Again Luciferase, these dichotomies are not my inventions and I have demonstrated that to be the case. You on the other hand, are simply repeating this assertion because you don’t like what you’re hearing.

Hardly convincing.

<<You ARE a theist or you ARE NOT a theist.>>

Correct.

<<Atheism is not "everything else" but a belief all on its own.>>

Incorrect.

Atheism, in the broader sense, means “not a theist” in the same sense that asexual means “not sexual”. Or just “no belief” in Gods if you prefer.

Did you not learn anything when I was talking about implicit and explicit atheism, or are you just making this up as you go? Could you at least provide links for some of your claims, as I have?

“Proof” can either be of the logical/mathematical kind, or it can simply mean sufficient evidence to uphold an argument - which is why we generally don’t refer to it as the “Burden of Support” or the “Burden of Evidence”, because the evidence provided must be sufficient to support the argument. The burden is not lifted when just anything is presented. You made that up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

If I tell you there are fairies in my garden and hand you a dragonfly’s wing claiming that it’s a fairy’s wing, does that then mean that our claims are due equal credit until you go sifting through my garden like an idiot and have the wing’s DNA tested?

No, because there are other more rational explanations.

And does it then also mean that you have ‘faith’ that fairies don’t exist until you do?

Of course not!

Similarly, theists have not yet supported their argument with anything that doesn’t either have a more rational and naturalistic explanation (e.g. personal revelation, living organisms) or commit a logical fallacy (e.g. God of the Gaps).

Therefore, they still bear the burden of proof and you don’t have ‘faith’.

As for your accusation of alleged ‘word mincing’ on my behalf... now that’s really getting desperate. And the fact that my point still stands regardless of how you word it is a testament to that.

I have to say I think Atheism was a lot more fun when it was just about “the absence, not the presence, of belief in a deity”, to borrow Pericles' fine expression.
Once again the discussion has been hijacked by the imperfections of language.
Is disbelief the same as 'unbelief', or negative belief? It may be as impossible to “know” that Gods don't exist as it is to know they do, but it certainly isn't impossible to “believe” Gods don't exist, so in that sense, Atheism is a belief system.
I think AJ cracked it when he made the distinction between belief and faith. I can believe “God” doesn't exist, but I don't require faith in it.
On the other hand, AJ starts getting cranky:
“If I’m sounding confused, then by all means, tell me.”
I did. In fact, I provided direct quotes of those parts I found confusing.
“Your definition of agnosticism is incorrect and demonstrates a misunderstanding of what atheism is.”
I find this a remarkably dogmatic statement, particularly from someone who supposedly rejects dogma. I also think it's a tad harsh, considering I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com.
Is Atheism evolving to the point where it has different proponents, all with different definitions? Should we start Atheistic sects?
I bags “Catholic” Atheism, perhaps with Luciferase:
Catholic, adjective:
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.

AJ is beginning to seem like a “fundamentalist” Atheist: THOU SHALT HAVE NO ATHEISM APART FROM MY ATHEISM, FOR I AM A JEALOUS ATHEIST!
David f. could be a Secular Atheist (or perhaps start the Secular Hall of Those Who Didn't Witness Jehovah?)
Pericles might want to convert WmTrevor to the Reformist Atheists (I just wanna not believe, OK?)
Of course, you're all welcome to be Catholic Atheists; we're very open armed that way.
In fact, we don't care if you convert to us even on your deathbed. We guarantee, you still won't go to heaven*.

*This is a lifetime guarantee we have been offering for hundreds of years, without one single claim.

I hate to have to say this, Luciferase, but you are sounding more like a Christian agent provocateur than an atheist, stirring the pot and chuckling at the responses you get.

>>You ARE a theist or you ARE NOT a theist. Atheism is not "everything else" but a belief all on its own.<<

For the gazillionth time, atheism is not "a belief all on its own".

Here's my angle on it: atheism, as such, cannot exist in the absence of theism.

Consider a situation where there is universal acceptance that God does not exist. The concept "God", therefore, would have no meaning. By extension, there would be no such thing as atheism, and it would not - could not - be described as a belief system.

It is only the existence of theism that forces upon us the label, atheist. But the state we call "atheism" does not itself change, simply because there are people going around saying "there is a God".

We have every right to be somewhat bemused at the vehemence with which theists defend their faith, given the lack of supporting evidence. But that vehemence does not allow the condition of atheism to suddenly morph into a belief system, simply to make theists feel good about themselves.

I strongly believe thurmongersuckles don't exist.

Entertaining stuff Grim, welcome to the Luciferan sect.
He whosoever believeth in me shall final eternal nothing.

AJ, I was chairman of a jury once and, on evidence presented, it was abundantly clear to me the person on trial was guilty as charged. I asked some in the jury room, who were holding out on coming to the same conclusion, what was stopping them from doing so. "Doubt", they said. I asked why they doubted and essentially it came down to the fact that they did not see a crime committed with their own eyes i.e. they did not experience the alleged crime. Other jurors were then convinced by the vehemence of the doubt held by others. The judge called for a majority verdict as we could not reach a unanimous one, and their was no conviction. The benefit of the doubt, regardless of however small that doubt was in my eyes, was given.

Convincing evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Absolute proof is by mathematics or by direct experience. Nobody is can ever "prove" the existence, or non-existence of a god, so it is not logical for you to place that impossible burden upon them. You can only leave them to their faith.

(cont'd)