Atheism is not a lack of belief.

Accoring to the very useful Official Rules of Debate (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58531), all debates are defined by a specific proposition:

God (gods/all powerful, all intelligent entity) exists.

Positions:
True: God exists.
False: God does not exist.


The Theist takes the "True" position.
The Atheist takes the "False" position.

The debate moves forward.


Unfortunately, some nutbags are under the impression that atheist means "lack of belief".


The 'A' in atheism signifies the false position regarding this proposition.
Theism is the position that God exists.
'A'theism is the opposite position.

Atheism is a disbelief. Atheism is a denial of the belief that God exists.
I disbelieve in the existence of God = I believe that God does not exist.

A disbelief is not a lack of belief. It is an active belief that there is no God. There is no such thing as weak atheists or strong atheists.

You either believe true or false. If you believe in neither, you are neither a theist or an atheist. You might be an agnostic or have taken some other view regarding this debate.

A <- Disbelief. Denial of belief. Not lack of belief. It is a position that states whatever is infront of it is false. 100% false. Absolutely false. No weak or strong. Plain simple logic false or no false (true).

Not True = False.
Not False = True.

The belief that God does not exist = The disbelief that God exist.
The belief that God does not exist does not equal the lack of belief that God exists.
Lack of belief = Absence of belief. This is not atheism. Atheism is not a lack of belief or an absence of belief. It is a denial/disbelief.

I'm pretty sure 'a-' means "not, without" and not "disbelief; denial of belief, etc." May I ask where you claim "a-" means what you have said?


[Renrue]

I'm pretty sure 'a-' means "not, without" and not "disbelief; denial of belief, etc." May I ask where you claim "a-" means what you have said?


[Renrue]
Yes it does.
Without in terms of with/without. True/false.
Theism is with.
Atheism is without.

"Lack of belief" has nothing whatsoever with atheism. Agnostics have a lack of belief in God because they believe that it is impossibe for humans to ever know if God exists or not. Atheism is an absolute position that there is no God. "A" = not, denial, disbelief, without. Not the same thing as "lack of belief."

May I ask where you claim "a-" means what you have said?
[Renrue]
Engslish language words. Lingusitics and Etymology. Breaking up words and their intended meanings. Anybody can say a word, and apply a meaning to it.

The weak/strong atheism has no basis in academics, science, and theology. It is an internet ploriferation MEME much like:
All Your Base Are Belong To US (http://allyourbase.planettribes.gamespy.com/)
Chuck Norris Facts (http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/)
Back Dorm Boys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2rZxCrb7iU)
Weak Strong Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html)

The Greek language is origin of the word atheism, or atheos, and its meaning, for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Greek language, is clear: "without gods."

Babies, infants and toddlers, therefore, are atheists. They don't disbelieve in god since they've never read any of the mythology surrounding the various gods that religious nutters go on about in their superstitions.

One can say, then, that the atheist that doesn't accept superstitious bullshit after having to put up with the nonsense that various cult followers or spout or even after reading scholarly texts written about gods disbelieves in the gods being mentioned. I can agree with that.

But, by that line of reasoning, that makes everyone an atheist. That is, assuming there are not those that believe in whatever gods they read about in human mythology. I'm willing to bet that even Cool Skill doesn't believe in Zeus, Athena, Ptah, Quetzacoatl, or Amun Ra. He is, therefore, an atheist. The difference between he and I is that I'm not afraid to take the "disbelief" in human superstition one god further.

The real topic of interest, however, is Cool Skill's continued fixation on atheists. There is some fear or psychological pathology at work here that may or may not require professional attention, but, regardless, he has an unusual fixation on the godless the likes of which even Ann Coulter doesn't exhibit. Fascinating.

Yes it does.
Without in terms of with/without. True/false.
Theism is with.
Atheism is without.Alright, here seems to be the problem. How does with/without compare with true/false. I don't ever remember seeing that as one of the synonyms.

And as for linguistics and etymology, 'a-' means "not, without" or somewhere along those lines. But true/false has no basis for comparison whatsoever.

I'd like to see you actually reference something, like a credible online dictionary or etymology reference site. I'm not going to even address the rest of the stuff, because that's just you ranting on about sketchy information.


[Renrue]

The Greek language is origin of the word atheism, or atheos, and its meaning, for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Greek language, is clear: "without gods."

Babies, infants and toddlers, therefore, are atheists. They don't disbelieve in god since they've never read any of the mythology surrounding the various gods that religious nutters go on about in their superstitions.

One can say, then, that the atheist that doesn't accept superstitious bullshit after having to put up with the nonsense that various cult followers or spout or even after reading scholarly texts written about gods disbelieves in the gods being mentioned. I can agree with that.

But, by that line of reasoning, that makes everyone an atheist. That is, assuming there are not those that believe in whatever gods they read about in human mythology. I'm willing to bet that even Cool Skill doesn't believe in Zeus, Athena, Ptah, Quetzacoatl, or Amun Ra. He is, therefore, an atheist. The difference between he and I is that I'm not afraid to take the "disbelief" in human superstition one god further.
You do not know how to read.
The first post explains how all this is completely false.

And my post demonstrates how the first post is nothing but bullshit.

You either believe true or false. If you believe in neither, you are neither a theist or an atheist. You might be an agnostic or have taken some other view regarding this debate.

.


The word agnostic would tend to agree with you.

Gnosis meaning knowledge; knowledge of what? knowledge of;
a) god exists
or
b) god does not exist


An agnostic therefore, does not claim to have knowledge of
a) god exists
or
b) god does not exist


An agnostic can therefore be said to lack belief, but lacking belief in a) also means you must lack belief b) if not, one would have knowledge of one option, which would automatically give knowledge of the other option.

an atheist therefore cannot occupy the same ground.

But, by that line of reasoning, that makes everyone an atheist. That is, assuming there are not those that believe in whatever gods they read about in human mythology. I'm willing to bet that even Cool Skill doesn't believe in Zeus, Athena, Ptah, Quetzacoatl, or Amun Ra. He is, therefore, an atheist. The difference between he and I is that I'm not afraid to take the "disbelief" in human superstition one god further.
.

That is false logic... to be a theist, one has to believe that 'a' god exists. Theists may then debate amongst themselves about the exact definition / desciption of that god.

A theist does not have to agree on all definitions / descriptions of what a god (or gods ) maybe in order to not become an atheist.

In the same way an atheist does not have to state that all supernatural occurances are false not to believe in god i.e. an atheist that believes in ghosts say - does not automatially become a theist - by reverse logic your argument is false. ;)

Atheism, is literally, a non-god based belief system about the empirical evidenses of the sciences, caused and created solely out of fear and hate for the GOD concept.

This fear and hate has prompted those to always precieve and twist what they find in the sciences as being always daily, more and more evidense to prove their biased views and satisfy their inner hate, and nuetralise their inner fears of hell.

we all as humans, still religion or not... know right from wrong.
we do.. you do...

and we all do alot of wrong..... have done... and it scares people... even scientists.
and since the intelectual communty at the time, in schools and so forth was and is still secular, the perfect enviorment has existed for atheist views to take a dominate hold over our entire culture.

freedom... and liberty to be gay, stupid, and wild and immoral, has been the basis of or developing civil rights movements.... more and more freedom to be as perverse as i as an adult want to be.... with other adults....

bill boards.. now flaunt sexauality left and right... magazines are nothing but...
tv.. has become all about sex... in every show... sex... sex.. sex..

radio, is about the only semi clean thing around, and even still... in los angeles, several morning shows, such as 98.7.. is all about sex jokes...

this behavior... has only come about due to the constant loosing of standards all across the board, as sexual liberalism has been forced on us by atheists in the name of 'NO GOD'.... any arguements about the morality of putting young girls on bill boards is met with the common atheist arguement, which can follow many lines of thought.... but all in the end serves only to justify immoral behavior.

everyone recognises.... advertising works.

it does... our media is based on it.

and yet, the secular humanist in control now adays, knowing this, have NO problem with advertising sex to children in every availible media.... all of them.

you cant talk to strange kids about sex....
you cant touch strange kids...

but you can make availble to them... tons of sexy ads.. sex on tv... left and right.
sex on billboards... in some places... west hollywood.. ads, offering gay sex cruises, 30 feet high, on major streets... streets children walk down.
you can expose kids to all kinds of suggestive stuff... but only if your making money doing it.... commercial sin... is ok?? immoral behavior by mass distribution is ok??


athesist, have alot to answer for... and i havent heard of one secular atheist, ever who wants to do anything about the liberal perversion which has taken over western culture...

and i doubt i will hear from one here.

Athesist are all weak... because they rather loosen standards, than take a hard line agasinst the loosing of what should be unshakable social norms....
they all cave in.... soon they will cave into nambla... and lower the age of conscent.. to 16 nationally....

but will the atheists cry out??? no... they are weak and will just party with kids.

-MT

And my post demonstrates how the first post is nothing but bullshit.
No it does not.
Atheism: The position that God (dieties) does not exist.

The lack of a position is not atheism.

Eat that.

And then there is the notion of agnostic-atheist, which Cool Skill has, in the past, said he cannot understand. After mentioning that I consider myself to be an agnostic-atheist, I recall his ad hominem insults then and in later threads where he referred to me as an "idiot" but only succeeded in demonstrating his own intellectual shortcoming rather than my own.

The person who fails to find a legitimate reason to believe in a god can easily be said to be an atheist (whether you call it "lack of belief" or "disbelief"). But that same person can also, readily admit, that there is no method of proving that a god doesn't exist and that knowledge of a god is, therefore, impossible.

The only intellectually viable standpoint is that of agnostic-atheist. All others are either deluded or haven't actually applied reason to the issue.

I'm sure the member formerly known as Cool Skill will have some version of an ad hominem insult that will include "idiot," "moron," or some other intellectually suitable term for someone unable to apply reasonable arguments why this cannot be so, leaving us all to wonder who "luke" is and why one should wish to lick him.

The word agnostic would tend to agree with you.

Gnosis meaning knowledge; knowledge of what? knowledge of;
a) god exists
or
b) god does not exist


An agnostic therefore, does not claim to have knowledge of
a) god exists
or
b) god does not exist


An agnostic can therefore be said to lack belief, but lacking belief in a) also means you must lack belief b) if not, one would have knowledge of one option, which would automatically give knowledge of the other option.

an atheist therefore cannot occupy the same ground.
An atheist in no way occupies the same ground as an agnostic.
Agnostics lack the belief in God. They also lack the belief in no God.

Agnostic:
I do not believe that God exists.
I do not believe that God does not exist.
I believe that man can not have this knowledge.

Atheist.
I believe that God does not exist.

No it does not.
Atheism: The position that God (dieties) does not exist.

The lack of a position is not atheism.

Eat that.

The Greeks invented the Greek language, not Cool Skill. The "a" in "atheos" refers to "without." Without theism. QED.

Athesist are all weak... because they rather loosen standards, than take a hard line agasinst the loosing of what should be unshakable social norms

Right.
There are very few atheists that actually know what they are talking about.
A real atheist is one that stands on the position that God does not exist. No weak or strong about it.

Atheism, is literally, a non-god based belief system about the empirical evidenses of the sciences, caused and created solely out of fear and hate for the GOD concept.

Is that all gods of humanity, or just yours? I'm just curious which god I should direct my hate and fear towards. LOL.

The Greeks invented the Greek language, not Cool Skill. The "a" in "atheos" refers to "without." Without theism. QED.
As I stated the same exact thing moron.

This idiot really does not know how to read:
Yes it does.
Without in terms of with/without. True/false.
Theism is with.
Atheism is without.

"Lack of belief" has nothing whatsoever with atheism. Agnostics have a lack of belief in God because they believe that it is impossibe for humans to ever know if God exists or not. Atheism is an absolute position that there is no God. "A" = not, denial, disbelief, without. Not the same thing as "lack of belief."

Agnostic for me seems to say that it means there is a 50/50 chance of the universe being created by sentience. I don't think it works that way at all since there is a far more likely chance of this fantasy being untrue, just like the teapot going around the sun. So I am an atheist without of course being 100% certain... just 99.9% or so.

That is false logic... to be a theist, one has to believe that 'a' god exists. Theists may then debate amongst themselves about the exact definition / desciption of that god.

I agree, but only to a point. If I held a belief in a god that you did not, and we each think that our god is the correct one, then I might be inclined to believe that your god is not a real, but a "false" god (I admit there were, in antiquity, many cultures that believed in a polytheistic universe and accepted the gods of other cultures as existing but not the right god to recognize/accept). If so, then why should I not equate you to be anything but an atheist since the god you "worship" doesn't exist. Semantics, I agree, but interesting nonetheless. But I accept your point.


In the same way an atheist does not have to state that all supernatural occurances are false not to believe in god i.e. an atheist that believes in ghosts say - does not automatially become a theist - by reverse logic your argument is false. ;)

Actually, I think there is a strong correlation between credulous beliefs about ghosts, ufos, esp, etc. and the physiological reasons for religious belief. But this is only my own speculations.

Can somebody give me the website about this flying teapot?

As I stated the same exact thing moron.

This idiot really does not know how to read:

Right... there goes the 'intellectual' part of the discussion. Rather than discuss the issue, use a bit of name calling. tsk, tsk.

And I'm still right and you're still wrong.

Can somebody give me the website about this flying teapot?

You're on it. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1167519#post1167519

Where does 50/50 come into it? If someone believed there was a 49.999% chance that a deity created the universe, would that make them atheist, while the 50.001% guys are theists, and only the 50%-ers are agnostic? *confused*

And then there is the notion of agnostic-atheist, which Cool Skill has, in the past, said he cannot understand.
WTF?
Show me where the hell I ever said I cannot understand. I specifically said it was kindergarten nonsense which it is. There is no such thing as a bleeding atheist agnostic. It is a contradiction.

Its not a contradiction. They are complimentary, as I very clearly outlined in the very post you quoted. Obviously you either can't understand or refuse to understand. Either way, it looks like you don't understand.

Nobody cares about any flying teapot.
You know you are not an atheist when you take the position that there is no such thing as any gods. This is not simply an absence of belief, but an outright denial.

Where does 50/50 come into it? If someone believed there was a 49.999% chance that a deity created the universe, would that make them atheist, while the 50.001% guys are theists, and only the 50%-ers are agnostic? *confused*

You're taking that too far. I mean an agnostic must assume there is a likelihood of either gods existence or nonexistence.

For example, Carl Sagan was agnostic about other intelligent life in the universe, but atheist about 'god'.

Its not a contradiction. They are complimentary, as I very clearly outlined in the very post you quoted. Obviously you either can't understand or refuse to understand. Either way, it looks like you don't understand.
An atheist in no way occupies the same ground as an agnostic.
Agnostics lack the belief in God. They also lack the belief in no God.

Agnostic:
I do not believe that God exists.
I do not believe that God does not exist.
I believe that man can not have this knowledge.

Atheist.
I believe that God does not exist.
Ergo it is a contradiction.
One cannot say that there is no such thing as God, and I do not believe that God does not exist at the same time.

You're taking that too far. I mean an agnostic must assume there is a likelihood of either gods existence or nonexistence.

For example, Carl Sagan was agnostic about other intelligent life in the universe, but atheist about 'god'.

Why all the semantics?

What does it achieve?

Nobody cares about any flying teapot.
You know you are not an atheist when you take the position that there is no such thing as any gods. This is not simply an absence of belief, but an outright denial.

"Denial?" Perhaps, but this denial is that there is sufficient evidence to believe in gods. This I deny. There might be a god in the universe, which I cannot possibly know since I haven't the ability to test the universe in it's entirety.

Back to one of your other illogical and un-reasoned points about the word atheism: can we assume, then, that you've accepted defeat on the etymology of the word meaning "without gods" rather than "disbelief in gods?" Or do we then need to change the meanings of other Greek derived words in common use such as asexual when we refer to certain organisms (or do we accept that certain species of worm "disbelieve" in gender)?

Perhaps "atoms" are no longer derived from the Gr. "without parts" and now refer to "disbelief" in parts (realizing that the atom was once believed to be the smallest "part")?

HA! Perhaps asepsis refers to a "disbelief" of infection instead of "without infection." Or maybe aphasia means a "disbelief" in speaking rather than being "without" speech.

Not much. Sometimes the level of one's fantasy is extreme and so the definitions of those against that fantasy vary.

It achieves that fact that weak, strong, atheism, atheismagnoscticism, is all a false intenet meme.

These idiots go around proporting these kindergarten terms created by internet junkies as atheist doctrine.

Atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist. It is a position regarding the proposition that God exist.

Ergo it is a contradiction.
One cannot say that there is no such thing as God, and I do not believe that God does not exist at the same time.

Which demonstrates that my point about you not understanding the concept of agnostic-atheist is true. An atheist is without god. If all you accept is your own definition of atheism, which is incorrect, then it seems to be a contradiction. However, when you accept that atheism is "without gods," then an atheist can be agnostic. For one can be "without gods" yet still admit that to demonstrate gods do not exist is not possible.

lixluke,

A real atheist is one that stands on the position that God does not exist. No weak or strong about it. Try reading the Forum FAQs that should help you understand your mistake.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

Theism is the belief in a proposition, atheism is a disbelief in the proposition, and not a belief that the proposition is false.

Your mistake is a fundamantal and classic common error made by those who do not understand the issues in this debate.

For one can be "without gods" yet still admit that to demonstrate gods do not exist is not possible.

Why do they need a separate label to admit that?

Does that mean that atheists per se deny that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God?

It achieves that fact that weak, strong, atheism, atheismagnoscticism, is all a false intenet meme.

Yet, you've failed to demonstrate that position.

These idiots go around proporting these kindergarten terms created by internet junkies as atheist doctrine.

Yet, these are philosophical positions that were developed by scholars who were definitely not in kindergarten (an ad hominem worthy only of one whose screen name implies he licks someone name luke). Indeed, Robert Flint was a theologian and philosopher that wrote of atheism and agnosticism long before the internet. (Agnosticism (http://www.questia.com/library/book/agnosticism-by-robert-flint.jsp)). The term "agnostic-atheist" appears to be first used by he.

Atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist. It is a position regarding the proposition that God exist.

As demonstrated previously, and many times before, you're wrong. You can keep saying a sphere is a cube all you want, but corners will not appear.

Why do they need a separate label to admit that?

Does that mean that atheists per se deny that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God?

How could it be possible to prove such a thing without the ability to examine the universe in it's entirety? What's being denied is only the evidence that the superstitious use to claim as reason to believe in their god -whatever god that may be- is insufficient.

How could it be possible to prove such a thing without the ability to examine the universe in it's entirety? What's being denied is only the evidence that the superstitious use to claim as reason to believe in their god -whatever god that may be- is insufficient.

So


1. Theism : there is a God (A) (proposition)

2. Weak Atheism : I don't believe (A) (disbelief in proposition)

3. Atheism : There is no God

Is that right? :confused:

You're taking that too far. I mean an agnostic must assume there is a likelihood of either gods existence or nonexistence.

For example, Carl Sagan was agnostic about other intelligent life in the universe, but atheist about 'god'.
Huh? So atheists have 0% on a god? They consider themselves omniscient? Then they themselves are godlike. Reductio ad absurdem.

I would guess most intelligent people, when pressed, would admit that they cannot prove it for certain either way. So the important thing is not what they 'believe' but how they behave - do they choose to act as if there is a god, or as if there isn't? Isn't that the real basis for the theist / atheist split?

So


1. Theism : there is a God (A) (proposition)

2. Weak Atheism : I don't believe (A) (disbelief in proposition)

3. Atheism : There is no God

Is that right? :confused:
No this is wrong.

"I don't believe in God" is not atheism at all. There is no such thing as "weak atheism". It is an internet meme created by nutters.

Athiests don't want a God to exist, it's not even about belief, the athiest knows God does not exist, the Agnostic does not believe. Words cannot sway a true athiest. Words can sway an agnostic.

do they choose to act as if there is a god, or as if there isn't? Isn't that the real basis for the theist / atheist split?

That is what I always thought.

It might surprise licksluke, but I actually don't subscribe to the weak/strong atheist definitions myself. The only logical tenable position that I can come up with is agnostic-atheist. Without gods, but without the knowledge to truly say gods do not exist. I believe there probably are no gods, but I recognize that this simply isn't something I can test. I also believe there probably is not a giant Tea Pot orbiting the sun or that there probably aren't invisible dragons living in peoples' garages. But I also recognize that whatever test I can devise to prove their non-existence, someone can come along and move the goal post and create a new characteristic: said tea pot is invisible or the dragon is incorporeal.

Either you believe in one or more gods or you don't. Atheist: without gods. Theist: with god(s).

The rub, again, is the use of capitalization when discussing such matters as gods. You capitalize "God," understanding that this is the one and only god -the abrahamic version. I, on the other hand, don't discriminate when it comes to gods of humanity. They're all equally worthless to me. And equally fictional.

"Denial?" Perhaps, but this denial is that there is sufficient evidence to believe in gods. This I deny. There might be a god in the universe, which I cannot possibly know since I haven't the ability to test the universe in it's entirety.

Back to one of your other illogical and un-reasoned points about the word atheism: can we assume, then, that you've accepted defeat on the etymology of the word meaning "without gods" rather than "disbelief in gods?" Or do we then need to change the meanings of other Greek derived words in common use such as asexual when we refer to certain organisms (or do we accept that certain species of worm "disbelieve" in gender)?

Perhaps "atoms" are no longer derived from the Gr. "without parts" and now refer to "disbelief" in parts (realizing that the atom was once believed to be the smallest "part")?

HA! Perhaps asepsis refers to a "disbelief" of infection instead of "without infection." Or maybe aphasia means a "disbelief" in speaking rather than being "without" speech.
Are you that stupid? Theism is a position regarding the proposition:
God does exist.

You cannot compare that proposition in the same sense as asexual = disbelief in a gender.

That is what I always thought.

No, it's not, because you can believe in a scientific form of God. You can believe in string theory, or that the big bang creation myth, or that the universe is an equation. The fact is that you believe in something. It does not change how you live or behave, it just means you believe in the creation myth.

If you are an athiest, then you don't believe the universe was created, it was just always here, because the act of creation itself requires a cause, and this is the main difference between people who believe in God and those who are athiests. Some people want to know the answers and know the cause to everything, and some people want to accept that humans arent supposed to know the answers and that it's pointless to ask these sorts of questions because there is no God, and only the now matters.

The problem with athiesm is you cannot answer any of the "why" questions with it. This is bad long term in my opinion because science without answering the "why" questions, is science without context. It's like creating an object, a block, a lego block, but not having any way to connect it with all the other blocks, if each human invents a block, but no way to connect all blocks, the result is that you cannot build a castle out of blocks because there is no connector. So I'm making the case that athiesm is a disconnector block. It prevents people from connecting the dots, which is fine if the athiest wants to not connect the dots, as long as they don't force athiesm on everyone and we have freedom of religion.

Athiests don't want a God to exist, it's not even about belief, the athiest knows God does not exist, the Agnostic does not believe. Words cannot sway a true athiest. Words can sway an agnostic.

Whose god? Just your's? What of the other gods of humanity? Should atheists not want them to exist either? Should believers in your god want others to exist?

This is the logic of the superstitious who cannot fathom that others wouldn't believe their superstitions. Because I don't accept your mythology, I must be angry or hateful of your imagined god. Because I don't subscribe to your superstitions, I must, therefore, be in denial of them. Right.

The rub, again, is the use of capitalization when discussing such matters as gods. You capitalize "God," understanding that this is the one and only god -the abrahamic version. I, on the other hand, don't discriminate when it comes to gods of humanity. They're all equally worthless to me. And equally fictional.

I don't discriminate either. In India we believe that different religions are just different representations of the same God. Islam says the same and so does Hinduism. We use God to signify the One God as in Brahman, Allah or God and gods to signify the representations, as the devas and pagan gods.

However, when you accept that atheism is "without gods," then an atheist can be agnostic.
I am not talking about how kindergarten morons on the internet define atheism. I am talking about the original intentions of greeks and the "original" meaning of atheism.

Without God is not an absense of belief. Without God in the sense the greeks were using it was a position that there are no gods.
The greeks did not even use the term atheism. They used atheos. Either way, the greek, french, english is all the same intended original meaning.

Theism represents the position that God/gods does exist.
Atheism represents the poistion that God does not exist.

When the greeks used atheos, it has nothing to do with saying "without the position".
Wrong interpretation: "I am only without the position that God does exist."
Correct interpretation: "I hold the position that the universe is without God.

Sexual: An animal that has gender.
Asexual: An animal without gender.

Theism: The universe has God/gods.
Atheism: The universe is without God/gods.

Whose god? Just your's? What of the other gods of humanity? Should atheists not want them to exist either? Should believers in your god want others to exist?

This is the logic of the superstitious who cannot fathom that others wouldn't believe their superstitions. Because I don't accept your mythology, I must be angry or hateful of your imagined god. Because I don't subscribe to your superstitions, I must, therefore, be in denial of them. Right.

Doesnt matter whos god, which god, the type of god, or how many gods. The point is some people don't want to explain the unexplained, they don't care how the universe was born, or how it may die, if you don't really care because there is nothing but the now, well then why do you need a concept of God?

However, if you do care, then you must know WHY, and HOW, not simply HOW. The universe even if it's a machine, you have to know why the machine was built, and who and what built it. We now know how it was built, or at least we have theories, and athiests arent complaining about this search for "how", so why complain about the search for "why"? God explains why we exist, and athiests at best cite existentialism which basically says we exist because we exist, and we live to die, yeah very meaningful theory. Why would anyone want to live to die when they can live for the big picture, for the betterment of the universe?

The problem with athiests, or my problem with athiests, is that they offer a negative. "God does not exist.", and then they proceed to replace God with something even worse, which is nothingness. "God does not exist because NOTHING is existance.", To someone who is not an athiest it sounds like athiests worship nothingness. The void. darkness, etc. I know this is over simplified, but this is how athiests make themselves look when they refuse to provide a cosmic alternative view and simply attack the concept of God. Athiests don't seem to realize that religion is more essential to a species than science, because without religion or philosophy to guide the science, humans really will build to destroy, and live to die, and there will be no reason to search space or aim higher, I doubt an athiest mind would have taken us into space in the first place because they wouldnt have asked the right questions, they would have asked how, but not "why".

lixluke,

Try reading the Forum FAQs that should help you understand your mistake.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679
I have just finished stating that these so called "facts" are an incorrect interpretation of the original meaning of atheism.
Restating these "facts" does not make them correct.

Are you that stupid? Theism is a position regarding the proposition:
God does exist.

You cannot compare that proposition in the same sense as asexual = disbelief in a gender.

Obviously, you have some difficulties reasoning or using critical thinking skills with your mind so cluttered with, perhaps, a lifetime of indoctrination in whatever religious cult or superstition you subscribe to and this keeps you from understanding.

Just because "theism" is the position -the belief- in one or more gods (not "God," as in only your god), it doesn't follow that atheism must be disbelief. My daughter is an atheist. She is without god(s). Ask her what your god is, and she'll have no idea. Describe your god to her and you'll probably get, "oh, you mean Santa Claus!"

Atheism means without god(s). Greek is a language, not a position.

Without gods, but without the knowledge to truly say gods do not exist. I believe there probably are no gods,
As stated, atheism was never ever meant as "without the knowledge of God".
It was always meant as "without God period" properly interpreted as "The universe is without god. There is no god in the universe."

It might surprise licksluke, but I actually don't subscribe to the weak/strong atheist definitions myself. The only logical tenable position that I can come up with is agnostic-atheist. Without gods, but without the knowledge to truly say gods do not exist. I believe there probably are no gods, but I recognize that this simply isn't something I can test. I also believe there probably is not a giant Tea Pot orbiting the sun or that there probably aren't invisible dragons living in peoples' garages. But I also recognize that whatever test I can devise to prove their non-existence, someone can come along and move the goal post and create a new characteristic: said tea pot is invisible or the dragon is incorporeal.

Either you believe in one or more gods or you don't. Atheist: without gods. Theist: with god(s).

The rub, again, is the use of capitalization when discussing such matters as gods. You capitalize "God," understanding that this is the one and only god -the abrahamic version. I, on the other hand, don't discriminate when it comes to gods of humanity. They're all equally worthless to me. And equally fictional.

But don't you see, that when you say that there are no Gods, that you are giving yourself limits? You have nothing to aim for, because you have no concept of Gods, or of the ultimate force of creation. How exactly are we going to move onto creating planets and universes of our own if we have no concept of it in our mind?

I have just finished stating that these so called "facts" are an incorrect interpretation of the original meaning of atheism.
Restating these "facts" does not make them correct.

You can go on and on trying to re-define words all you want. But you're still calling a sphere a cube and there still are no corners.

You can go on and on trying to re-define words all you want. But you're still calling a sphere a cube and there still are no corners.
This is not a redefinition. You can continue on ignoring the statement. This is the original meaning of atheism. What is your issue with it?

As stated, atheism was never ever meant as "without the knowledge of God".
It was always meant as "without God period" properly interpreted as "The universe is without god. There is no god in the universe."


Once again, athiests view the universe without Gods or potential for Gods, and this sets limits on scientific thinking, because now the scientist thinks of the universe as a bunch of seperate blocks with no connectors, and a bunch of noise, static, and mist, a very dark nothingness void of endless space with energy, constantly moving in a rhythm with no meaning. This is a very mechanical way of viewing the universe and I'm saying it limits artistic creativity, to view the universe as a giant pinball machine.

A<---- Without.

Not "without the belief in".

Any atheist that claims they do not support the position that the universe is without God is not really an athiest.

But don't you see, that when you say that there are no Gods, that you are giving yourself limits? You have nothing to aim for, because you have no concept of Gods, or of the ultimate force of creation. How exactly are we going to move onto creating planets and universes of our own if we have no concept of it in our mind?

You're kidding, right? What you're saying is that because we don't know something, it's okay to invent whatever fiction or mythology will provide a suitable answer and then say this is "truth." Utter poppycock.

I say you are completely and utterly wrong and that by using the god cop-out, it is the theist that "limits" himself. What reason, then, is there to look for answers if you can say god did it or the tooth fairy took the tooth; or the sandman made you sleepy; or coyote tricked you; etc.?

By not falling into the superstitious nonsense of religious cults like christianity and islam, I'm able to go on observing the universe around me and to be in complete awe at what I see. I don't need whatever the in-vogue god is of the day to make my life any more complete than it already is. Nor do I need to have some superstition in my life in order to find a reason to live or something to "aim for." And, anyone that does is a truly pathetic excuse for a human.

A<---- Without.

Not "without the belief in".

Any atheist that claims they do not support the position that the universe is without God is not really an athiest.

Yes but how can an athiest mind ever discover the creative force that created existance? The athiest just says "we are here, live with it", but some people want to know EXACTLY what we are and WHY. If an athiest responds with "nothing", thats unacceptable for most people, this is why about 80% of people believe in God.

A<---- Without.

Not "without the belief in".

Any atheist that claims they do not support the position that the universe is without God is not really an athiest.

Finally. We agree. I'm glad to see you made it this far.

Now, answer us all the question that's burning us up: who is luke and why did you change your screen name to indicate that you lick him?

Huh? So atheists have 0% on a god? They consider themselves omniscient? Then they themselves are godlike. Reductio ad absurdem.

I would guess most intelligent people, when pressed, would admit that they cannot prove it for certain either way. So the important thing is not what they 'believe' but how they behave - do they choose to act as if there is a god, or as if there isn't? Isn't that the real basis for the theist / atheist split?

So you're saying that no matter what the fantasy is, we should automatically be agnostic about it simply because it can't be proven either way?

I go about my life as if there is no god, I don't believe in god. I think that is the way most atheists are. Some atheists go an extra step and say there is no god at all.

Finally. We agree. I'm glad to see you made it this far.

Now, answer us all the question that's burning us up: who is luke and why did you change your screen name to indicate that you lick him?
So you do agree that: Only those that support the claim that the universe is without God can be considered an atheist by intention of original definition.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58531
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58533

You're kidding, right? What you're saying is that because we don't know something, it's okay to invent whatever fiction or mythology will provide a suitable answer and then say this is "truth." Utter poppycock.

Science came from religion. Science says that even a half truth is better than no truth, which means you come up with a theory of hypothesis, such as the big bang theory, the unified field theory, quantum theory, or the theory of relativity, and then you continue to test these theories until they break and another better theory is invented, but it's still part of the discipline of science to attempt to answer the unanswered, and this is the same drive that came originally from religion. Why became how.

I say you are completely and utterly wrong and that by using the god cop-out, it is the theist that "limits" himself. What reason, then, is there to look for answers if you can say god did it or the tooth fairy took the tooth; or the sandman made you sleepy; or coyote tricked you; etc.?

The athiest never will ask why, and will only ask how, so the athiest is limited by the fact that the athiest isn't even attempting to ask certain questions. Example, if we assume there is a God, then we can discuss how to create a universe, and how to create lifeforms. How would an athiest come to these questions without myths? It's not like we have the technology today to even pretend to ask some of these questions, but the creation myths predicted some of the science we have now, like genetics, and space travel, and solar energy. Newton believed in God, Einstien too, Bohm too.

By not falling into the superstitious nonsense of religious cults like christianity and islam, I'm able to go on observing the universe around me and to be in complete awe at what I see.

You assume every religion is based on superstition. Some religions are based completely on science, such as, STRING THEORY! Such as, BIG BANG THEORY. Many people believe in these two theories and unless you can prove them wrong with science, and if they are ever proven right, you'll have to deal with the new scientific religions that are forming based on the backing of scientific discovery.

I don't need whatever the in-vogue god is of the day to make my life any more complete than it already is. Nor do I need to have some superstition in my life in order to find a reason to live or something to "aim for." And, anyone that does is a truly pathetic excuse for a human.
Exactly, you don't, but then you are disconnected from the universe itself also because if you don't realize that your body is not real, it's just a bunch of atoms, and you are essentially a biological machine, well, okay, who built you and what is your purpose? Even an android on Star Trek would ask this question. Even if you discover you created yourself, don't you want to know who you are? Or are you satisfied being a machine? Be a robot if you want to.

So you're saying that no matter what the fantasy is, we should automatically be agnostic about it simply because it can't be proven either way?

I go about my life as if there is no god, I don't believe in god. I think that is the way most atheists are. Some atheists go an extra step and say there is no god at all.

No, your life is a pinball machine, money is your god, and you'll worship it. You go to work, you worship your boss too. So while you may not have the same God, you cannot say anyone lives their life as if there is no God, because there is always a higher power, even if it's the power of nature itself. Nature has laws, and even tribal people worshipped nature.

Even if you don't worship. In order to have any stable believe, you need faith. God provides stability, because without it, how do you know any of this is real, how do you know your body is anything more than a mechanical machine?

How do athiests see themselves?

No, your life is a pinball machine, money is your god, and you'll worship it. You go to work, you worship your boss too. So while you may not have the same God, you cannot say anyone lives their life as if there is no God, because there is always a higher power, even if it's the power of nature itself. Nature has laws, and even tribal people worshipped nature.

No... 'god' is the sentient/intelligent creator of the universe.

No... 'god' is the sentient/intelligent creator of the universe.

Now you are defining God in a very scripted strict definition. God, is simply the creative force of existance. Egyptians called this force Heka. This force is responsible for fertility. This force is also responsible for the big bang. From the infinite energy of nothingness came everything. Nothing can become everything, everything cannot become nothing, because you cannot uncreate. Energy once created, exists forever, just like light exists forever, and sound, because these are simply waves of energy in different forms. You can turn the energy of an atomic bomb into soundwaves, microwaves, or light, you then can slow light down by freezing it, or speed light up, and you can do the same with sound, all using your creative brain energy.
http://www.kemet.org/glossary/heka.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heka_(god)

No, god is the sentient creator of the universe.

So you do agree that: Only those that support the claim that the universe is without God can be considered an atheist by intention of original definition.

Ah... see, we're back to square one. Atheism isn't about a claim. Its 'without' one. Not accepting the claim that your god is real isn't the same as claiming there are is no God. The god claim is that of the superstitious. The burden of proof is theirs.

But I'm curious. If those that simply chose not to believe in gods -who are without gods- aren't atheists, what are they? If they don't assert the claim that the universe is godless, but simply see no reason to accept the initial claim that your god is anything beyond silly superstition, are they not atheist?

No, god is the sentient creator of the universe.

Are you sentient? You are attempting to define God in a very narrow way, perhaps because you cannot grasp the fact that the concept of God is the basis of self awareness.

So you're saying that no matter what the fantasy is, we should automatically be agnostic about it simply because it can't be proven either way?
Science is agnostic.

I go about my life as if there is no god, I don't believe in god. I think that is the way most atheists are.
How someone lives their life is their choice.

Some atheists go an extra step and say there is no god at all.
That's their choice, but there is no proof that I can see.

I don't go around saying 'there is no giant invisible teapot orbiting the sun'. If somebody were to ask me, I'd say it seems unlikely, but I can't prove anything...

Yes but how can an athiest mind ever discover the creative force that created existance?
That is irrelevant.
This is the point:
Theist: God does exist.
Atheist: God does not exist.

This is the very definition of atheism. Agree or disagree.

[QUOTE=lixluke]So you do agree that: Only those that support the claim that the universe is without God can be considered an atheist by intention of original definition.

Ah... see, we're back to square one. Atheism isn't about a claim. Its 'without' one.

But I'm curious. If those that simply chose not to believe in gods -who are without gods- aren't atheists, what are they? If they don't assert the claim that the universe is godless, but simply see no reason to accept the initial claim that your god is anything beyond silly superstition, are they not atheist?

I'm not sure if anyone is a true athiest, but in general I define an athiest as someone who cannot see the hidden forces behind material existance. That means the majority of Christians, Muslims, and other religious people, actually are religious, but not spriitual. If you are spiritual, thats the difference, in specific, the trait that allows a person to have spiritual perception.

And I'm being accused of semantics? If the universe wasn't designed and created by intelligence then the universe is without 'god'. It's really that simple.

Ah... see, we're back to square one. Atheism isn't about a claim. Its 'without' one. Not accepting the claim.
Back to what?
This is the whole point of the thread.
Atheism has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting a claim. It is a position as stated.

That is irrelevant.
This is the point:
Theist: God does exist.
Atheist: God does not exist.

This is the very definition of atheism. Agree or disagree.

Or:

Theist: there is a god
Atheist: its your claim; prove it then maybe I'll accept it.


There need not be a counter-claim, though I readily agree (and always have) that there are atheists who fit your definition. That just doesn't happen to be me or most of the atheists I know.

That is irrelevant.
This is the point:
Theist: God does exist.
Atheist: God does not exist.

This is the very definition of atheism. Agree or disagree.

But what if the thiest believes God is existance? Instead you should ask me if God is real or not. I'd say the thiest believes God is real, and the Athiest believes God is fake.

Or:

Theist: there is a god
Atheist: its your claim; prove it then maybe I'll accept it.


There need not be a counter-claim, though I readily agree (and always have) that there are atheists who fit your definition. That just doesn't happen to be me or most of the atheists I know.

That is an agnostic.

the Athiest believes God is fake.
What, a big bearded puppet in the sky? I've never heard an atheist say that.

Back to what?
This is the whole point of the thread.
Atheism has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting a claim. It is a position as stated.

Atheism may be a position for some. But for most of the atheists I know, including myself, it means not willing to accept the claim that there is a god. If you show me sufficient evidence, I'll revise that statement and accept your god. Until then, what do you call the person who doesn't accept your claim (that there is a god) without evidence?

Or:

Theist: there is a god
Atheist: its your claim; prove it then maybe I'll accept it.
Wrong this is a meme definition. Not the original definition.

And I'm being accused of semantics? If the universe wasn't designed and created by intelligence then the universe is without 'god'. It's really that simple.

It's not that simple. The definition of God is not defined by one man (you), it's defined by the collective human mind. We have defined God in many different ways, but the only thing everyone has in common is the creation myth, the basis for almost all religions, and this means the universe was created. Do we say intellient? Maybe intelligence increases through different forms of life. The key is that the creative force had to exist for the big bang to happen, how can be answered by science, and the intelligence of God can be answered also by science.

That is an agnostic.

And yet, that person is without god(s). Atheos. Atheist.

If one does not fit the specific definion of atheist (God does not exist.), they are not an atheist.
It doesn't matter what their position is. Unless they believe that God does not exist period, they are not atheists.

And yet, that person is without god(s). Atheos. Atheist.

If that person can be convinced with proof that there is a God, they are agnostic, because Thiests and Athiests cannot be proved with any amount of information to change their beliefs. An Athiest does not want for a God to exist even if you offer proof, and a Thiest wants a God to exist even if you offer proof, and both the Athiest and Thiest rely on the exact same proof to prove God exists or doesnt exist, they both use science, and nature, they both use existance to prove the existance or lack of existance of God.

By the way, I'm actually agnostic, but I lean towards God because the science points in that direction.

Wrong this is a meme definition. Not the original definition.

Demonstrate this claim to be true. Show how this is a "meme definition" and not a "real definition." It might first help if you define what your concept of "meme definition" is then move on to what the difference is.

I'm using logic and reason. Humans create a concept of god then say "this concept is real". They are theistic. Other, more reasoned, humans use critical thought processes and ask "where's the evidence to support your notion of a god and why should I accept yours over that of another?" They are atheistic. Without gods. And without your silly superstitions and mythology.

As I stated the same exact thing moron.

This idiot really does not know how to read:
Listen, moron. We all read your OP and we think (i.e. know for a fact) that you are wrong. The A in Atheist is interpreted the same as in Amoral or Asymptomatic, or Abiogenesis. Without Morals (not does not believe in morals, idiot) or Without Symptoms (not does not believe in symptoms, learning disabled) or Life Without Previous Life (not does not believe in life with no prior life, dipshit).

It's Atheism - Without Theism, asshat.

You can make up or twist any stupid definitions you want to, but why not go to a forum populated by your own kind - the mentally unstable - so you would at least have a chance of convincing someone you're right.

If that person can be convinced with proof that there is a God, they are...
Legitimate debatoer? WTF?
A THEIST CAN BE CONVINCED THAT THERE IS GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
AN ATHEIST CAN BE CONVINCED THAT GOD DOES EXIST.

There is no such thing as a position that cannot change. Such a position is called ignorance and stupidity. With such a position, there is no point in discussion or debate. It's a worthless claim.

If one does not fit the specific definion of atheist (God does not exist.), they are not an atheist.
It doesn't matter what their position is. Unless they believe that God does not exist period, they are not atheists.

So you're saying that someone that has never heard of gods (my daughter), and therefore has no opinion of gods, is a theist?

Wrong this is a meme definition. Not the original definition.
Your original definition is wrong. Get some fundamental logic and language skills before launching an entire thread devoted to your own ignorance.

Legitimate debatoer? WTF?
A THEIST CAN BE CONVINCED THAT THERE IS GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Thiests will die for their beliefs. There is nothing, not even death can convince a thiest to be athiest.

AN ATHEIST CAN BE CONVINCED THAT GOD DOES EXIST.

Only an agnostic can be convinced, and even that is not easy. An athiest can never be convinced that a God exists because the same words used to convince them that a God does not exist, are the words which can be used to convince a thiest that a God does exist. Don't you see? You don't control how they respond to words, their mind does, and an athiest or thiest mind is simply a mind which sets on something, while everyone else is unsure and agnostic.

There is no such thing as a position that cannot change. Such a position is called ignorance and stupidity. With such a position, there is no point in discussion or debate. It's a worthless claim.

There are many people who have positions which are 100% unchangable. I guess you have not met a lot of religious people, a lot of thiests are the hardest of hardcore and nothing will change their mind, not even death. Many athiests are the same way, and will never believe in God even if you threatened to kill and torture them.

Superluminal, Cool Skill has done an extraordinary job in limiting his/her insults and ad hominem remarks. This must be very difficult for him/her and we shouldn't give him/her the excuse needed to start.

Superluminal, Cool Skill has done an extraordinary job in limiting his/her insults and ad hominem remarks. This must be very difficult for him/her and we shouldn't give him/her the excuse needed to start.
I understand SW. However, if you look at what I responded to, he/she/it used the words idiot and moron in one post, directed I believe, at you.

So, in this sense, he/she/it has already started. I will however refrain from fueling the fire. Apologies.

Moderator comment.

OK too much flame and ad hominem.

Cut it out please. It is possible to debate without it.


So you're saying that someone that has never heard of gods (my daughter), and therefore has no opinion of gods, is a theist?
WTF????
Did I not already state this you moron?


Again:
One that does not believe that God does exist, and also does not believe that God does not exist.
This is neither atheist or theist.

You are a total idiot. I have stated this a million times, and you continue to ignore. Skip over reading. Jabber on as if nothing was said. You are an ignoramous lout.

WTF????
Did I not already state this you moron?


Again:
One that does not believe that God does exist, and also does not believe that God does not exist.
This is neither atheist or theist.

You are a total idiot. I have stated this a million times, and you continue to ignore. Skip over reading. Jabber on as if nothing was said. You are an ignoramous lout.
So, anyway, what was I saying...?

The athiest never will ask why, and will only ask how, so the athiest is limited by the fact that the athiest isn't even attempting to ask certain questions. Example, if we assume there is a God, then we can discuss how to create a universe, and how to create lifeforms.

Sorry, but I'm not going down this road of intellectual dishonesty with you. My mind isn't that limited that I need to invoke the god-did-it excuse simply because certain "why" questions aren't forthcoming. Moreover, science asks both "how" and "why" questions all the time. What science doesn't do is entertain superstitious bullshit answers just because testable ones aren't readily observable. If the concept cannot be tested, it isn't science. Paranormal bullshit like gods is tossed out. That doesn't mean that scientists are therefore atheists (I'm sure Ken Miller would disagree with that notion). In fact, your comments about atheists are largely generalizing and inaccurate. Many atheists simply aren't any more interested in how the universe works than many head-in-the-sand theists. They simply don't buy into the superstitious bullshit of religious nutters.

THEISM: God does exist.
ATHEISM: God does not exist.

NOTE AS SEEN HERE THAT ATHEISM IS NOT A LACK OF BELIEF OR AN ABSENCE OF BELIEF.
It is a denial in the existence of God. The univerese is "without" God. Hende the "A" as the prefix. Disbelief.

It is completely different from lack of belief. Those who lack the belief may or may not be an atheist. You continue to ignore what is being stated over and over.

THEISM: God does exist.
ATHEISM: God does not exist.

NOTE AS SEEN HERE THAT ATHEISM IS NOT A LACK OF BELIEF OR AN ABSENCE OF BELIEF.
It is a denial in the existence of God. The univerese is "without" God. Hende the "A" as the prefix. Disbelief.

It is completely different from lack of belief. Those who lack the belief may or may not be an atheist. You continue to ignore what is being stated over and over.
And I reiterate: Learning Disabled. Seek help.

WTF????
Did I not already state this you moron?


Again:
One that does not believe that God does exist, and also does not believe that God does not exist.
This is neither atheist or theist.

You are a total idiot. I have stated this a million times, and you continue to ignore. Skip over reading. Jabber on as if nothing was said. You are an ignoramous lout.

No. I don't believe you did, though it is possible that I missed a post. Would this necessarily make me a moron or idiot. Each of these are descriptions of intelligence, claims which you have not demonstrated. If you cannot even support your ad hominem claims, why should we accept your superstitious ones.

Again, I ask the question: is someone that has never heard of gods (my daughter), and therefore has no opinion of gods, is a theist?

If you refuse to answer, I'll understand and accept that this person is therefore an atheist. This would suggest your concession in the debate and acceptance that an atheist is simply a person without gods not always a person who "disbelieves" in gods. Obviously my daughter isn't a theist, not knowing what a god is. And obviously she is without gods. She is... an atheist.

ATHEISM: God does not exist.
Absolutely wrong given the language base this form stems from.

The univerese is "without" God. Hence the "A" as the prefix. Disbelief.
Poor CS/LL. The word atheist is not applied to the universe my friend. It is applied to individuals who claim the same stance for god(s) as they do for any of an infinite number of ideas with zero reason to believe them.

It is completely different from lack of belief. Those who lack the belief may or may not be an atheist. You continue to ignore what is being stated over and over.
And you of course are a model of adaptability and reason.

THEISM: God does exist.
ATHEISM: God does not exist.

NOTE AS SEEN HERE THAT ATHEISM IS NOT A LACK OF BELIEF OR AN ABSENCE OF BELIEF.
It is a denial in the existence of God. The univerese is "without" God. Hende the "A" as the prefix. Disbelief.

It is completely different from lack of belief. Those who lack the belief may or may not be an atheist. You continue to ignore what is being stated over and over.

Nah. I'm not buying it. Your just wrong.

If you refuse to answer, I'll understand and accept that this person is therefore an atheist.
Accept whatever fallacy you want. You are clearly an idiot.

Moderator comment.

OK too much flame and ad hominem.

Cut it out please. It is possible to debate without it.

Further similar posts will be deleted.

Sticks. Stones. Your still wrong.

If a person does not believe that God exist, and also does not believe that God does not exist, they are not in any form an atheist.
A person that does not know of God, therefore, does not believe that God does not exist. Therefore, is not an atheist. In order to believe that there definitely is no God, one must be aware of the proposition that God does exist.

Do you believe Zeus exists? If not, does that make you an atheist? Or must one only believe your god doesn't exist?

Your re-definition of atheist just isn't working. The existing definition was fine. Atheist. Without god(s). People can have varied reasons for being without god, just as they can for being without a car. But an atheist is still without god and a person who walks to work is still without a car. Maybe it was repo'd or maybe he never had one. Maybe he sold it or lost it in a race. He's still walking. He's still "without."

Now. On to the real topic of this thread: Why does Cool Skill have a fixation on atheism and atheists? Is it because he has some fear or is there some other psychological pathology at work? And this could apply to others who seem to go on and on about how atheists are this and that and atheism is/isn't this or that. Why do the superstitious devote so much time and concern about the godless?

My hypothesis is that one reason includes their fear that the atheists and godless are right. They are offended that the only arguments that become logically tenable are the atheistic ones and the superstitious arguments can only base themselves in mythology.

Do you believe Zeus exists? If not, does that make you an atheist? Or must one only believe your god doesn't exist?.
Atheist: God/gods do not exist.
A person that believes in God cannot be an atheist. It does not matter if the person believes that Zeus exists. In order for them to be atheist they have to believe that there is no God/gods anywhere. Why would you even ask this question about Zeus? What is the point?

According to the false definition of atheism, it does matter. It is not a real definition of atheism.

But Zeus is a god. If you deny Him, surely you are an atheist by your definition.

Accept whatever fallacy you want. You are clearly an idiot.

Moderator comment.

OK too much flame and ad hominem.

Cut it out please. It is possible to debate without it.

Further similar posts will be deleted.
Great.

So do you deny Zeus? Are you therefore an atheist?

So do you deny Zeus? Are you therefore an atheist?
One who denies Zeus, and believes in any god is not one that believes there are zero gods.

But Zeus is a god. If you deny Him, surely you are an atheist by your definition.
Do you even understand english?
Real definition: One that believes there is no God/gods.

Then it doesn't matter which god you accept, as long as you accept at least one?

Real definition: One that believes there is no God/gods

No. Thats your definition. The real one, as clearly demonstrated through etymological analysis in earlier posts is "without god(s)." Without can mean, obviously discarded or never accepted in the first place.

STOP RESPONDING TO POSTS WITHOUT READING THE WHOLE THING AS TO NOT TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT.


LEARN HOW TO READ:
Proposition: God(gods/dieties) does exist.
Theist: True. God does exist.
Atheist. False. God does not exist.

You continue to argue and argue and argue the defition of atheism, yet you take no intrest in understanding what the definition is. I state apple. You claim that I am saying oranges, and argue against oranges. I have been stating these same things for years ever since I first joined this forum.


READ CAREFULLY
I am claiming that the following was the real original definition.


PROOF=>
Given:
Atheism is the position that God does not exist.
You believe that God exist.
You believe that there is no such thing as Zeus god of thunder or whatever.
--------
Conclusion: You are not an atheist.


NOTE
One that does not believe in God is not the same as one that believes there is no God.
One that does not believe in God may or may not be an atheist.
One that does not believe in God because he believes there is no God is definitely an atheist.


ATHEIST
Belief there is no God. =
Belief that God does not exist. =
Disbelief in God. =
Universe is without God. =
Position that there is no God. =
Denial of the existence of God. =
Active opposite on the belief in God.


NOT ATHEIST
Lack of belief.
Absence of belief.
I do not believe there is a God. I do not believe there is no God.
I am neither atheist or theist.


DENIAL AND DISBELIEF
Denial and disbelief in God are more than simply a lack and absence of belief in God. They are an active belief that the universe is without God.


WITHOUT
"A" is not "without" in the sense of lacking a belief.
"A" is without in the sense of without God.
Any "ism" is a position/ideology. This includes atheism. The direct opposite of a universe with God. The universe is definitely without God.


POSITIONS IN A DEBATE
Pro: The proposition is definitely true.
Con: The proposition is definitely false.
Abstain: I refuse to take any position regarding the proposition.
Present: I lack the proper information to take a position. I need more infromation before taking a position.

Proposition: God does exist.
Pro: Theism. True.
Con: Atheism. False.
Abstain: Neither theism or atheism.
Present: Neither theism or atheism.


My frustration is not with anybody disagreeing with this explanation for the term "atheism". My frustration is with morons that cannot refuse to correctly interpret this explanation for the term atheism.

That is irrelevant.
This is the point:
Theist: God does exist.
Atheist: God does not exist.

This is the very definition of atheism. Agree or disagree. Disagree.

Theism is "belief in the existence of God or Gods".

A-theism is therefore "without belief in the existence of God or Gods".

This is obviously different than strong atheism, which is "belief that God or Gods do not exist".

The last is an assertion, one that an atheist does not necessarily make.

In any case your argument is superficial, as it is concerned only with semantics. The only thing I see here is that you are insisting that your definition is the correct one.

So, for the sake of argument, let's use your definitions:

lixluke's statement:

Positions:
Theism: "God(s) exists" is true.
Atheism: "God(s) exists" is false.


Raithere's reply: Define "God(s)". Define "exist".

~Raithere

Raithere's reply: Define "God(s)". Define "exist".

There are 2 definitions being discussed here.
Definition 1: Atheist necessarily believes that God does not exist.
Definition 2: Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.

My position is of definition 1.
Please refer to the post directly before your post. I have rewritten it to explain the position clearer.


Paramaters must be established.
Agree or disagree?:
"According to definition 1, an agnostic cannot be an atheist. But, according to definition 2, an agnostic is a type of atheist."

My frustration is not with anybody disagreeing with this explanation for the term "atheism". My frustration is with morons that cannot refuse to correctly interpret this explanation for the term atheism.
We understand. This is your explanation for the word "atheism". We do not accept your explanation/definition. We define atheism as being without any belief in gods. Debate is without common starting reference and therefore futile. Also, your inability to restrain yourself from pointless ad hom attacks speaks to your possibly less-than-sound mental state, making further debate even less productive.

your inability to restrain yourself from pointless ad hom attacks speaks to your possibly less-than-sound mental state, making further debate even less productive.
Ad hom. I guess you must be talking about yourself as you are clearly using ad hom fallacy, and claiming that those who use it have less-than-sound mental state. Pathetic.

Back to the point.
Definition 1: Atheist necessarily believes that God does not exist.
Definition 2: Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.

My position is of definition 1.
Your position is definition 2.

Paramaters must be established.
Agree or disagree?:
"According to definition 1, an agnostic cannot be an atheist. But, according to definition 2, an agnostic is a type of atheist."

There are 2 definitions being discussed here.
Definition 1: Atheist necessarily believes that God does not exist.
An unacceptable definition, no matter what the source.

Definition 2: Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.
Fine.

My position is of definition 1.
Then debate has already taken place and been settled. This position is, in our opinions, wrong and invalid.

Paramaters must be established.
Agree or disagree?:
"According to definition 1, an agnostic cannot be an atheist. But, according to definition 2, an agnostic is a type of atheist."
Hmmm...

Hmmm...
??


The following errors occurred when this message was submitted:
1. The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 3 characters.

There are 2 definitions being discussed here.
Definition 1: Atheist necessarily believes that God does not exist.
Definition 2: Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.

Paramaters must be established.
Agree or disagree?:
"According to definition 1, an agnostic cannot be an atheist. But, according to definition 2, an agnostic is a type of atheist." Again I find the argument superficial, but okay.

I disagree and reassert my previous definitions as the correct ones:

Theism is "belief in the existence of God or Gods".

A-theism is "without belief in the existence of God or Gods".

One of the problems here is that agnosticism is an epistemological position and not necessarily a statement of belief. While traditionally it was used to describe a theistically positive position it is equally valid in a theistically negative position.

In plain English we might say:
"I believe that God does exist but I do not have proof of God's existence."
or "I do not believe that God exists but I do not have proof he does not exist".

Or refined:

Agnostic Theistic: "belief that god exists".
Agnostic Atheistic: "without belief that god exists"

Note that neither position asserts knowledge. Both positions are agnostic or "weak" even though the former is theistic and the latter is atheistic. Now let's add to this the gnostic or "strong" positions:

Gnostic Theistic: "knowledge that god exists"
Gnostic Atheistic: "knowledge that god does not exist"

The other terms remain problematic; we still must define what knowledge is, what existence is, and what god is. Otherwise all 4 statements are meaningless.

~Raithere

You are arguing the definition without acknowledging the definition.
Assume that Definition 1 is the accurate one. How would that apply to all of your other isms?

What you are claiming is one sided. You have only addressed one definition, and have not provided inference regarding the other definition. You support definition 2, yet have claims.

You are saying the following:
Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.

Face it: your definitions are flawed and you are wrong. Period.

You are arguing the definition without acknowledging the definition.
We've acknowleged you definition and decalred it wrong. Why would we "assume" it's correct and proceed to debate it or draw any inferences from it?

Because you cannot prove that you know what you are talking about unless you show how it affects the other isms. SW takes the ignorant approach. "Your definitions are wrong period."

I specfically rewrote your point of view clearly for the purpose of making sure that I have the correct interpretation of your point of view. It is important for other parties to acknowledge I have correctly interpreted their position. Refusal to do so shows you have no life.

Because you cannot prove that you know what you are talking about unless you show how it affects the other isms. SW takes the ignorant approach. "Your definitions are wrong period."

I specfically rewrote your point of view clearly for the purpose of making sure that I have the correct interpretation of your point of view. It is important for other parties to acknowledge I have correctly interpreted their position. Refusal to do so shows you have no life.
I have no life.

Yes. About time.

You are saying the following:
Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist.
This is ambiguous.

Some claim that Bigfoot exists.

Some claim it dosen't.

Others simply have no dealings with it. It means nothing to them. It is a complete non-issue in their lives. They make no positive claims either way. It is a null proposition. Can you understand this? It this not clear to you?

The superstitious fear that the reasoned will dispel their silly beliefs. When you already have strong conclusions, reason can be an unwelcome guest to the party. I'm open to evidence if it exists to back up the claim of theists.

Atheists are simply without god(s). They aren't needed. Should the evidence for them be produced, it can then be tested, but until then there is no reason to believe therefore atheists do not. Whether they've heard the arguments that superstitious believers make and disbelieve them; once believed and now decide not to; or never really gave the idea of god much thought: they are all atheists. Some atheists are agnostic, some are not.

In the end, licksluke is only shown us that he has some pathological issue with atheism.

This is ambiguous.

Some claim that Bigfoot exists.

Some claim it dosen't.

Others simply have no dealings with it. It means nothing to them. It is a complete non-issue in their lives. They make no positive claims either way. It is a null proposition. Can you understand this? It this not clear to you?
Yes such an individual has the following qualities:
1. Does not believe that God definitely exists.
2. Does not belive that God definitely does not exist.

The person simply does not acknowledge any God.

According to definition 2, this is atheism.
According to definition 1, this is not atheism.

I am not stating in this post that 1 or 2 are correct. I am just stating how each position views this situation regarding whether or not it is atheism.
Would this be an accurate depiction of both definitions?

The superstitious fear that the reasoned will dispel their silly beliefs. When you already have strong conclusions, reason can be an unwelcome guest to the party. I'm open to evidence if it exists to back up the claim of theists.

Atheists are simply without god(s). They aren't needed. Should the evidence for them be produced, it can then be tested, but until then there is no reason to believe therefore atheists do not. Whether they've heard the arguments that superstitious believers make and disbelieve them; once believed and now decide not to; or never really gave the idea of god much thought: they are all atheists. Some atheists are agnostic, some are not.
Assuming definition 2, this would be correct. Assuming definition 1, this would be incorrect.
Yes or no?

Yes such an individual has the following qualities:
1. Does not believe that God definitely exists.
2. Does not belive that God definitely does not exist.

The person simply does not acknowledge any God.

According to definition 2, this is atheism.
According to definition 1, this is not atheism.

I am not stating in this post that 1 or 2 are correct. I am just stating how each position views this situation regarding whether or not it is atheism.
Would this be an accurate depiction of both definitions?
I have no idea what you're getting at here but for the sake of argument, let's suppose I say yes. Then what?

Sorry, but I'm not going down this road of intellectual dishonesty with you. My mind isn't that limited that I need to invoke the god-did-it excuse simply because certain "why" questions aren't forthcoming. Moreover, science asks both "how" and "why" questions all the time. What science doesn't do is entertain superstitious bullshit answers just because testable ones aren't readily observable. If the concept cannot be tested, it isn't science. Paranormal bullshit like gods is tossed out. That doesn't mean that scientists are therefore atheists (I'm sure Ken Miller would disagree with that notion). In fact, your comments about atheists are largely generalizing and inaccurate. Many atheists simply aren't any more interested in how the universe works than many head-in-the-sand theists. They simply don't buy into the superstitious bullshit of religious nutters.


Show me an example of science asking "why". Example, why is the sky blue was not originally asked by science or a scientist and you know it.

The superstitious fear that the reasoned will dispel their silly beliefs. When you already have strong conclusions, reason can be an unwelcome guest to the party. I'm open to evidence if it exists to back up the claim of theists.

Atheists are simply without god(s). They aren't needed. Should the evidence for them be produced, it can then be tested, but until then there is no reason to believe therefore atheists do not. Whether they've heard the arguments that superstitious believers make and disbelieve them; once believed and now decide not to; or never really gave the idea of god much thought: they are all atheists. Some atheists are agnostic, some are not.

In the end, licksluke is only shown us that he has some pathological issue with atheism.

Once again you are wrong. People who believe in God are not always superstitious, and you have superstitious scientists who believe in a lot of stuff, like randomness, or chaos creating order, or any of these athiest versions of superstition. Some scientists truly believe that the universe has an end, and some scientists in the past believed you could fall off the edge of the earth.

Show me an example of science asking "why".

You're kidding, right? How about "why does climate change?" And millions of other questions, many of which are observations that come up during research. Indeed, the very nature of research is to ask a research question, often beginning in "why" as well as "how" or "what."


Once again you are wrong. People who believe in God are not always superstitious,

Poppycock. The very nature of belief in the supernatural, particularly "god," is superstitious. Deny it all you want, but religion amounts to superstition, the belief that there is some invisible, yet all-powerful supernatural agent that needs to be appeased or whose approval is sought. Superstition. Nothing more.

Assuming definition 2, this would be correct. Assuming definition 1, this would be incorrect.
Yes or no?

Your "definitions" ended up with a double negative and number 2 came across ambiguously. Its just easier to reject your definitions and stick to the real ones.

The Greek language is origin of the word atheism, or atheos, and its meaning, for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Greek language, is clear: "without gods."
Etymologically:
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism" means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

EvilBible.com (http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm):
...some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.
...
A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.

In practice, there are some people who self-identify as "atheists", but claim only a lack of theism, rather than a belief in atheos. So it's a bit murky.
But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.


Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.

You are arguing the definition without acknowledging the definition.
Assume that Definition 1 is the accurate one. How would that apply to all of your other isms?

What you are claiming is one sided. You have only addressed one definition, and have not provided inference regarding the other definition. You support definition 2, yet have claims.

You are saying the following:
Atheist does not believe that God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God does not exist. This argument is quickly becoming a waste of time. Terms are not concrete and the only point to arguing their definition is to define a common understanding from which to proceed. To argue endlessly as to their definition is an exercise in stupidity. The terms can mean whatever we decide they mean. So whether or not the term "atheism" means, "without belief in god" or "the belief that god does not exist" is irrelevant.

But apparently you didn't understand what I was saying so I'll try it again.

Atheism can be either because the term atheism does not preclude either epistemological position. One can take the gnostic or the agnostic stance, the strong or the weak position. But the default position by definition is belief or the absence thereof, not knowledge:

theism 1. : belief in the existence of a god or gods (Websters unabridged)
atheism 1. a : disbelief in the existence of God (Websters unabridged)

Of course, either statement is nonsense unless we establish what god is. If god is a banana sitting on my kitchen counter, then I am a theist.

So my question is, do you have a point here other than arguing the definition of the terms theism and atheism or should I stop wasting my time?

~Raithere

Hey let's all be brights and drop the term atheist.

Hey Cris, didn't we do this once before?

Etymologically:
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism" means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism. Etymological arguments are such a hack.

Here's a portion I posted in a previous discussion:

But if we're using etymology, why stop with the Greeks?

" Tiw wasn't really a war-god at all. Sometimes written Tîwaz, his name is actually identical to deus (Latin "god"), theos (Greek "god"), duw (Welsh "god") and deva (Sanskrit "god"), all of which are thought to derive from an Indo-European root meaning "shining"."
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue105.html

Yet, for the Indo-European-speaking society, we can reconstruct with certainty the word for “god,” *deiw-os, and the two-word name of the chief deity of the pantheon, *dyeu-p ter- (Latin I piter, Greek Zeus pat r, Sanskrit Dyau pitar, and Luvian Tatis Tiwaz). The forms *dyeu- and *deiw-os are both derivatives of a root dyeu-, meaning “to shine,” which appears in the word for “day” in numerous languages (Latin di s; but English DAY is from a different root). The notion of deity was therefore linked to the notion of the bright sky.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html

So we can then take the word atheism to mean "not shiny".

~Raithere

Hey let's all be brights and drop the term atheist. But atheists are "not shiny" so how can we be brights? ;)

~Raithere

Yup - we are going round in circles again.

lol - dunno - let's ask lixlux.

Etymological arguments certainly are a hack, especially when they are incorrect.

The point is that atheist never meant "not theist", until people began using incorrect etymological arguments to push a barrow and declare that "babies are atheists".

But like I said, labels really just don't matter.

"Bright" is interesting... A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements (www.the-brights.net).

Does that mean that a bright believes that the world contains no supernatural or mystical elements, or does it only mean that a bright does not maintain an active positive belief in such things?

How does "worldview" differ from "beliefs"?

Yes, I'm replying to myself. I must be starved for intelligent discussion. ;)
Does that mean that a bright believes that the world contains no supernatural or mystical elements, or does it only mean that a bright does not maintain an active positive belief in such things?It looks like the second applies, and that "worldview" is supposed to mean "beliefs in practice", or something similar.
bright clarified (http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1):
The Brights' umbrella is large, very large. For example, Brights can be agnostics, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists, and so on. There are any of a number of self-identity labels they might apply to themselves. No label at all need apply...just plain "nonreligious" or "uninterested in religion" without any real consideration beyond that might be how a person is seeing himself/herself.

The network’s umbrella covers a startling spectrum of beliefs. Besides those who self-identify as atheists, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, rationalists, naturalists, skeptics, etc., the network includes Ethical Culturalists, Pantheists, Scientific Methodists, Buddhists, Yogis, Unitarians, and a gamut of folks (Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians) who maintain their religion’s cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism.

Etymological arguments certainly are a hack, especially when they are incorrect.

The point is that atheist never meant "not theist", until people began using incorrect etymological arguments to push a barrow and declare that "babies are atheists". My point is that the definition of a word changes with it's use.

Therefore, such a statement as "babies are atheists" is indeed correct as the term in common parlance is disbelief whatever the etymology is:

Main Entry: athe•ism
Pronunciation: th iz m
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist (from Greek atheos godless, not believing in the existence of gods, from a- 2a- + theos god) + -isme -ism -- more at THE-
1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

Or we could all just call ourselves theists, because I don't think many people disbelieve in the shining Sun. After all, that's what a theist really is.

~Raithere

Etymologically:
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism" means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a belief in something - a godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.

With regard to your etymology of the suffix "-ism," I'd like to see a reference to that. In English language, going back as far as the 16th century, "-ism" has been added to action words to create nouns or nouns to express the conduct or actions of a person or class of persons, as with heroism. Would you suggest that one who engages in heroism believes in being a hero? Perhaps, but none of the best ones do.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible,

There is no re-definition. There is only the most parsimonious and basic one: without god. That definition includes militant atheists, casual atheists, reformed theists, my 5 year-old daughter, and those that could really give two shits about superstitions like other people's gods.

But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.

Call it what you will, but theism is not a default state of being. It is an assertion; a claim made by the superstitious. And until you've been indoctrinated in a superstition, whether it be throwing salt over your shoulder or believing in a god, you are without belief in it. Babies are atheists. They are without gods.

Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.

Indeed.

Atheism is not a lack of belief...

There might be three granularities of atheist.

1) I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) exists' AND
I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) does not exist'.

2) I accept the assertion that 'God(s) (X) does not exist' AND
I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) (!X) exists' AND
I don't accept the assertion that 'God(s) (!X) does not exist'.

3) I accept the assertion that 'God(s) does not exist'.

Where 1) is WEAK ATHEISM, 2) is FIRM ATHEISM *heh*, and 3) is STRONG ATHEISM. The most important part to understand is that no matter how you slice and dice it, to an ATHEIST the assertion 'God