False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Statler Waldorf]

Provide proof.

Already did, atheism is defined as a positive belief system, that requires proof. Try to keep up please.

According to the definition of the word, look into a dictonary, lexica or just google for the definition.

I already provided definitions of the term, it doesn’t mean what you assert it means.

You and your fellow christian Borg are those who redefine the wort so it fits their pathetic agenda by adding the word "rejection"

Actually the writers of both articles I cited from the encyclopedias of philosophy that agree with me are both atheists.

Nonsence, a person who get`s knowlege from rational empiricism will reject claims of faith and only accept the existance of thing which can be empiricaly proven.

The formal rules of debate do not presuppose empiricism.

For these individuals the burden of proof lies by those who lack empircal evidence.

And for Christians the burden of proof is on those who deny the existence of God, so in a debate dealing with an interrogative both sides equally share the burden of proof; rules are rules!

The definition can be found everywhere and most people who actualy can put up the effort to look it up will find it. You on the other hand seem to be to lazy.

I did look it up and I was even nice enough to post it for you; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (edited by an atheist) makes a clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, definitions matter.

Your definition is faulty and absolutly silly because it defines agnostics through the feelings you assert they may have for atheists.

That was not my definition, it was the definition philosophers are to hold to. Only smax seems to cite his own authority on such matters, not me.

This shows how disconected you are from reality.

Because I care what the actual definitions of terms are? Right.

Make more sence!

Sence? Do you mean sense?

Amongst the definitions you gave are such which aprove his point, and yet you have the audacity to remark that he is redefining the definition!

Not a single one of those sources defines atheism as a mere lack of belief; they all define it as a denial (which is a belief) or a positive belief in the non-existence of god; all of which require proof. I have the dictionary, the construction of the word itself, and encyclopedias of philosophy all on my side, you have smax’s opinion.

Worthless information.

I am not surprised you find one of the world’s most well respected encyclopedias of philosophy to be worthless information, it’s no wonder you cannot define your own position correctly.