separate "belief" and "faith" in their meanings and usage. I think we've found a little more homework you'll need to do before you can make useful contributions to this discussion.

 
Again, assertions will get you nowhere with me sir.  Please provide the actual sources to support your claims. 
 
   

That makes this overly simplistic definition even more suspect, insofar as that atheist my well be importing his own personal view of atheism into the dictionary's very limited definition.  Maybe a penguin edited it?

 
He has a PhD in philosophy so guess who’s word I am going to take over yours?  Come on….guess……
 
 
 
 

 
Really?  Prove it.  What makes these people any more capable of defining atheism than us?  Why should their definition be the accepted one?

 
Umm…because it’s their job and you’re just a poster on an internet forum.  Need I really say more?
 
 

Weren't the Christians originally called atheists or something for refusing to worship Julius Caesar?  

 
They were called atheists because they denied the existence of the Roman gods and the deity of Caesar.  They did not simply lack a belief in said things.