Back to Tweedledee.

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

mjbp asks.

>>Okay surely to be an atheist you must believe that there is no God. This involves rejecting a concept but I can’t understand how that fact explains why they have no belief on the subject.<<

Let's take this back to first principles, it may help.

You and I meet. Neither of us has ever heard of God, or religion. We drink beer, we talk of the footy. How come Mooney missed that sitter right on half time, talk about lose it...

Next day, we meet again. You tell me this fantastic story about what happened two thousand years ago, and how it proves there is a God, and it has all changed your life and you won't barrack for Collingwood any more, it's that important...

I say, "mjbp old chap, I don't believe you".

And no matter how many people come up to me and tell me the same stuff, with absolutely no evidence to support their theory, I do not see any reason to shift my position.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe any of the stories that I am told.

I have rejected the concept.

But - guess what? I haven't changed anything, I haven't changed my mind, I haven't adopted a new philosophy, I haven't taken on board any new beliefs.

I haven't become a serial killer, I haven't joined NAMBLA (that's Boaz's favourite, by the way), I haven't become any less tolerant of fools, I haven't become more prone to vice or disease, I do not feel any different, or think any differently, from before you let me in on your little secret.

Does that make it any clearer?

Just a nice, clean uncomplicated non-belief in what you tell me.

I must be really have a thorough understanding of this ‘atheist fundamentalist’ thing because I don’t get it.

I don’t get the idea that ‘atheism is a belief’ and the more I think about it the more confusing it becomes.

Are George et al using the same logic as saying that someone who does not have a hobby -such as collecting stamps- really DOES have a hobby- which is, in fact, having no hobby?
Non-hobbyists collect nothing, and since nothing is something, they are collectors, too.

If you believe in non-hobbysits clap your hands. Clap your hands if you believe in non-hobbyists!

Hey, perhaps all the non-hobbyists could join a no-hobby club and be non-fanatic about it, which is the same as being fanatic about nothing.
Woohooo, we are all fundamental believers and/or fanatic about our non-collections!

Pericles,
I would never open a post to you with a “my my, Pericles, what a patronizing son-of-a-gun you are!“ because I try to be polite to everybody, especially those I do not know personally. Maybe I am too old.

For the same reasons I do not call “mental gymnastics“ attempts to explain something to me that I did not like or could not follow, though as mentioned, I know CJ Morgan is not the only one who does.

Also, I do not think I should have to apologise to anybody for finding Veronika’s exposition of her views clear and acceptable, although now I see that I should apologise to her for my “ridiculous condescension”, as unintentional as it was, when referring to her “philosophical sophistication“.

So, Veronika,
please accept my apologies. I did not “attempt to reframe (your position)... to suit me“. I just tried to understand why you could not share Körner‘s non-confrontational piece of philosophy.

>>looking to the heart of what "a lack of belief" might mean.<<
I think I finally got what caused these misunderstandings. I did not keep in mind that “belief” can mean not only (i) “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists”, but also (ii) a religious conviction (faith). Your “lack of belief“ apparently refers to the second meaning, and obviously an areligious person cannot have religious convictions, so there is no ambiguity. Note however, that the standard definitions of atheist and agnostic do not refer to FAITH but to (i), i.e. the acceptance or rejection of a STATEMENT (that “God exists” or something similar). One can accept this statement - or any statement for that matter- as true, or reject it (i.e. accept its logical opposite as true) or remain undecided, uncommitted for whatever reasons (e.g. for those mentioned by Körner; because one doesn’t care; because the concepts involved weren’t clearly defined, etc.).

Pericles,
I certainly never wanted “to convince atheists that they are ... merely agnostics“. Only you can decide whether you are an atheist or an agnostic or what, except that if you want to be understood by an outsider you should keep to the meaning of these words as defined in standard dictionaries (I quoted Merriam Webster, but please read my post to Veronika about the two meanings of belief.).

>>In short, you are saying "agnostics have no right to join the discussion"<<
No, to attack those of different opinions is not the same as join the discussion, but I agree that the term attack is here ambiguous and I should not have used it at all. It is just that mostly not agnostics but atheists (as well as some theists, of course) in defining (and defending) their position sometimes ridicule, denigrate, patronise etc. alternative positions and world-views associated with them.

Most of what I wanted to say was already said by mjpb or in my last reply to Veronika. So just let me assure you that nobody I know ever claimed that atheism was a belief SYSTEM. It is a rejection of one simple belief; a disbelief which is compatible with many different world-views.

For the rest of your post, if you strip your sentences of the emotional “embellishments“, and rephrase them keeping in mind the standard definitions - please accept that I did not invent them myself - of atheism, atheist, you will find that we both understand the same thing under these terms.

Sancho says "Why should anybody believe such fairy tales?"

and..I rather understand that position.

But Sancho...the reason people believe is due to a work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, minds and wills, not the apparent credibility of the story it is based on.

Your position is echo'd in the following example from Acts. I hope you take the trouble to read it.

Acts 17:16-34

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=17&version=31

Here we have the presentation of the Gospel and various responses to it.

1/ The Mocking Philosopher

18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?"

2/ The Enquiring Mind:

"May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean."

3/ The Interested Heart:

32When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, said "We want to hear you again on this subject."

4/ The Convinced Believer:

34A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

A FITTING CONCLUSION to this post would be a reminder of the core of Pauls preaching:

31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

So... we must each ask our own hearts if we are ready for that day.
Paul was living proof of the transforming power of the resurrected Jesus, but not all believed him...will you?

Polycarp wrote:

"But Sancho...the reason people believe is due to a work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, minds and wills, not the apparent credibility of the story it is based on."

I think the above says it. One does not believe because the matter is credible. One believes because one wants to believe. The Holy Spirit can work with equal effect in the hearts of a proponents of any of the non-Christian religions. They can also say they believe because it is in their heart to believe.

Usually the heart of a religious believer is in the body of one whose parents wee also religious believers in the same religion. I doubt that Polycarp grew up in Saudi Arabia born of Muslim parents.

I was in Morocco talking with a local taxi driver. He told me that he was lucky to be born a Muslim so he was not going to hell like those who did not believe in Islam.