You've defined not having a religion as a religion. While you're at it, why not call "bald" a hair colour and "hunger" a kind of dinner?
However, that doesn't change that atheists are expressing a belief that itself does not have evidence in support of it.
Oh, come off it. Do you believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? How about the Flying Spaghetti monster?
Is your lack of belief in the literal existence of toymaking elves and flying reindeer a positive statement? If not, why is my similar lack of belief in Zeus, and Jesus, and all the *other* Tooth Fairies?
"Not believing in something" is not an act of faith, nor does it involve a positive statement of any sort.
However, the idea that all people who lack belief in Gods are atheists [...] 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.
How is it *not* a binary statement? Either you have active, positive belief in the existence of god(s), or you don't. There's no room in the middle for anything except the "I don't know" and "it can't be known" positions, which are conveniently covered by the term "agnostic" - one who professes a lack of knowledge.
I'd love to see the cited passage where I claimed anything even remotely like that.
Here: without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.
Combine that with your statements on science being unable to ever take a stand on religion (not correct) due to being unable to prove an untestable statement (entirely correct), and you've defined "atheist" as someone who blindly refuses to believe in anything that isn't already proven, and refuses to look.
And THAT'S bullshit.
I said I don't know if there is or isn't,
Meaning you think there might be, which is what I said.
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.
From what you've said? You don't believe in any gods. You believe gods might exist, but you don't have one, or a pantheon, or all, that you believe really exist.
There's nothing in agnosticism that demands someone be actively seeking an answer. It merely requires not actually thinking you have one, either way.
And I've just had an A-Ha moment, where I really do see the difference between our position, in the simplest way I've ever found:
You feel you don't have an answer to the question.
I don't see any reason to have the question in the first place.
someone who asserts a nonexistence of God or Gods does not speak for me, and I resent the implication they might.
And I'd agree with you on that principle, except that you segued into a rant, insulted my intelligence, and called me a clueless asshole in the process.
Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.
no subject
Not so. From your original post:
Atheism is a religion.
You've defined not having a religion as a religion. While you're at it, why not call "bald" a hair colour and "hunger" a kind of dinner?
However, that doesn't change that atheists are expressing a belief that itself does not have evidence in support of it.
Oh, come off it. Do you believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? How about the Flying Spaghetti monster?
Is your lack of belief in the literal existence of toymaking elves and flying reindeer a positive statement? If not, why is my similar lack of belief in Zeus, and Jesus, and all the *other* Tooth Fairies?
"Not believing in something" is not an act of faith, nor does it involve a positive statement of any sort.
However, the idea that all people who lack belief in Gods are atheists [...] 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.
How is it *not* a binary statement? Either you have active, positive belief in the existence of god(s), or you don't. There's no room in the middle for anything except the "I don't know" and "it can't be known" positions, which are conveniently covered by the term "agnostic" - one who professes a lack of knowledge.
I'd love to see the cited passage where I claimed anything even remotely like that.
Here:
without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence.
Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.
Combine that with your statements on science being unable to ever take a stand on religion (not correct) due to being unable to prove an untestable statement (entirely correct), and you've defined "atheist" as someone who blindly refuses to believe in anything that isn't already proven, and refuses to look.
And THAT'S bullshit.
I said I don't know if there is or isn't,
Meaning you think there might be, which is what I said.
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.
From what you've said? You don't believe in any gods. You believe gods might exist, but you don't have one, or a pantheon, or all, that you believe really exist.
There's nothing in agnosticism that demands someone be actively seeking an answer. It merely requires not actually thinking you have one, either way.
And I've just had an A-Ha moment, where I really do see the difference between our position, in the simplest way I've ever found:
You feel you don't have an answer to the question.
I don't see any reason to have the question in the first place.
someone who asserts a nonexistence of God or Gods does not speak for me, and I resent the implication they might.
And I'd agree with you on that principle, except that you segued into a rant, insulted my intelligence, and called me a clueless asshole in the process.
Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.
UR DOIN IT RONG.