False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Esquilax]

It’s not my definition, it’s the definition accepted by philosophers for centuries; the bigger question is why would you accept smax’s self-serving definition that no proper authority agrees with? Simply because you want to?

And my point is, yet again, that the definition does not address the beliefs that I and the others here- that agree with the OP and not with you- hold. By continuing along with the definition you find more convenient, rather than the one that conforms more closely to the beliefs we actually hold, you're essentially constructing a strawman by definition, and not a one of us is required to argue with the position you think we ought to have.

Words change, but the philosophical meaning of the term atheism has not.

According to you. And strangely, my beliefs still haven't changed, no matter how hard you quibble over words.

It does matter; since you are holding the position that affirms the non-existence of God and gods you must therefore prove that all gods do not exist, good luck.

No. No, that's not the position I nor anyone else here holds, and I'm not obligated to defend the strawmen you want to set up. My position is disbelief in god claims until proper evidence is given, and considering you'd rather spend your time dishonestly arguing about words, I'll hazard a guess that you have no evidence at all.

You don't get to tell me what I believe, Statler. I'll tell you. Anything else is just flat out lying.

Because you claim to be an atheist, and I know what that term philosophically means, it’s a positive claim concerning the non-existence of gods.

Once again, why should I be bound to your definition over anyone else's? Because it's the one you found that's most convenient for your fallacious argument? Wikipedia lists the definition I've cited, does that mean it's equally as valid?

Just admit you're full of shit, dude. This is getting sad.

You’re obviously not following what I am saying; neither of us is making a negative claim, that’s why we both share the burden of proof. As for your silly argument about knowing there is no God; it’s easy enough to refute because it’s self-refuting. In order for someone to know that there is no God they themselves would have to be divine because they’d have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and timeless. So a God can know that there are no other gods besides himself, but no being can know that there are no gods at all; so this does nothing to prove atheism which claims there are no gods. I know you’re not omniscient though because you clearly did not know that little detail.

That's right, Statler; I'm clearly not omniscient because I don't conform to the made up, unevidenced and baldly asserted criteria you and nobody else is putting on this god thing. Because the only thing that matters about reality is what Statler says, and we're all bound by his proclamations...

Then stop identifying as an atheist because that’s not what you are.

Statler, all these snivelling demands that we follow your definition because you want us to are only making you look like a goddamn toddler. Stop it.

I am holding to the position held by philosophers and every encyclopedia of philosophy, I’ll stick to it over your self-refuting position.

And yet you still can't comprehend that words have multiple meanings, or sometimes the meaning evolves.

That’s not the actual debate, you have just as much of the burden of proof because of the definition of your position; you see definitions do matter! Additionally, this has nothing to do with theists, both of the articles I cited from the encyclopedias of philosophy were written by atheists and they agree with me on this issue.

Words only matter insofar as you are, yet again, deliberately warping the position we actually hold to your own benefit, a thoroughly dishonest tactic.

Yes, but the philosophical definition of atheism has not, it’s always been a positive claim.

He asserted, baselessly, as though any of us are required to give a shit.

Nobody has provided an encyclopedia of philosophy that defines atheism as a lack of belief, and those are the references philosophers use to define positions accurately. If you want to debate this rationally then that is the definition you are going to have to adhere to, you are not allowed in debate to redefine a position in a manner that is self-serving and not accepted by proper authorities on the matter. I bet you are not even aware of where the “lack of belief” revisionist’s definition came from are you? You’d be surprised.

You really wanna talk about self serving redefinitions in a thread where you're attempting to force me to argue a position I don't hold using exactly that? Really?