BrutalTruth

It doesn't matter whether I take it or not. The beautiful thing about facts is that it doesn't matter whether you believe them to be true or not. They remain true nonetheless. Being that your definition is factually one the word takes, your definition is a true.

Your argument was cute, but easily refuted. *yawn*

Honestly, an agnostic theist would be too much of a moron to be agnostic, because it makes absolutely no sense that a person with an intellect capable of recognizing that certain things and ideas are unknowable/unprovable to a human would then turn around and believe in the existence of an unknown/unproven thing. This is why I say my agnosticism creates my atheism, because theism makes no sense to an agnostic person.

As for your definition of "gnostic," those people simply sound like a bunch of idiots. Are there really that many people who don't understand the basics of how humans ascertain knowledge?

The fawning Christians are the only Christians who actually know what they're talking about, because it doesn't matter what you believe the Christian god is. What matters is what the Christian god actually is, and the Christian bible is the only thing a Christian has to go on, unless that Christian wants to claim they have empirically experienced this god.

I completely disagree. Formal debates are held to certain rules. Rules like enforced validity in arguments, forced refutation of arguments and claims, forced to provide evidence and material or logical proof. Because of the fact that a person's argument is scrutinized by outside parties in a position of impartial authority, it has the potential to create truth far more often than a non-moderated forum debate where either side can say anything they want with no real consequences.

If you look at my profile, I do specify that. However, the definition of the word "atheism" is not dependent upon agnosticism, and Gnosticism is an entirely different subject.. They are entirely different concepts that do not interact. Gnosticism is the doctrine that the world was created by a lesser deity than the supreme divine. In other words: It's another type of theism, just as Christianity, Islam, etc. are. Gnostic atheism as a term makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying "the bright dark." It's an oxymoron.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the creator of this site and dictate what the forums are used for.

I see you've been here for a couple months now, have hundreds of forum posts, yet have exactly zero debates. One could only logically deduct that that means you're either a coward, an imbecile, or are ignorant of what this site is intended for. If you're looking for "discussion," then perhaps you should find a website that is entitled something other than "debate art." Now, run along, dear theist.

You alone don't decide how words are defined. A collective people do, over the course of hundreds of years as etymology evolves. I call myself an atheist not because I chose how it is defined, but because the word has a definition that matches my beliefs.

This is a debate site, yet you prefer to debate on the forums? Interesting, though I'm afraid I don't share the same preference. I will clarify myself, but I will not debate you here.

Theists believe in the existence of an entity/entities that has/have yet to be shown to be empirically perceivable. That makes them delusional. Why? Observe an excerpt from my argument in the debate I linked you:

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

The disdain of a moron is inconsequential in matters of intellect.

I'm not sure if most atheists agree with her. I've met several who do, but I've never gone around asking.

Precisely.

To which bible do you refer? Because if you're referring to the Christian bible, you are incorrect, as the Christian bible doesn't actually define the Christian god. It describes it as: spirit, light, love, and a consuming fire, not as a physical being.

I still hold that atheism is defined as a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities, and so I still identify as an atheist. However, to answer your question: If the definition of atheism was changed to mean "the affirmative belief that gods or deities do not exist," I would simply be agnostic, as I am already agnostic, however my agnosticism creates my atheism.

Actually I am in a debate. Most of your claims have been refuted by my opening argument there, and so I invite you to follow the debate:

As for the only claim I haven't refuted yet(your claim that people may have reason to believe): They're free to present that reasoning to me in the form of an argument for the claim that the Christian god exists.

@Everyone

Here's the debate between Mopac and I.

Why are you wasting time here when you have an argument to publish in our debate? I could utterly destroy this cute little semantic argument you just made here, but I'm not going to waste my time on it since we have an actual formal debate on this very topic to finish. Get to it.

I've been an atheist most of my life. And until just recently, I thought the majority of us were very sane, logical and intelligent, as opposed to theists whom are obviously delusional(the belief in the existence of that which cannot be known to exist is denial of reality, which is the textbook definition of delusion). However, I recently lost a boat load of respect for an atheist I used to truly admire. A woman who writes many essays on the evils of the Christian bible. All these years, I had neglected to read her essay on the definition of atheism. She states that "atheists" who claim that atheism is defined as a "lack" of belief in gods or deities are morons, and that true atheism is the affirmative claim that gods indeed do not exist.

How could atheists stoop to the considerably low intellectual level of theists? To claim that gods don't exist is just as delusional as the claim that they do, as that claim too is denial of reality. Humans cannot prove nonexistence. A lack of evidence/proof is not evidence/proof for. That is a very basic principal of debate and indeed reality that I was sure most atheists were intelligent enough to understand, but it seems I was wrong. I'm almost ashamed to be one now.

If this is the definition atheists insist upon taking, then I refuse to call myself one, as I will not be seen as a delusional hypocrite by theists. My goal is to enlighten people, not build a glass house and throw stones.