What is Your Approach?

[Mister Agenda]

Others have already addressed this issue, but since it appears(I say "appears" because many before you have feigned interest in order to proselytize) that you honestly are interested in hearing the other side of the debate, I felt I would add my $0.02.

By the wording you have used in the section I have quoted it seems that you share the common misbelief that atheism is the stance that god does not exist, when, in fact, it is the position that the burden of proof that lies with those that claim god does exist has not been met. So, the term "atheist" does not denote the claim that a person makes about the existence of god, merely that it does not accept the claim that god does exist. Some atheists do claim that god does not exist, and those atheists are labeled "gnostic atheists," while that stake no claim are labeled "agnostic atheists." The majority of atheists I have encountered(so what appears to be a majority) are of the agnostic variety.

The big problem I have discovered, however, is that many theists take the agnostic atheist postion as one of intellectual cowardice when it is actually a position of intellectual honesty. They believe that it is an attempt to avoid having to defend any claims when it is actually the position that we don't have enough clear evidence make any claims in the first place. For some reason, many theists think that we must draw a conlcusion on god's existence based on the evidence before us, but these people need to realize that the conclusion drawn by agnostic atheists is that the evidence is insufficient.

In that case an agnostic atheist is exactly the same as an agnostic - you simply added an extra category. As far as division of belief I don't see the point. If you're classsfying Atheist as a social group I guess its necessary, but thats not really helping answer the question. The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

The Greek prefix 'a-' also means 'without'. Etymologically, 'atheist' means 'person without god' or more literally, 'without-god person'. Etymologically, it does not mean 'person who insists no gods exist'. It's only as complicated as you make it.

One could be an agnostic theist (don't know, still believe). Many are. Certainty is not a prerequisite to be a theist or an atheist.

You might think of it as a spectrum of answers to the question: does God exist?

Gnostic theist: definitely.
Agnostic theist: probably.
Agnostic Agnostic: I'd say fifty/fifty.
Agnostic atheist: probably not.
Gnostic theist: definitely not.

I know I'll probably get some flack for bringing in probability assessments or allowing for 'true' agnostics in the middle (you can make a case that the 'agnostic agnostic' is still an atheist) but thinking of it this way is a rule-of-thumb that will carry you pretty far.

[ITChick]

The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

Consulting a dictionary from time to time never hurt anyone.

athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity

However, I do not see the big deal with the different definitions of atheism. Regardless of whether it's a belief or lack of belief, really made no difference to me.

Couldn't agree more. I couldn't care less which defintion you use, or even what you call it.

[Faith No More]

In that case an agnostic atheist is exactly the same as an agnostic - you simply added an extra category.

One category denotes belief while one category denotes knowledge. To accurately convey a religious stance, both are necessary. For instance, one can be a gnostic or agnostic theist depending on whether they claim to know god exists. Some theists do not make the claim that god does indeed exist and are therefore agnostic.

Most people that identify simply as agnostic are technically atheists, however, I have met some agnostics that claim that that they don't even know whether they even belief if god exists.

As far as division of belief I don't see the point. If you're classsfying Atheist as a social group I guess its necessary, but thats not really helping answer the question. The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

Actually, the "atheos" is translated to mean godless, which still works within the defition I have stated.

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

Regardless, I find that irrelevant as language is not static. The word atheist has evolved to encompass not just those that deny god exists, but also those that are not certain but do not believe, since we have come to the point of separately labeling knowledge and belief.

[Mister Agenda]

It tends to only come up when people tell us what we think. The fine distinctions are usually unimportant.

[Rahul]

However, I do not see the big deal with the different definitions of atheism. Regardless of whether it's a belief or lack of belief, really made no difference to me.

The importance is that if you hold a belief that there is no god you are therefore making a claim. There is no god. So you have to back that claim up with evidence.

If you simply lack a belief in a god you are in a holding pattern until someone brings you evidence that there is or is not a god.

[Mister Agenda]

Regardless, I find that irrelevant as language is not static. The word atheist has evolved to encompass not just those that deny god exists, but also those that are not certain but do not believe, since we have come to the point of separately labeling knowledge and belief.

Which is pretty cool as, if I recall correctly, it was coined to describe Christians.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Even if it was the belief that there is no God, it would be justified on the same grounds.

Jim: "Hey Phil, is there a God?"

Phil: "Not that I know of."

Jim: "Why do you say that?"

Phil: "Because, I don't know of any"

Jim: "So your saying you know there isn't one."

Phil: "No, I'm saying that I don't believe in any of the ones I've heard of"

Jim: "Why not?"

Phil "No evidence."

Whether or not Phil identifies himself as an Atheist or an Agnostic is moot. Phil is perfectly justified in holding his position. He doesn't "Know of any Gods" nor does he "Believe in any Gods". Phil never made a claim to "Know that Gods are false", he merely indicated his position towards the Gods that have been propositioned to him thus far. If you think you have one worth adopting a belief in, lay it on me. Pretend I'm Phil! Your wasting time on titles that are really quite meaningless. You can't avoid your burden of proof here. You are making a positive claim that God is real. I'm inclined to think that you will be unable to prove it, but I'm still neutral to it as a possibility. My lack of belief in any to this point is just an indication of failed attempts made by theists, like yourself, to prove that their version of a God is worth believing in. You're wasting time. Convince me that it makes more sense to believe what you believe is true, rather than to not believe what you say is true. I haven't heard exactly what you believe yet, so, I can't really tell you if I have a problem with the process that got you to your conclusion. Perhaps you will soon get to the brass and tacks of your position and stop avoiding that burden that is sitting squarely on your shoulders.

[Locke]

Maybe this guy, who teaches christian historicity at some bible-belt seminary is biased...?

I don't think he's biased.. He just doesn't know what he's talking about. For example, he claims any uneducated person made a copy of the original, and the third copy would be a copy of that.. But they actually had scribes who copied manuscripts for a living in Jewish culture. When these scribes converted to Christianity, they would copy the original manuscripts. They would continue to use the original to make copies until the original fell apart from this type of use (ehixh generally took several generations). You then have what are called 'families' of manuscripts. Each 2nd generation copy would be copied from these, and all errors would then be confined to the descendents of an individual family, then tested against members of other families to ensure, up to present day, about 98% consistency in Scripture, of which the other 2% is noted in the bottom of every Bible printed today and, as you will find, accounts for absolutely no justifiable reason to discredit the Bible's message.

@Kayenneh and others who mentioned source criticism: While I look back at my original post and plainly see I communicated by intent poorly, I think you can still agree that poorly conducted research can yield faulty results. I have found these basic facts through a more thorough search than a few minutes on google.. Though I don't think google is a bad research tool or that the internet is unhelpful. I was simply pointing out that you won't find something you aren't looking for.

[Faith No More]

Though I don't think google is a bad research tool or that the internet is unhelpful. I was simply pointing out that you won't find something you aren't looking for.

Correct, but your wording made it sound as if atheists are only atheists because they are guilty of that. I appreciate that that was not your intention, but I believe that is what is responsible for the tone of the replies.

[Locke]

In that case an agnostic atheist is exactly the same as an agnostic - you simply added an extra category.

One category denotes belief while one category denotes knowledge. To accurately convey a religious stance, both are necessary. For instance, one can be a gnostic or agnostic theist depending on whether they claim to know god exists. Some theists do not make the claim that god does indeed exist and are therefore agnostic.

Most people that identify simply as agnostic are technically atheists, however, I have met some agnostics that claim that that they don't even know whether they even belief if god exists.

As far as division of belief I don't see the point. If you're classsfying Atheist as a social group I guess its necessary, but thats not really helping answer the question. The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

Actually, the "atheos" is translated to mean godless, which still works within the defition I have stated.

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

Regardless, I find that irrelevant as language is not static. The word atheist has evolved to encompass not just those that deny god exists, but also those that are not certain but do not believe, since we have come to the point of separately labeling knowledge and belief.

Again, you're doing extra. Atheist, Agnostic, Deist and Theist encompasses everything necessary. There is no need to insert sub-categories.
The sub-categorization comes from the false dichotomy that faith and knowledge are in opposition to each other, when in reality they compliment one another. Faith is the confidence we have in something (be it God, or otherwise) that comes from a knowledge of that thing. As knowledge increases, evidence emerges and either increases or decreases faith in that subject. If it increases faith, then faith in turn motivates us to seek out more knowledge.

If you see someone with faith blatently denying the facts, then what you are witnessing is not faith, but ignorance.
And ignorance is, after all, the opposite of knowledge.