Why do atheists here lie so much about THEIR OWN position?

All of this terminology really ends up preventing honest discussions from taking place. I don't really care what "label" you are, I want to listen to your opinions not how your group is defined. It's silly.

I agree in so much that a lot of this "lack of belief" jargon is a cop-out from atheists. Sure, there ARE atheists who simply lack a belief but they're not interested in the topic. Atheists in forums like this clearly have a position, they need to own up to it.

Good question btw, this topic NEEDS to be addressed more.

I'm an atheist simply because I'm NOT a theist but my position on "God" is best described as ignostic not agnostic.

To me, "God" is hardly defined properly using tangible words and traits that are falsifiable. The word really doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Until the "God believers" can agree on what the hell they're talking about they mind as well be defending the existence of "The One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater". It has the same probability of existing.

edit: However, people often interpret the "ignostic" position as a cop-out in the form of the Loki's Wager fallacy. I think I understand how that *could* be, in my case I'm really not wishing in any way to opt out of the debate or disqualify everyone from properly debating me either. It's just when in comes to "god(s)" existence or lack thereof I'm forced to address it literally on an individual basis which is very tiresome.

The Christian God usually is defined with the use of omni's married with the idea that He has granted "free will" to humans. That's logically impossible thus I believe the Christian God as He's usually defined DOESN'T exist... I don't "lack a belief", I have one.

I'm an extrinsic Atheist by your own definition, so I don't lie about it, technically - I was a born-again Christian, a Catholic, a Hindu, a Muslim (for one day) a Buddhist and then a NeoPagan (went through four different kinds, actually). The last I believed in a God I was 17, it was August 2010, and I fasted in front of an Idol of K'tulu for five days before I just said "alright, this is getting silly now" and realizing no concept of "God" or "Gods" could have any demonstrable existence in the real world. So if you wanna convert me to a religion, you'd BETTER have some freaking IMPRESSIVE proof for whatever Gods you have there.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with me, because I have thought long and hard about about God claims. We humans deal with the preponderance of evidence, not absolutes, so I'm not afraid to say that all proposed Gods are blatant fairy tales. Not only due to the complete lack of evidence, but because of all the counter evidence against them. That said, I also think it is reasonable to say that one can't prove a negative claim, with the exception of that claim being inside a box. I could simply open the box and prove what you claimed wasn't in there. If you are going to make your claim(God) invisible, immaterial, existing everywhere, yet can't be sensed anywhere, then that is a different story. Can you disprove the existence of Santa? Using the preponderance of evidence you could, but for some strange reason people tend to change the rules when dealing with the God concept and all the sudden we are dealing with absolutes. I can prove that your God is imaginary in the same way you can prove Santa is imaginary, but you and all other believers won't accept the same thing we all use in everyday life from the courtroom to science, the preponderance of evidence.

Edit: That being said, my mind is always open to new evidence and I will change my views based on that. Belief isn't a choice for me. My logical mind will only accept what the evidence presents and for God claims the evidence remains at zero for and plenty of counter evidence against. The fact that all life is one big food chain and every culture dreamt up their own flavor of magic man in the sky, is pretty damning evidence against the existence of a "loving" creator.

Edit: "but being an extrinsic atheist the often claimed phony "burden of proof" would apply to you just as much."

That's not the way it works and here is why. There are an infinite amount of baseless claims that any Joe Blow could make and it's absurd to think the onus is on the bystander. If you make a claim, it's YOUR claim and you should be able to provide the appropriate evidence to back it up. You know, like how they do it in the science community. How is a bystander to go about disproving a claim regarding the existence of an immaterial entity, when there is no reference in the material universe to even know what the hell they are talking about? I claim that skeedilywhatsits exist and the onus is on you to disprove their existence. They are invisible, immaterial, and exist outside the universe, so good luck. Do you really think it's reasonable to expect people to be able to prove a negative claim?

"First of all if it were truly a "lack of belief" then they should have absolutely no opinion about whether or not God existed. At best that would make them agnostic... not atheist. If as they say that all people are born with a lack of belief then they have absolutely no opinion either way. To say that makes them atheistic is absurd. "

What better way is there to describe my position of "I don't know if god exists or not but due to the utter lack of evidence against it, god probably does not" other than "lack of belief in god" or "Agnostic atheist"? If you have one, I'd sincerely like to know

"Secondly, I was SHOCKED that so may agreed with the girl who said that "Atheism was not a conscious decision." That is saying that absolutely no thought has been given to the matter. That may be alright for a 2 year old child to say, but hardly something that an adult should argue or agree with. Again, totally illogical. "

Maybe you misinterpret: It is not a decision as in I cannot wake up tomorrow and simply CHOOSE to believe in god because I feel like it. I cannot make myself believe something for which no evidence exists, whereas I can make a conscious decision to have some cheerios instead of lucky charms for breakfast. Not being a conscious decision does not mean no thought was put into it.

"Thirdly, if it is as you say that your atheism is a "lack of belief" arrived at with "no conscious decision" then there should be absolutely nothing for you to argue about. Saying you have a "lack of belief" is saying that you have absolutely no opinion on the subject. Once you make an argument on any topic you can no longer say that you have no opinion of have a lack of belief on that topic. I guess you have not figured out that when you make an argument about a topic is saying that you DO have an opinion and DO have beliefs. If you make ANY argument for position that "God does not exist and here is why I believe this" that is a "positive affirmation" making you an extrinsic atheist. While no one has to "prove" their beliefs, but being an extrinsic atheist the often claimed phony "burden of proof" would apply to you just as much."

What we have here is a failure to communicate, methinks. God probably does not exist because there is no evidence suggesting such, just as Unicorns, santa, ect ect, do I have to prove to you unicorns do not exist?

EDIT: So I'm not certain your stance is "There's no evidence supporting the idea that a god exists" then, by your definition, not a reason for not believing? Because that is by far the most common one.

Edit: "Trying to place the belief in God in the same category as Santa or unicorns is silly and you know it. So why do you do it?"

How is it silly? Please explain. To me the two are identical claims save in the number of people that believe them. Popularity does not lend an idea any special treatment.

"Can you give me "evidence" that love exists?"

Yes, I can. I can show you MRI's of the chemical reactions taking place in human brains when exposed to certain sites, sounds, smells pharamones ect ect. Quite frankly I don't think love is anything more than that.

Same old fear of those that have the education and intellect to know the truth and live in reality!

What a pity you have to live with such a bitterness and sense of failure!

Why is it so hard for you to live with the idea that other people believe differently to yourself?

Are you yet another that has abandoned christianity and the belief in a loving god for the joy of being anti atheist and indulging in all that terrible human emotion against your fellow man?

What do you people call your new religion?

Um...the reason that I don't have to prove that a god doesn't exist is because I'm not absolutely certain that a god doesn't exist. Thus I have no obligation to defend the claim "God does not exist." All I have to do to be justified in not accepting your God claims is to not accept your God claims by showing how they are fallacious. By doing that, I am saying that I am not convinced by the claim "God exists," much in the same way I have never been convinced that there are fairies. I don't have to fly 78 billion light years searching the whole universe just in order to be justified in not believing something that has not yet been evidenced to me. I start believing in things the moment I have solid evidence and no sooner. That is how you form beliefs in this world; you do not form them by disproving everything you don't believe in until you are left with the things you do believe in. That is totally backwards and impractical, as you would have an infinite number of things to disprove in that situation.

If you see a box across the street and your friend tells you a baby shark is in the box, you don't have to prove that there isn't a shark there to be justified in not yet believing that there is one. Nor do you have to present a single coherent object you think is in the box. You may even believe it's possible for a shark to be in there, but you just don't find it likely. Either way, bald assertions don't get immediate priority.

Please get a better understanding of burden of proof. You're still clueless.

Agnostics suggest that evidence for a god is either unknown or unknowable. I'd hardly say that anything is positively unknown or unknowable. All I can say for sure is that evidence of a deity is unknown to me.

People are born without an opinion on god, which makes them atheists by default; just in the same manner that people are born without an opinion on Dr. Pepper. The main difference is that you actually can experience Dr. Pepper, because it has been objectively shown to exist. If there's a way for me to experience the "truth" about your deity in a way that doesn't make me question my sanity, please, fill me in. ;)

Maybe YOU should think about these things before making a VERY ranty post on Yahoo! Answers where you type in capitals for EMPHASIS.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in an god or gods. I then take it one step further and claim there are no gods due to a lack of evidence. Comprendo?

You can be an atheist and not say gods don't exist.

You can be an atheist and say gods don't exist.

As long as you don't believe in a god or gods, you are an atheist. However, the opinions about the existence may differ from others.

Dude, I've never believed in a god. My parents tried to get me to, and it never happened. I distinctly remember being a kid and not believing in God. What is that if not intrinsic?

"First of all if it were truly a "lack of belief" then they should have absolutely no opinion about whether or not God existed"

No. A lack of belief = no belief. I mean, I lack belief in fairies. I don't feel so-so about them; there is no belief there.

Or, like, if you lack sexual attraction to men, you aren't "agnostic" on it. You lack the attraction, so it is not there.

It's a hard concept to explain, and it's something I think a lot of theists just naturally won't get, but when (some) atheists say we lack belief in a god we mean just that. We have no belief in a god.

"Sorry to disillusion you but that position is TOTALLY illogical."

Cool beans. Did you have a question?

You obviously did much better in school at writing than at logic. Your logic is terrible. Theists claim that their magical fairy friend is real, but admit that they cannot provide any evidence. It is ridiculous to consider that atheists should take them seriously and consider it possible that cinderella's fairy godmother might actually exist for no other reason than that some gullibles sincerely hope so.