athiests...

[SlowNA06]

STRONG atheism is not a "belief" or "faith", but rather a LACK of belief or faith due to a lack of empirical evidence.

Fixt. This is the kinda thing I'm talking about - not all atheists are the same kind of atheist.

Secondly, it is not the job of the non-believer to disprove your claims (or those of your faith). The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim, as you cannot prove a negative.

The burden of proof can be on either, actually. Frankly, if you're making a point, you've got to bring the proof or you're just a jerk.

most people who claim to be agnostic are also atheist.

I'd love to say this is wrong, but I frankly don't know more than a couple agnostics... most of which are theists.

If you do not have a belief in any particular god as outlined in any scriptures, you are atheist by definition, even if you believe there are other forces or "creators" out there. That just makes you a "weak (not derogatory) atheist", or "agnostic atheist", as opposed to someone who claims to know for a fact that there is no god, which would be a "strong" or "gnostic atheist".

You're confusing your terms somewhat (I could also, perhaps, be a tad pedantic in the case that nobody else thinks the distinctions matter). The belief in a superior force is theist. An agnostic theist would believe that there is a higher power, but it is impossible to know what it is; they are not atheist. Therefore, not all weak atheists are agnostic atheists, either.

[RareGMFan]

Fixt. This is the kinda thing I'm talking about - not all atheists are the same kind of atheist.

Where did I claim all atheists are the same? All I said is that by definition, an a-theist lacks/is without belief in a deity, and that a lack of belief is not a belief in itself. In fact, if anything, the rest of what you quoted got into some detail about how different atheists can be because the term atheism doesn't define them any further than "I do not believe in any particular deity", so I'm not sure what you were getting at here.

The burden of proof can be on either, actually. Frankly, if you're making a point, you've got to bring the proof or you're just a jerk.

So...if I claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god, and you deny this, the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove my claim unless you're just a jerk? How does that make sense? Theological topics seem to be the only ones where "disprove my claim" is seen as an acceptable request by the person making the request.

I'd love to say this is wrong, but I frankly don't know more than a couple agnostics... most of which are theists.

.........

You're confusing your terms somewhat (I could also, perhaps, be a tad pedantic in the case that nobody else thinks the distinctions matter). The belief in a superior force is theist. An agnostic theist would believe that there is a higher power, but it is impossible to know what it is; they are not atheist. Therefore, not all weak atheists are agnostic atheists, either.

I'm not confusing the terms at all. It's the mass public that confuses the terms, and the way you defined them above is the stereotypical misconception. Theism is NOT some generic belief in a "superior force". The term was created in the 17th Century to define a believer of at least one specific deity, primarily to take on deism, which was all the rage in the 17th Century (and is what our founding fathers were, NOT Christian, which is another misconception). Whether you are monotheist or polytheist, a theist by definition subscribes to one specific doctrine or another. The lack of belief that ANY deity exists is then atheism. A/theism refers to beliefs, a/gnosticism refers to knowledge. They both address different issues and are not competing labels. Believe me ( ), I've studied, discussed and debated religion for quite a few years now. This isn't just some random topic to discuss that occasionally comes up on a car forum for me, so I have a better grasp on this subject than the average person.

My apologies and laughter but I read this whole paragraph under the voice of Leonard Nemoy The logic part and way you worded the whole thing just made his voice pop into my head.

Great. Now that's stuck in MY head! As soon as I read Leonard Nemoy, I could hear his voice speaking those words, too.



*Edit* How about an FSM reference, Wotgtp?