An atheist need not make the claim at all. Don’t believe in gods? You’re an atheist. It’s that simple.

When you straw man atheists you commit a logical fallacy. The conversation can’t continue when you do that. This is why you get very little replies and /or blocked.
Try a more logical and intellectually honest approach.

@Mvtt that might work. I don't typically use a dialogue scenario. Do you have some suggestion for writing a dialogue scenario with out it seemingly stereotyping or strawmaning an illogical atheist?

@Word assume first the broad definition of atheist. (Non believer, no claim). If a claim of “no god” arises from the atheist, only then is it safe to assume the narrow Stanford definition. You’ll soon discover most atheists will not make that claim. Because the vast majority, are agnostic atheists and don’t claim knowledge. That would indeed be illogical/ unreasonable.

@Mvtt you say,"...only then is it safe to assume the narrow Stanford definition. You’ll soon discover most atheists will not make that claim."

Is this not a strawman stereotype that you are posing?

@Mvtt the Stamford narrow definition is like the starting point of tree branches. Atheism, atheist by what ever branch of definition is still connected back to the "truck" or starting point from the roots.

@Word the starting point for an atheist, is non belief in the theist claim. We are all unconvinced. We are all “without god”. We are “without theos”.
We have missed the so-called revelation.
It is incorrect to assume any atheist is of the position that we “know” there is no god. That is a further branch, to use your analogy. (Into gnostic, which is very rare in practice)
You will find atheists to stop there. Because we cannot know. We are all without, and that is enough to be atheist.
Steel man your dialogue from the starting point that you are very most likely talking to an agnostic atheist.
The straw man comes when you assume an extreme branch of gnosticism which is an extreme minority.
That will assist dialogue.

@Mvtt the agnostic definition grafted in or made as an addition with attempts to make the atheist branch appear logical.

@Mvtt you say,"the starting point for an atheist, is non belief in the theist claim. We are all unconvinced. We are all “without god”. We are “without theos”."

Let's us start a scenario: I am knowledge holder of the information claim. Before I give you any information, you are without information of the knowledge claim. You are not even an atheist because you start without having information to consider.

The knowledge of information is: "We are gods, we exist".

Now you start your branch, is it atheist, agnostic or where do you branch off?

Remember, you are not claiming, in this scenario you have no prior or preconceived opinions or beliefs haven't been shared with you.

@Word it is both agnostic and atheist. Without knowledge and without belief in theological claims.

@Mvtt so, isolated people from any modern or historic knowledge of anything "god" , they are atheist and agnostic and they don't even know they are atheist or agnostic?

@Word by definition yes.

@Mvtt atheist and agnostic has knowledge of some type of claim. It is not accepting the claim as true that defines atheist and it is not knowing directly that defines the agnostic.

@Mvtt prior to being introduced to a claim, a person would simply be ignorant or without knowledge of the claim. Atheist and agnostic has taken some type of mental decision action based on claim information.

@Word

@Word no claim required.

@Mvtt belief means accept as true. In order to have a belief or reject as false there must be the claim information to have a consideration if it is true or not.

If you have no claim information in the first place, how do you "lack" or ignore calling it true? To ignore is an action towards some thing. If there is no thing to ignore, there is no 'lacking" action that could take place.

@Mvtt it is obvious some that has no knowledge of god thingies is going to, by any means, say, God thingie is true or false.

@Mvtt I don't know anything about what you are currently thinking but I lack belief in your thoughts right now. Right?

@Mvtt lack of Disbelief and lack of belief.

Lack of disbelief, lacking in saying something is false.

Lack of belief. lacking in saying something is true.

A person that has never heard of god thingies is not specifically atheist. Just as you try to say they are atheist because of lack of belief it can also be said they would have a lack of disbelief. They are in no knowledge to lack either way calling it true or false.

Atheism is a belief system like bald is a hairstyle. I do not believe in gods. Now tell me what my belief system is.

Exactly. I moved from a position in which I claimed no God existed to one, called Zen Taoism, which posits that each of us are God because we have created this illusion. We created it and we can control how much of it affects us, or how. Since the idea that I am my own God does acknowledge a created Universe then I can’t say that I’m an Atheist any longer. The idea of dogmatic Gods, or Saints, is not one I accept, however, so can’t say that I’m a Theist. Zen is a pickle for this conversation but, for those who don’t accept it, Taoism offers no punishment (other than suffering neurotic conditions) for not practicing it. That should be amenable to all but many Atheists still get upset and stomp around. Oh well.

I think you are a bit confused. "god" lower case "G" can mean anything you want . "God" with a capital is the sole or supreme being and the object of worship in monotheistic religions

@DenoPenno That there is no god or gods, of course, regardless of the meaning applied to the word. No matter how vague or generalized that meaning.

@DenoPenno, @rainmanjr NOW we're finally getting closer to the crux of the matter. Would you say Tao Buddhism is in a sense an 'agnostic religion?'

@Storm1752 I have no pretended belief and a great many things are truly answered with a simple "I do not know." I am not blending myself with other systems or belief, nor do I want to. I couldn't give a rat's ass about discussing whether someone does or does not burn in hell. What hell? How would I know?

There should be no argument

There shouldn't, but it is an on again off again thing that has been going on for the over three years I have been here, primarily stoked by the Atheists.

@Sticks48 until there is an understanding of concepts, there will be words to be said. In the name of empathy.
No one likes being misunderstood.

@Mvtt It would be great if human beings actually behaved that way, but they don't and never have. Some people just like to shit in the punch bowl. It is as useless an argument as the my God is better than your God argument. It never goes anywhere and doesn't mean anything, or change anything. It certainly hasn't changed anything on this site in the three years I have been here. Both sides have explained their points of view, and that is all that need be.

@Sticks48 I guess at some point one does conclude that some personalities are not able to be reasoned with. Some are though. So why not try. I’m a glass half full kind of guy and lean toward giving people benefit of doubt.

@Mvtt I like individuals. I don't care for humanity in general. There is nothing in the recorded history of human beings that leads me to believe people will ever change. 49% of people have double digit IQs and are easily led by the greedy and ruthless.

Especially pigeon holes made of straw.
Did you watch the vid?

@Mvtt i did,but with the preconception of "oh goody, here comes another entitled asshat telling me what to think & how to think about it" as is my outlook on such things......at it's core it is true to its' premise.

I find that a self defined “agnostic” who does not believe in gods, yet also refuse to admit their atheist position, does not understand words and their meaning. It must be difficult to relate to other humans that way. I hope this video helps such a person empathise.

@Mvtt In short, you want Agnostics to renounce their positions and become atheists! Maybe there's some kind of 'conversion therapy' for that.

@Storm1752 "why can't we all just get along?" Oh wait,, maybe we could if asshats could stop stirring this rancid pot.....