False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Esquilax]

I cited the proper definition of the term, and I cited my sources, you merely cited your own opinion.

I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, whenever I see people quibbling over this word, so here goes; so what, Statler?

Am I bound to the definition of the word in a book, or am I bound to the beliefs I actually hold, and the rules of logic? Irrespective of what anyone else has interpreted the word to mean, I have my own beliefs, and I won't allow them to be warped and taken out of my hands by others; you can define words however you want, but in the end you're just engaging in doublespeak, and I'm not obliged to alter my beliefs based on what you've said.

I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god, and furthermore I self identify as an atheist based on a common definition that conforms to my beliefs. Since I'm not making a positive claim- regardless of whatever definition you prefer to deploy- I have no burden of proof. So... hey.

What have you actually proved, here? What's the use in this argument? Do you actually expect us to go "Oh, shit: Statler's presented a definition of atheism that would require a burden of proof; I'd better change my beliefs to comport with this." Is that what you think is going to happen? Because I've got news for you: you're simply dead wrong.

But let's say I even accept that our beliefs are defined by definitions: which one? Because there's more than one, depending on where you go; we've already had multiple definitions bandied about here, from the one I ascribe to, to several hostile ones from christian apologists. Why does your definition have primacy over all the other ones? Because it's convenient to your argument?

Even more: words change. It's a living language. The words themselves aren't bound to your definition any more than I am. In the end, all you're accomplishing is... well, nothing. You can assert your definition as much as you like; no part of the world around you is going to bow to it.

[smax]

Bitch and moan like an impotent prick because that's all you've got.

That sounds an awful lot like what you do, perhaps that's why you're advising others to do it?

---

I suspect you are an educated man. You just got a poor and misguided education.

Well, it definitely looks like he is more educated than yourself, there's no question about that. So if his education is poor and misguided...kinda says a lot about your education. Where were you schooled? In a
basement?

If so, it was a basement where they knew the proper definition of the word Atheist.

Even you disagree with him.

[Statler Waldorf]

According to the Greek language. "Theism" is belief in one or more gods. The "a" prefix means "lack of the following". So atheism is lack of belief in one or more gods.

Nope, the “a” does not modify “ism” as you seem to have asserted, it modifies “the”, so the word literally means a belief in no God. That’s still a belief, not a lack of belief.

Says someone who violated them in the very post in which he made this assertion (and is debating a subject he evidently knows very little about).

Which rule did I violate? I cited my sources, so I was not relying upon my own authority as you seem to be.

Since Huxley invented the term, according to him. It's not really the answer to a question, though, it's a position - "do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

And it’s a position very distinct from atheism, which is exactly the opposite of what the OP was asserting.

One can self-identify as both an atheist and as an agnostic. (Many here do.) One can also self-identify as a theist and an agnostic.

You’re assuming those who self-identify as both an agnostic and an atheist are logically consistent, which they are not.

Since atheism isn't "God doesn't exist", it's a nonsensical challenge. If you're a Christian, "prove that 2 = 3" is about as "fair".

Atheism is the positive belief in the non-existence of any gods; that includes the Christian God, so if you’re going to hold the positive belief that the Christian God does not exist you’re going to have to prove it.

No, because that's not what it says. He's saying that when you understand why you reject the notions of Isis, Jove, Odin, etc., you'll understand why non-Jews reject the notion of Yahweh and non-Christians reject the notion of God (which is the English name of the Christian god).

Yes, and the reason I reject the existence of those gods is because they are not Yahweh, so he rejects the existence of all gods because they are also not Yahweh since he claims our reasons are identical.

To quote someone else in this post, "According to whom? You?" Oh, and you're wrong. The word isn't "the", it's not "ism", it's theism - from the Greek "belief in one god".

According to Greek. No, you’re wrong again, atheism is a three part word deriving from the Greek terms “a” “theos” and “ismos”; it literally translates in English to mean belief (ismos) in no (a) god (theos). The “a” modifies theos, not ismos.

Christian sources have Christian definitions.

We define words using the dictionary, not your personal opinion, sorry.

It's not "suspension" of disbelief, it's disbelief itself. This is one of the worst dictionary [mis]definitions of "atheism" I've ever seen - it's not just biased, it's completely incorrect.

It’s one of the most prestigious encyclopedias of philosophy in the world, what’s your source? Your own opinion?

You can't argue that "it doesn't mean what he said it means because ..." if you want to be taken seriously.

I am not arguing anything close to that, I am arguing that the term is not synonymous with atheism as smax asserted, which it is not.

Really? Evidently we all missed that post. (Dictionaries don't give definitions, they give usage.)

That’s hilarious. They give both. You’ve cited nothing to support your case by the way, so I am writing it all off as your own personal opinion.

I cited the Greek language, from which the word was taken.

No, you didn’t; theism is an English word derived from two different Greek words (theos and ismos), you’re not very good at this.

Actually it's a valid appeal to authority, in one sense - that atheists get to define what we are.

Fine, then as a Christian I am defining theism to be “the true belief that God exists”- and you cannot argue with me because dictionaries do not give definitions, encyclopedias of philosophy are all wrong, and as a theist I get to define my own position. By the way, how do you know smax is an atheist?

Little Monkey does not have the credentials to define the term atheist for all of us. Do you have anything better?Greek. Your "'a' modifies 'the', not 'ism'" seems to be totally lacking in citation, reference, authority, validity, sense ...

That’s amusing considering you have not cited anything. “A” modifies “the” and not “ism” because “ism” is merely a suffix; prefixes (in this case “a”) do not modify suffixes they modify the element (which in this case is “the” from the Greek word theos), thanks for playing.

Now prove God does not exist.

The word "Atheist" comes from the greek word "ἄθεος", meaning "Without god, knowing and worshipping no God"

According to what atheist website? I’ll need a reference because when I look up the term in the Greek it comes back as meaning “denying the gods”. Also the English word atheism didn’t exist until the 16th century, at which point it was defined as someone to affirms the non-existence of God or gods.

As evidence that this term was meant to, nor did it, denote a denial of god, early Christians were often branded "Atheists" for their LACK OF BELIEF in multiple gods.

No, early Christians were called atheists because they affirmed the non-existence of the Greek and Roman gods.

ἄθεος, (Θεός) (from Pindar down], without God, knowing and worshipping no God, in which sense Aelian v. h. 2, 31 declares ὅτι μηδείς τῶν βαρβάρων ἄθεος; in classic authors generally slighting the gods, impious, repudiating the gods recognized by the state, in which sense certain Greek philosophers, the Jews (Josephus, contra Apion 2, 14, 4), and subsequently Christians were called ἄθεοι (or Atheists) by the heathen (Justin, Apology 1, 13, etc.).

Absolutely no mention of “lack of belief”, that’s interesting. I’ll stick to the way philosophers define the term.

With all due respect, man, I suspect you are an educated man. You just got a poor and misguided education. Between this error and the crap you believe about Joseph's father, it's clear to me that you were not educated responsibly.

Shame on me for using philosophical sources and references to define my philosophical terms!

The fact that Christians were called "Atheists" leaves no room for debate on this subject, as it makes clear what the initial meaning behind the word was, and what the long accepted definition of it was.

So since the Greeks called Christians atheists, are you asserting that Christians are atheists? If the term really means lacking a belief in God or gods how can Christians be atheists? The term has always meant in the philosophical sense a positive belief in the non-existence of God or gods, it’s not my fault it’s not a defensible position.

Little monkey might be a wafflist instead of an atheist, it hardly matters. Deal with his wafflism - bitching about whether or not his conception of atheism conforms to your definition of it is pointless. Handle the meat, and not the packaging.

-or-
Bitch and moan like an impotent prick because that's all you've got.

Your call.

I will not apologize for caring about what the actual philosophical definition of atheism has always been. Definitions matter, and you are not allowed to re-define your position in a self-serving manner, it’s not theists’ fault that you have adopted an indefensible position. I suggest you adopt a different position.

Am I bound to the definition of the word in a book, or am I bound to the beliefs I actually hold, and the rules of logic? Irrespective of what anyone else has interpreted the word to mean, I have my own beliefs, and I won't allow them to be warped and taken out of my hands by others; you can define words however you want, but in the end you're just engaging in doublespeak, and I'm not obliged to alter my beliefs based on what you've said.

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

I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god, and furthermore I self identify as an atheist based on a common definition that conforms to my beliefs.

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

Since I'm not making a positive claim- regardless of whatever definition you prefer to deploy- I have no burden of proof. So... hey.

You are making a positive claim though.

Do you actually expect us to go "Oh, shit: Statler's presented a definition of atheism that would require a burden of proof; I'd better change my beliefs to comport with this."

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. 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.

But let's say I even accept that our beliefs are defined by definitions: which one? Because there's more than one, depending on where you go; we've already had multiple definitions bandied about here, from the one I ascribe to, to several hostile ones from christian apologists. Why does your definition have primacy over all the other ones? Because it's convenient to your argument?

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.

Even more: words change. It's a living language. The words themselves aren't bound to your definition any more than I am. In the end, all you're accomplishing is... well, nothing. You can assert your definition as much as you like; no part of the world around you is going to bow to it.

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.

[little_monkey]

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.

What is funny is that there are 33,000 Christian denominations, each claiming to have the absolute truth.

[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.

[smax]

According to what atheist website?

From the University of Cambridge:

Atheist: "it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,'without, not', and 'theos', 'God'"

I’ll need a reference because when I look up the term in the Greek it comes back as meaning “denying the gods”.

That's just a definition that suits your religion's agenda, and I'll make a case for that later in this response.

Also the English word atheism didn’t exist until the 16th century, at which point it was defined as someone to affirms the non-existence of God or gods.

I'll take this as a concession that the original meaning had been changed to fit the religious agenda. Again, I'll be making that case.

No, early Christians were called atheists because they affirmed the non-existence of the Greek and Roman gods.

That's your position. With that, are you conceding that you fit your own definition of an "Atheist"?

ἄθεος, (Θεός) (from Pindar down], without God, knowing and worshipping no God, in which sense Aelian v. h. 2, 31 declares ὅτι μηδείς τῶν βαρβάρων ἄθεος; in classic authors generally slighting the gods, impious, repudiating the gods recognized by the state, in which sense certain Greek philosophers, the Jews (Josephus, contra Apion 2, 14, 4), and subsequently Christians were called ἄθεοι (or Atheists) by the heathen (Justin, Apology 1, 13, etc.).

[quote]Absolutely no mention of “lack of belief”, that’s interesting.

Absolutely no mention of "Denial of existence", that's interesting.

I’ll stick to the way philosophers define the term.

You do whatever you want. It's your ignorance at stake.

The fact is, Christians today reject the term "Atheism" being applied to them in ANY capacity. In fact, William Lane Craig has rejected the notion that even his cat might be Atheist, which is an extremely silly thing to consider in the first place.

But this was not always the Christian position. Justin Martyr, in his letter to Augustus Caesar, embraced the term Atheism as someone who did not believe in the gods of the state.

"Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity"

Now, why would he make such a concession if the term "Atheist" meant the "denial of the existence of god" in the general sense that you claim it does?

No matter how slice this, your definition is not consistent with the original meaning and perception of the term "Atheism".

Clearly Justin Martyr believed that Atheism did not rule out the possibility of god.

So why the dramatic change? Why do Christians now reject the term on ANY level?

Could it be that Rome's rather hostile takeover of the Christian faith changed many things about the religion and it's views?

Could it be that the same government that persecuted and killed many thousands of people for the crime of "Atheism" was no longer willing to consider Christianity a form of Atheism?

Like I said, the term "Atheism" has been villafied as part of the religious agenda. The mere fact that Christians reject the term "Atheism" as it applies to their position of non-belief regarding all other religions is proof of that.

So since the Greeks called Christians atheists, are you asserting that Christians are atheists? If the term really means lacking a belief in God or gods how can Christians be atheists? The term has always meant in the philosophical sense a positive belief in the non-existence of God or gods, it’s not my fault it’s not a defensible position.

Did you even read this non-sense before posting it?

The Greeks created the term, but they are wrong about it's definition, and were in error to apply the term to Christians?

That makes a lot of sense......



Get some sleep, dude, and try again tomorrow.

[Statler Waldorf]

What is funny is that there are 33,000 Christian denominations, each claiming to have the absolute truth.

Yup, there are 2.3 Billion Christians in the World.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 change. Wow.

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

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.

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.

From the University of Cambridge:

Atheist: "it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,'without, not', and 'theos', 'God'"

Yup, belief in no God.

That's your position. With that, are you conceding that you fit your own definition of an "Atheist"?

I hold the positive position that affirms the non-existence of the Greek and Roman gods, so in reference to them I am an atheist.

Absolutely no mention of "Denial of existence", that's interesting.

You’re the one asserting it doesn’t mean what it has always been defined to mean, so I expected you to back it up with at least something other than your personal opinion; I guess I shouldn’t have.

You do whatever you want. It's your ignorance at stake.

Defining a term correctly makes me ignorant? That’s funny. I’d think the person who started a thread about something he was clearly clueless about would be the one who was considered to be ignorant.

The fact is, Christians today reject the term "Atheism" being applied to them in ANY capacity. In fact, William Lane Craig has rejected the notion that even his cat might be Atheist, which is an extremely silly thing to consider in the first place.

That’s funny, given your definition of atheism a cat would be an atheist since it merely lacks a belief in God, not only this but a piece of cat feces would also be an atheist because it too lacks a belief in God. I personally would like to believe that atheists hold a bit more philosophically sophisticated position than a piece of cat dung; but maybe not. When you hold to absurd positions (such as your definition of the term atheism) they are going to lead to such absurd conclusions.

But this was not always the Christian position. Justin Martyr, in his letter to Augustus Caesar, embraced the term Atheism as someone who did not believe in the gods of the state.

Yes, Martyr denied the existence of the Roman Gods, he did not merely lack a belief in them. You’re just proving my point.

Now, why would he make such a concession if the term "Atheist" meant the "denial of the existence of god" in the general sense that you claim it does?

Because he denied the existence of the Roman gods, this isn’t rocket science.

No matter how slice this, your definition is not consistent with the original meaning and perception of the term "Atheism".

It’s not my definition; it’s the philosophically accepted definition.

Clearly Justin Martyr believed that Atheism did not rule out the possibility of god.

Yes it did, he was only an atheist when it came to the Roman gods (“as far as gods of the sort are concerned”), please try to keep up.

So why the dramatic change? Why do Christians now reject the term on ANY level?

I do not, and I know how to define it correctly.

The Greeks created the term, but they are wrong about it's definition, and were in error to apply the term to Christians?

So if the Greeks were wrong about the definition then why are you wasting all of this time appealing to the Greeks?

That makes a lot of sense......

No, your position doesn’t. Next time before you start another one of these ridiculous threads and waste everyone’s time maybe you should actually do some research (like maybe even looking up how a term is defined by encyclopedias of philosophy for starters). I hate being forced to embarrass you.

[smax]

Statler,

You do realize that the vast majority of the participants here agree with the definition provided in the OP, right?

But, by all means, embarrass the hell out of me!

[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?

[smax]

Statler,

Face it, your position on this matter is weak, which is probably why it took you so long to put together a response. Observe your own contradiction:

From the University of Cambridge:

Atheist: "it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,'without, not', and 'theos', 'God'"

Yup, belief in no God.

That's your position. With that, are you conceding that you fit your own definition of an "Atheist"?

I hold the positive position that affirms the non-existence of the Greek and Roman gods, so in reference to them I am an Atheist.

What, you couldn't even wait until your next post to contradict yourself? You had to do it in the same post.?

Here's a thought, how about you figure out exactly what is you believe about Atheism before telling Atheists what they believe.