[Replying to benchwarmer in post #41
Why the need to pigeon hole atheists as having more than a lack of belief in gods?
This is hilarious! I am not in any way whatsoever attempting to "pigeon hole atheists"? I really do not care what one believes. I am simply attempting to understand the difference now, between what we refer to as an atheist, as opposed to an agnostic? That's it! Because you see, I have to admit I must have been mistaken because at one point I was under the impression that an atheist did not believe there was a god. If we go back to what I supplied in my last post, this is exactly what it has to say about the atheist position, and I attempted to look for a site which would be neutral. Again, from dictionary.com,
Atheist vs. agnostic
There is a key distinction. An atheist doesn’t believe in a god or divine being. The word originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
Here is the link so you can look for yourself, and you can tell me if it is a neutral site?
So then, if I am not mistaken, this article certainly seems to be saying, atheists hold certain beliefs concerning gods. If this is not correct, I have no problem with it.
That seems to be what you and others are attempting to make happen. It's not working.
Well, as far as I am concerned, "it's not working" because I am not attempting "to make it happen". If you claim to be atheist, and you want to be known as simply "lacking belief" I have no problem with that in the least.
If you simply tell me you are a theist, should I then go ahead and assume your other beliefs in regards to gods beyond simply that you believe at least one god claim? Should I also assume you are a Christian without asking you? Should I start claiming that you believe in various attributes about the god you believe in based simply on your theism? Seems kinda silly to me, but that's what this whole discussion seems like only the other way around.
How in the world am I assuming anything about the atheist position, by asking these questions? I am simply having trouble at this point determining the difference between the atheist, and the agnostic? If these questions make me stupid, I will certainly own it. So then, call me stupid, and explain to me the difference? Because you see, the article I supplied, claims the difference would be, "atheism is the doctrine or belief there is no god". Again, I do not care! Please explain what advantage I would gain by attempting to force the atheist to hold a certain belief?
Trying to redefine what atheist means
Again, please explain to me, how in the world would asking for clarification, be considered to be, attempting to "redefine what atheist means"?
or attempt to build some sort of "gotcha moment" by pretending that atheist really means more than it does is pointless.
If I ask you what it means to be atheist, and you explain to me, it is simply a "lack of belief in god" what sort of "gotcha moment" would there be? Allow me to attempt to explain something to you. If you were to tell me, you BELIEVE there to be no gods, I will assure you that I would not in any way attempt to cause this to be a "gotcha moment". In other words, I am not going to attempt to force the "burden of proof" upon you, because you are not in any way making a truth claim, by sharing with me, what you happen to believe. This would only occur, when, and if, one were to go on to insist, there would be no god. It would be at this point, one would own the "burden of proof". One does not own the "burden of proof" simply by sharing what it is they believe.
It would be like atheists redefining what it means to be a Christian and then attacking your position because you identify as Christian. Is that what you want? It would make as much sense.
Again, if one identifies as an atheist, and is simply sharing with others what they believe, and does not make any sort of truth claims which cannot be demonstrated to be true, then I fail to see where there could be any sort of "gotcha moment", because I cannot see where such a one would own any sort of, "burden of proof" simply sharing what they believe. In the same way, a Christian who is simply sharing what they believe to be true, who does not make any sort of truth claims which cannot be demonstrated to be true, would not own any sort of burden.