Since you've radically redefined "non-theist" to itself be a theistic position
Utterly false.
I stated that Athesim to be a statement of belief and faith -- the faith in non-belief. That is not the same as calling it theist. Theist is defined as the belief in a God or Gods. Obviously that doesn't describe an atheist. However, that doesn't change that atheists are expressing a belief that itself does not have evidence in support of it.
What do you call someone who lacks belief in gods?
It depends on how they define that lack of belief. However, the idea that all people who lack belief in Gods are atheists -- IE, defined as an active disbelief, rather than a passive lack of belief -- is utterly flawed. There's a continuum of answers depending on a number of factors, and the attempt to reduce them to a binary state -- you believe in God/Gods or you don't -- does everyone involved a disservice.
Not someone who believes that all unknown things are totally impossible (I call that person an "idiot", not an "atheist" as you do)
...um... you know, I know you can read. I'd love to see the cited passage where I claimed anything even remotely like that.
Someone who considers that entities whose existence cannot be perceived nor subsidiary effects of their existence noticed are, obviously, totally irrelevant entities, and considering whether or not completely irrelevant things exist is a waste of time and effort?
See above. The answer to that could be 'atheist,' 'agnostic' or 'deist' depending on how they answered a whole host of subsidiary questions.
You've said you're an agnostic because you think there really might be something that can't be seen and can't be interacted with in any way out there, and that thing might be God.
That makes several times you claimed I said something that's not even remotely what I said, which seems at best odd to me. I said that I do not know any of these answers definitively. Not that God or something like him, her, it or them exists or doesn't, or that we're all a beta test of Spore. I didn't say I "think there really might be," I said I don't know if there is or isn't, and claiming knowledge either way would either take a leap of faith or a lie on my part, and I'm not doing either. Qualitative difference there.
What does that make someone who shares your complete lack of belief in any and all gods,
So... from "I don't know if there are gods or intelligences or not," you derive my "complete lack of belief in any or all gods." Hrm.
Well. I'm going to try to answer your question, regardless, but since I don't have a solid grasp on whether you have any grasp of what I'm saying, I'll try to cover all the bases.
1. If you're asking me "what if someone believes exactly as you do, Eric, but also doesn't give a shit because if there are gods, they clearly don't matter? What do you call them?"
I call them agnostics, since if they believe as I do they don't open with a belief for or against the question. There's nothing in agnosticism that demands someone be actively seeking an answer. It merely requires not actually thinking you have one, either way.
2. If you're asking me "what if someone doesn't believe in gods because he thinks everything he's heard is a load of horse dung and if it turned out he was wrong and they were out there, it wouldn't matter anyway?" I guess I'd waffle a bit, but would tend towards atheist because he's opening with, shall we say, a strong opinion on the subject.
None of which affects my own essay in the slightest, since it opened and closed with the same essential point: someone who asserts a nonexistence of God or Gods does not speak for me, and I resent the implication they might.
no subject
Utterly false.
I stated that Athesim to be a statement of belief and faith -- the faith in non-belief. That is not the same as calling it theist. Theist is defined as the belief in a God or Gods. Obviously that doesn't describe an atheist. However, that doesn't change that atheists are expressing a belief that itself does not have evidence in support of it.
It depends on how they define that lack of belief. However, the idea that all people who lack belief in Gods are atheists -- IE, defined as an active disbelief, rather than a passive lack of belief -- is utterly flawed. There's a continuum of answers depending on a number of factors, and the attempt to reduce them to a binary state -- you believe in God/Gods or you don't -- does everyone involved a disservice.
...um... you know, I know you can read. I'd love to see the cited passage where I claimed anything even remotely like that.
See above. The answer to that could be 'atheist,' 'agnostic' or 'deist' depending on how they answered a whole host of subsidiary questions.
That makes several times you claimed I said something that's not even remotely what I said, which seems at best odd to me. I said that I do not know any of these answers definitively. Not that God or something like him, her, it or them exists or doesn't, or that we're all a beta test of Spore. I didn't say I "think there really might be," I said I don't know if there is or isn't, and claiming knowledge either way would either take a leap of faith or a lie on my part, and I'm not doing either. Qualitative difference there.
So... from "I don't know if there are gods or intelligences or not," you derive my "complete lack of belief in any or all gods." Hrm.
Well. I'm going to try to answer your question, regardless, but since I don't have a solid grasp on whether you have any grasp of what I'm saying, I'll try to cover all the bases.
1. If you're asking me "what if someone believes exactly as you do, Eric, but also doesn't give a shit because if there are gods, they clearly don't matter? What do you call them?"
I call them agnostics, since if they believe as I do they don't open with a belief for or against the question. There's nothing in agnosticism that demands someone be actively seeking an answer. It merely requires not actually thinking you have one, either way.
2. If you're asking me "what if someone doesn't believe in gods because he thinks everything he's heard is a load of horse dung and if it turned out he was wrong and they were out there, it wouldn't matter anyway?" I guess I'd waffle a bit, but would tend towards atheist because he's opening with, shall we say, a strong opinion on the subject.
None of which affects my own essay in the slightest, since it opened and closed with the same essential point: someone who asserts a nonexistence of God or Gods does not speak for me, and I resent the implication they might.