I'm really tired of getting in arguments with "Agnostics"

[xSilverPhinx]

I try to use analogies to dispell these type of arguments. Agnosticism is a statement on knowledge, while atheist is one on beleif (going by the root meanings of the words).

Agnosticism - I don't know

Atheism - I don't have a belief in theism

Atheist don't have the burden of proof for the lack of belief, just as a person does not have to prove that fairies don't exist, or leprechauns, or unicorns, or a giant magic teapot circling a distant planet somewhere in the cosmos. There's no reason to hold a belief on their existence until given sufficient evidence. One could say that they're agnostic on those matters as well.

It's the position of anti theism that makes claims based on evidence, but that stance is not a religious one with and ideology or system of positive beliefs like theism is. Really, it takes the presence of a theist to make an antitheist, and that's all it is, going contrary to the claims made by theists because there's no evidence to support them. The idea that some theists have that you have to first believe in something to argue against it is just ludicrous.

Why don't people get this?

[JuggernautJon]

That's rigoddamndiculous...