Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

It could be broken down differently though:A. You believe god exists.
B. You don't believe god exists.
C. You don't know if god exists or not..
D. You believe god doesn't exist.
E. You don't believe god doesn't exist.
F. You don't know what you believe.So you could not have a belief that god exists, but also not have a belief that he doesn't, and I don't think you should be considered an atheist for that.I'm not sure any particular break-down is more correct than another, but I don't think you can force people to break it down the way you have chosen.Another way to distinguish atheism from agnosticism is1 = belief that god exists
0 = no belief either way
-1 = belief that god does not existNot 1 (!1) can be either 0 or -1 so simply being not 1 doesn't necessitate being a -1.

What if you don't know what you believe?

Seriously. I don't think it's unreasonable. And it should be reflected in a "perfect" breakdown.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Because you might believe.

Nah, I don't accept that definition, why should I?The word is supposed to mean that you believe that god doesn't exist.It seems like its being diluted to reduce irrationality and be more inclusive. Why?

Its not that I don't understand your position, its that I know that your position is wrong.The word "atheism" comes from the greek root the(os) - which means godless - + ism.The dictionary defines it as:

quote:

---

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

---

So this claim of yours: is simply false.Now, I realize that today people do use the word "atheism" to mean "not theism", but as I said, this is pulling back from the strength of the claim - thus the "weak atheism" that, yes, I have heard of. Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as god. That's one of the reasons that the neo-atheists of today have pulled back a bit.

No, I did.I'm not saying the disbelief *must be* irrational, but that it easily *can be* and when it is its obvious. There's context here, and I's borrowing phraseology... Sure, it can be and usually is.