I am an agnostic atheist and am a bit confused why members of the Atheist Experience down play atheism. First, atheism is a metaphysical position. On the program I have heard differently. Second, to state that atheism is a lack of belief in a god/s is nothing more than agnosticism. Atheism is the position or claim that gods do not exist. It is a belief, that is an assumption thought to be true. Atheism is either true or false, since we do not have adequate knowledge we can only assume are belief that gods do not exist is true. Do not confuse belief with faith. If atheism is not a position then you and I are wasting our time arguing with theists. Also, don't forget about strong vs weak atheism.

If "theism" is the belief in a god, then "atheism" is the lack of a belief in a god. This is the definition that most atheists I know use. "Gnosticism" and "agnosticism" are claims about knowledge (not belief). If you ask someone about their religious beliefs and they answer that they are agnostic, they are dodging the question by answering about what they think is knowable. Some atheists joking say that agnostics are atheists without convictions.

Atheism is a position. It says that the atheist has not seen sufficient evidence to warrant belief. The next obvious question is whether the theist has any convincing evidence.

Many theists would like to force the burden of proof on atheists (because they don't have evidence for their claims), so most theists will try to define atheism as a positive belief that there is no god. While there are some atheists who hold this position (called strong atheism), our movement is based around the weaker claim (weak atheism) that we don't believe. In doing so, we're casting a wider net. We would include agnostics as atheists, too, as we presume a person doesn't believe in something that is thought to be unknowable.

If you want to argue with theists, argue the evidence. Atheism is a "belief" like bald is a hair color. Atheism is not about making positive claims. If you want to make positive claims, focus on evidence, reasoning, and science. Those are the tools that work.

What do you think about apatheism. I read on William Lane Craig's website that it is a solecism. I honestly think His Holy Debaterness is full of specious shit. I consider myself an apatheist not because of an unwillingness to have a position or do my home work, but because I have and I find the whole thing pointless.

Ned,

Debating theists often is an uphill battle, but there are many on the sidelines whose minds can be changed.

I personally think it's worth the fight because of the large number of negative impacts religion has in our society. I can understand if you think your energies are better spent elsewhere.

Ned Flanders said, "What do you think about apatheism. I read on William Lane Craig's website that it is a solecism."

Apatheists neither believe in nor deny the existence of gods. If you mean he thinks apatheism is a solecism (a grammatical mistake or absurdity) I suppose a person definitely could be totally indifferent to belief in god/gods.

Some of us think that evolution (which is currently under siege) is important to future generations. We also think that people who don't believe in god/gods have as much right to live without harassment as functioning illiterates.

I do agree that there are theists who are not worth arguing with, but I do think some of them should be challenged. I think that if non-believers want to have their issue heard they would have to speak up. There are many things that are going on right now, which will affect non-believers that could be discussed.

I think that if a person has no interest in something they probably wouldn't be interested in changing anything. If you are satisfied with the current situation then have a nice day.

Ned Flanders "Linda, are you an idiot?"

I wouldn't think an apatheist would care one way or another if she were an idiot. Don't you still "honestly think His Holy Debaterness is full of specious shit." Maybe he doesn't love theists?

Although, it's not hard to believe that you think debaterness is a word like oh say, grammer, but were you being funny? It's not funny - it's just stupid. It's not a word any more than Supernature - its fake crap. Like "The Hundredth Monkey".

"The Hundredth Monkey" vision had its beginnings back in 1979, in a book called Lifetide by Lyall Watson. This is a paranormal phenomenon. This monkey science reports a spurt in a learning curve that happens when enough individuals share the same idea. If large enough numbers of people think, or learn the same thing, a phenomenon occurs and everyone learns it everywhere else, without making contact in any way. Their thoughts travel through the air and (I guess) telepathically arrive some place or everywhere. Well, this lead to if you got enough people in one place, and then told them all to think the same thing we could change the world. Don't they do that in Church every Sunday? Things were going fine until some damned meddling scientist wanted to see the actual paper work, and he proved the Hundredth Monkey theory was full of huge chunks of crap. I guess that's why he didn't collect the million-dollar reward from James Randi?

Please don't mix up "The Hundredth Monkey" science with Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins "memes". Memes are practically any piece of information that can be communicated from one human mind to another. Memes act in culture like genes act in nature, but memes leap from mind to mind through books, films, Internet etc. I don't think its telepathy.

With all due respect Don, atheism is a belief. It is not a lack of belief. That is agnosticism. I think the problem is you mean disbelief in god not lack of. You guys are committing the etymological fallacy. Historically, atheism is the belief (because we assume it to be true) that gods do not exist. Antony Flew can change the meaning if he likes, but then he risks changing the position altogether. Both theism and atheism are rational beliefs. To argue otherwise is to be dogmatic and closed-minded and not intellectually honest. It seems to me atheists are afraid of considering the possibility of the existence of a god, as if your stigmatized. I do not believe in god/or gods (and I know you don't care what I think) but no matter the arguments or the clever witticism on both sides or quoting every learned intellect along the way does not get us closer to certainty. I think the entire endeavor debating the existence of god is silly. Both sides seem to think they are superior than the other. Personally, I think you all are nuts.

Will Tanner,

The person who is making the claim that a god exists has a belief. An atheist is not convinced that you have proven your claim. If you say something is true you are the one who has to prove it is true. Atheists are not making a claim and have no reason to prove anything. Someone could claim a gnome is the creator of the universe. Can you prove them wrong? You didn't make the claim, so why would you have to prove anything. You are simply not accepting a claim that was made without proof or evidence. One does not ask others to disprove their claim that they made without evidence, in order to prove it's true and then call that a belief. That's what is dishonest! Not if they are really interested in finding out what is true and what is nonsense. If they have a valid claim they provide evidence to support it, and if they don't have any evidence they don't have a claim. And I don't have a belief. When God materializes and starts speaking to me I will start believing.

If everyone believed things because they wished they were true we would all believe many things that are false.

Allen Lee,

Belief does not require knowledge, and does not have to be based on your own knowledge or evidence. A belief can be based on "faith" or "assurance" that an authority figure is telling you the truth. Some people claim to have a "true" belief, but it may not be justified, and it is not knowledge. A false belief that is very justified is not knowledge. Not knowing doesn't fundamentally mean not believing; it simply means your belief doesn't rise to the state of knowledge.

God is a claim that is made without evidence. Atheists dismiss the god/gods claim. I can dismiss any claim that is made without evidence without having to prove anything. However, I think that there is a preponderance of evidence of fraud in all religions, and I think science refutes Holy Book claims.