False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Esquilax]

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but do not self-identify yourself as something you’re not, it’s irrational.

Which is only a statement worth paying attention to if you can provide a compelling reason why your definition of atheism should be placed on a pedestal as a template.

What definition is that? It’s not the common philosophical one.

Living language, words change, why is your definition the one we should all follow? etc etc.

Besides, it doesn't matter, which was my initial point; whatever word you want to use, it doesn't alter the beliefs I hold, and nor does it validate your position over mine. I could call myself a Smorkulator, and you still haven't come an inch closer to actually resolving the difference of opinion between yourself and the Smorkulist position.

You are making a positive claim though.

Am I? How do you know? How do you know that my position is different from the one I stated above?

If I were dealing with rational folks I would expect you to realize that you shoulder just as much of the burden of proof as the theist does. I am not surprised you do not realize that though.

If that's the way you want to play it, then I can end this debate right now; I'm omnipotent and have been to every point in the universe at every point in time at every scale of existence, and I can conclusively state that there is no god. Prove me wrong. If you can't, then my claim has precisely the same weight as yours about the existence of god; after all, we've all got burdens of proof over negative claims, now.

Hell, "god does not exist," isn't even my position, I just needed a positive claim to make the comparison work. A more accurate version would be this: I exist in a world and have compiled, through my experiences, a worldview that prompts me to believe that theists haven't provided me enough evidence to believe their god claims. Prove me wrong.

Go on, Statler; prove to me that you have provided me enough proof to believe your god claims. Prove that I believe you.

Do you see how fucking idiotic the position you're taking is, yet?

Keep in mind that I am not the one who started this thread, so apparently atheists do believe the philosophical definitions of these terms matter as well.

We wouldn't have to care if theists would stop quibbling over the definition of the word and instead focus on proving their god claims, ie: the actual debate.

Both articles I cited from the encyclopedias of philosophy were written by atheists. Philosophers use these as references for defining terms, if you do not like the manner in which these words have always been defined in the philosophical community that is not my problem.

Words change. Wow.

This is rather amusing, the thread starts with an atheist imploring others to see the importance of defining terms correctly and correctly understanding how burdens of proof work; but then when a theist comes in and corrects all of the mistakes in the original post all of the atheists begin crying in unison “but the definition of a term doesn’t really matter!” You cannot make this stuff up; I love this site.

It's not about the definition of words, as proven by the fact that we were all able to come up with competing definitions of the term. It's about theists using those multiple definitions to, as you have, mischaracterize atheist beliefs and motivations, and then treating those inaccurate concepts as binding. If you actually look, you'll see this thread was started with a mind to clearing up those misconceptions, not about what words mean.