False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Esquilax]

Sure, but denying or disbelieving in the existence of God is not the same thing as merely “lacking a belief” in God or gods, you’re still taking a position. This has been my argument from the beginning; the whole “lacking a belief in god” is not an accepted definition for the term and stems from intellectual laziness more than anything.

Gotta take issue with this "intellectual laziness," thing: you're mistaking honesty for laziness. Like, here, you went on to say this:

I see no reason why a person having enough intellectual and philosophical fortitude in order to take a position on the matter and defend it is something to be sad about; I wish more non-believers did the same.

Why are you so desperate for everyone to have an answer, any answer, even if we don't have enough information to formulate one that has even the vaguest hopes of being correct? What's so wrong about admitting we don't know? Why is brashly sticking to one answer without sufficient information a positive trait, to you?

What this is is having an open mind, Statler. You say you can prove your position, and my position is that I'll weigh the evidence and see if it convinces me. Given that as of yet nobody has been able to prove a god to me, isn't this position where I might be convinced better- both in general and for you specifically- than one where I assert there is no god?

What's wrong with admitting you might be wrong, Statler?

Why did you ignore my point? Is my hypothetical person a Muslim or not? It has a huge impact on the debate because it means atheists share the burden of proof.

No, your hypothetical person wouldn't be a muslim, any more than he would be a muslim if you went up to him while he was eating a hotdog and loudly asserted that all people who eat hotdogs are muslim. Even if a number of philosophers also said that all eaters of hotdogs are muslim.

Hell, even if a bunch of hotdog manufacturers said that.

You do not have the root meaning of the word on your side at all; it means belief in no god. You’re right about one thing though, I cannot force you to correctly self-identify yourself, if you wish to call yourself a Buddhist or Muslim go right ahead, but you’re not any less one of those than you are an atheist in the philosophical sense.

So argue against the Smorkulist position. Like I said, the word isn't the key part of the debate.