Reminds me of a song..."Looking for love in all the wrong places".

I think that if there is a god then that belief is not provable or reasonable, and the notion of god is not an empiric notion, i.e., found in the world. Caputo argues that God does not exist, God insists, and that God’s existence depends upon us.

Perhaps some people experience a demand, a calling, then saying that god that lives within them. We actual do not have good definitions for 'Existence' or 'reality', so to try to pigeon hole something as being or not being may work in the science of probabilities but this does not work outside this framework where human social realities instill their values into reality.

The notion in the article that the burden of proof is on atheist to prove that God doesn't exist is plainly ridiculous. Its the Theists and evangelical Christians in particular who have, and continue to go around the world by the millions evangelizing and trying to convert non-christians to change their traditional views and adopt the story if Jesus and the existence of their christian God. And, they assert that because their belief system is true, others must conform to a truck load of significant obligations beyond simply believing - including to put money into the churches and to stand in opposition to those who do no believe. They have, in fact, murdered millions in the process of forcing their beliefs on every culture they can get their hands on. It is most definitely the Christian who have the obligation to prove the existence of their gods (Jesus, God, the Saints, etc.). They make the assertion. Its their crusade. And a destructive on at that.

Well said friend

It has come to my attention that you are neither a believer or a non believer. I'd bet that you're a believer hedging their bets on whether to believe or not believe. Claiming not to know says nothing about what you believe or don't believe!
Still, I'm sure there are many other sites you might go to vent your rage at those who don't believe as you do...

This article is from 'Christian Apologetics Alliance
answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian world view.'

First of all, shame on you DangerDave.

This is exactly the kind of article that a Christian apologist and believer would post because of their dishonest and disingenuous perspectives of what atheism means.

Gnosticism and Agnosticism are positions of knowledge or lack of it, other than a reason to believe/Theist or not believe/Atheist, they are not positions on belief.

There are Agnostic Atheists, and Agnostic Theists as well as Gnostic Theists. The Agnostic ones are at least being honest.

A Gnostic Atheist would be someone that claims to know that a god or gods exist, while at the same time not believing that they do. I haven't seen anyone on this site with those delusions, and if they have been they won't last long.
Gnos·ti·cism
/ˈnästəˌsizəm/
noun

1. a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit. 

IMO it is an oxymoron, and the term is not used once in the bullshit article. A good example of bullshit is this excerpt from the article; "“agnostic atheist.” This has been defined in a number of different ways but one definition is “one who does not know for sure if any gods exist or not but who also does not believe in any gods.”[5]The problem with this definition is that it does not give us a complete account of what the person believes. This fails to tell us whether they believe in God’s non-existence (the belief that he does not exist)."

LOL Problem? The problem is you believers[Are you a believer DD?] want a "complete account of what the person believes", you can't accept their disbelief as a valid position. I am an agnostic atheist, and I believe the sun is a star, the earth is round, and that grass grows quickly in the spring.....I could go on. I do however lack a belief in gods, so I'm an Atheist, like it or not.

This is what I accept as a definition of Atheism; "Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions.[As they do in your Christian article) The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

You either know or you don't, you either believe or you don't. Either way, a position on the first is not a "middle ground" position on the latter.

Hm. I just don't see it in such adversarial terms. Nor do I see GAs as you put it, to be very common. And certainly not creeping about, "laying in wait", etc.

You must have a pretty low bar for what constitutes an "attack". It sounds suspiciously like how a lot of conservative Christians are, always confusing simply failing to agree with "attack", as well as "rudeness" and other things it is not.

I will argue with the best of them when we're in a philosophical debate mode but IRL I have friendships with theists, Republicans, even people who, while not precisely Trump supporters, inexplicably, don't see what the problem with him could possibly be, etc. In short I put more emphasis on what we have in common as humans than on our differences.

But you wouldn't necessarily know that from my online persona because people come to many sites specifically to debate these matters, and then, weirdly, can't stand the heat in the kitchen.

Of course when it comes to this site, possibly because it is partially for dating, possibly because it just doesn't attract as many theists, it may be that people are here less to debate, and that is fine, and I respect that by not turning everything into a debate. However when a thread lays down a gauntlet, I will express my views just like the person who starts the conversation. If this is an "attack" or "laying in wait", then I plead guilty as charged [shrug].