False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[smax]

There seems to be a misguided perception, among Theists, about the definition of the word: Atheist, and how that term relates to Agnosticism. Many Theists feel Atheism is the denial of the existence of god, and that Agnosticism represents a completely different perspective altogether.

It isn't, and it doesn't. Atheism is simply the answer to a question:

Do you believe in god? No.

It's no more, and no less. The Atheist does not, by definition, carry some burden of proof that god doesn't exist. Further more, most Atheists are also Agnostic, as Agnostic is simply the answer to another question:

Do you know that god doesn't exist? No.

The problem with this perception is that creates many debate challenges that are either irrelevant or invalid, like for example:

"You are an Atheist, so prove that god doesn't exist?"

This question comes up frequently in debate/discussions with Theists, but the question itself misrepresents the position of Atheists. A more appropriate question in that discussion is:

"You are a Theist, so prove god exists?"

The point is, the misperception of the Atheist position is a deterrent to effective and progressive discussion between Atheists and Theists.

I'll conclude with what I feel is a perfectly appropriate quote from Stephen Roberts:

"Atheism"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[Something completely different]

These false perception do not only occure amongst theists.

Look at A+ and how they redefine the word.
To communist Albanian despots and Mao, atheism meant that one had to destroy religion itself and not just simply reject it.

[Simon Moon]

There seems to be a misguided perception, among Theists, about the definition of the word: Atheist, and how that term relates to Agnosticism. Many Theists feel Atheism is the denial of the existence of god, and that Agnosticism represents a completely different persepective altogether.

It isn't, and it doesn't. Atheism is simply the answer to a question:

Do you believe in god? No.

It's no more, and no less. The Atheist does not, by definition, carry some burden of proof that god doesn't exist. Further more, most Atheists are also Agnostic, as Agnostic is simply the answer to another question:

Do you know that god doesn't exist? No.

The problem with this perception is that creates many debate challenges that are either irrelevant or invalid, like for example:

"You are an Atheist, so prove that god doesn't exist?"

This question comes up frequently in debate/discussions with Theists, but the question itself misrepresents the position of Atheists. A more appropriate question in that discussion is:

"You are a Theist, so prove god exists?"

The point is, the misperception of the Atheist position is a deterrent to effective and progressive discussion between Atheists and Theists.

I'll conclude with what I feel is a perfectly appropriate quote from Stephen Roberts:

"Atheism"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Very nice.

I would also like to add, that for the majority of atheists, their atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

As long as there continues to be a lack of demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, my atheism will continue.

[smax]

These false perception do not only occure amongst theists.

Look at A+ and how they redefine the word.
To communist Albanian despots and Mao, atheism meant that one had to destroy religion itself and not just simply reject it.

It seems to be socially acceptable to misrepresent the beliefs of Atheists, which I find fascinating, and perhaps quite revealing.

---

Very nice.

I would also like to add, that for the majority of atheists, their atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

As long as there continues to be a lack of demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, my atheism will continue.

Agreed. Why anyone would take any other position is beyond me.

[pocaracas]

This should be stickied somewhere, so everyone reads this before posting the same old tired crap.

[ideologue08]

There seems to be a misguided perception, among Theists, about the definition of the word: Atheist, and how that term relates to Agnosticism. Many Theists feel Atheism is the denial of the existence of god, and that Agnosticism represents a completely different persepective altogether.

Well, apparently, a lot of Atheists also don't use a spell-checker. What is the point you're trying to make? Atheists also make the exact same mistake. It makes no difference to me whether someone is Atheist, Agnostic or Deist, it's all the same to me.

[Something completely different]

It seems to be socially acceptable to misrepresent the beliefs of Atheists, which I find fascinating, and perhaps quite revealing.

I dont think it is socialy acceptable.
It is simply convinient for people how promote an agenda which has opponents, to label that opponent with non to flattering collours for the purpose of disinfrangement. This has always and will alway be done with deliberate ignorance for the truth of the matter.

Not just simply with atheism. Just look arround and observe any political campain anywhere, or read a tabloid which has an agenda against certain people.

[smax]

There seems to be a misguided perception, among Theists, about the definition of the word: Atheist, and how that term relates to Agnosticism. Many Theists feel Atheism is the denial of the existence of god, and that Agnosticism represents a completely different persepective altogether.

Well, apparently, a lot of Atheists also don't use a spell-checker. What is the point you're trying to make? Atheists also make the exact same mistake. It makes no difference to me whether someone is Atheist, Agnostic or Deist, it's all the same to me.

Did you really just ask what the point was?

[ideologue08]

Did you really just ask what the point was?

Basic English comprehension skills would give a pretty decisive answer. Now, was there a point in mentioning Theists or not?

[smax]

and then demonstrate that you already knew?