No, I ignored your biased assessment of theist behavior and simply pointed out, instead, why both theists and atheists tend to focus on their own beliefs rather than on the actual intellectual proposition being presented to us all by theism.
You dressed the idea up in more language than was necessary, but I assure you, you
DID state pretty plainly that atheists are incorrect when stating that they "do not believe in god," and that
YOU know better, claiming instead that they actively "reject god" (see the
blue highlighted text in the quote below).
Granted, you also talked about theists being "wrong" about saying they "believe in God," but claim that they instead "
accept God." This is you PRETENDING that you are being impartial by appearing to have a "chastisement" for both sides. However, you know damn well that
NO theist is going to take exception to that framing of the situation because, no matter what, it
ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - which theists all love to do anyway. My main point being that in casting atheists as
"rejectors of god" you still assume god's existence! Much like the theist who says "I think everyone believes in God, some are just in denial."
Take a look now at the
red parts below:
For these reasons the defining factor between theism and atheism is NOT what one believes, but what one accepts or rejects. That is the theistic proposition that God/gods exist and that the existence of such effects the human experience. (If "God" didn't effect the human experience there would be no point in considering the fact or nature of "God's" existence.) So that "believing in" gods or afterlives or whatever is not what designates a person a theist any more than not "believing in" gods or afterlives or whatever designates one as being an atheist.
Interestingly, however, few people want to acknowledge this reasoning, and instead want to insist that it's all about what they "believe in" or don't "believe in". Their ego, it seems, trumps their desire for reason and clarity almost every time. They want it to be about what they personally believe or don't believe rather than the validity of the ideal being proposed.
Note that you clearly assume that "God [affects] the human experience" - because you claim that if He didn't, then there would be no point in considering the nature of God's existence - which also assumes (with no credible basis whatsoever) that because some of us do consider the nature of God's existence, that this means He
must "affect the human experience." Note that you
do not specify that merely "the idea of god" affects the human experience, but that "
god affects the human experience." This is grossly fallacious, circular reasoning - to posit that God must exist, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about Him, and that because we talk about Him then it means He must exist. The same could be said for ANYTHING. Some people genuinely talk over the existence of vampires. So, because there are people contemplating the existence of vampires, and therefore vampires "affect the human experience" it must mean that
vampires themselves are what are affecting the human experience! Right?! I mean... this is YOUR logic I'm using here... so it
must be correct!
And then the second item in
red: "the validity of the ideal being proposed" - clearly claiming that the ideal of "god" is
valid - and this in the context of acceptance or rejection of god. Meaning that anyone who
rejects god (which is the
ONLY thing you want to afford atheists [see
blue quote] specifically to be able to parade out this agenda of yours) is rejecting something valid, implying that they are therefore in the wrong, and denying "the truth."