What is Atheism?

[SteveII]

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief.

But it isn't a positive claim.  I make no claims regarding the undefined term 'gods' because I know nothing about them.  I know that the descriptions of those who do claim to know gods do not agree.  

No one requires a permit not to believe in claims regarding poorly defined absurdities.

How does that differ from being agnostic? You can hold a belief (atheism) without making your own claims because simply not agreeing with the claim "There is a God" is what makes you an atheist.

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief".

But they are atheists until they become programmed to believe, they don't.  They are thus non-believers.  Of course the kinds of things about which it is possible for them to form a belief will change over time.  But by the time they are old enough to formulate a belief regarding gods, their communities will already have already instilled that belief.  

No, babies are not atheists because they can neither agree nor disagree with the claim "There is a God".  While it is true they do not believe in God, it is also true that they don't believe there is no God. 

The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Yes, my opinion is that it is silly nonsense.  The phenomenon of god belief does reveal something interesting about the nature of human consciousness, but that has nothing to do with whether or not any particular concretization of that instinct is true.  None of them are literally true.  But of course none of this means anything to you because you are encased in a belief filter.

And having an opinion is fine. I also have an opinion on the question and, for me, have sufficient data/reasons to believe. Your belief filter reasoning would not apply to new adult converts--of which there are millions per year.

---

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

Sorry that your knowledge of the rules of logic is so lacking that you believe this, but that does not mean it is true.

When defending or debating atheism, taking the position that theist's claims have not met their burden of proof, is the only stance that is required to be defended. If a particular atheist wants to make the case that gods don't exist, they are welcome to do so, and they now have the burden of proof.

See my bold

While an atheist can take that stance, it is no different that the same stance an agnostic will take--so, what is the difference? 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief".

Under my definition of atheism, this is not true, since babies don't have cognitive abilities and agency.

The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Sure, I never made the claim that I do not have an opinion whether gods exist or not. My opinion is that they don't. My opinion is provisional and based on the claim not being supported by theist's arguments.

I'm confused. I was replying/arguing against the "lack of belief" is the threshold for being an atheist. You, like most self-identified atheists, have reasons for holding the belief and those reasons are open to examination.

---

Oh and "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive terms by any means.  Neither are "theist" and "agnostic" mutually exclusive, though it is much harder to find and probably because agnosticism requires more cognitive integrity.  Only "atheist" and "theist" are mutually exclusive, and of this dichotomy I am definitely the former.

I don't believe that is the case. They are all very clear positions on the same question: does God exist.