Even EvilBible correctly defines Atheism

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lixluke, Oct 14, 2006.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    The above was not written by CS, but CS fully supports it.

    1. The terms "absence of belief" and "lack of belief" are pointless. Nobody uses them for anything. Real Atheists do not give these terms any credibility. Mickeymouse Atheists came up with these phrases to make themselves feel better.

    2. The "A" in atheism can easily be defined as without. Mickeymouse atheists take it to mean without the belief in God. This is a reasonably plausible definition, but not the original intent of the word. The real connotation for "Atheism" is actually meant to mean that the universe is without any God. Meaning that God does not exist. While a theist maintains that God does exist, the "A" in front of the word means that God does not exist. Mickeymouse atheists have changed the connotation to garble up the real definition of "atheism".

    3. A disbelief on God is the opposite of the belief in God. It is the belief that there is no God.
    A disbelief is not: "lack of belief" or "absense of belief".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Lixlux,

    Disbelief is not the same thing as believing something is false if one adopts a rational perspective.

    Here we can describe rational belief and irrational belief. I.e. one perspective has factual support and the other does not.

    If a proposal does not have factual support, i.e. is technically irrational, then there is no reason for a rational person to adopt a belief that the proposition has merit or truth. This is not the same thing as believing the proposal is false.

    To adopt a rational belief that a proposition is false one must also provide factual support for that position.

    If one simply does not see a reason to believe something due to an absence of facts then it DOES NOT follow that they believe it is false unless they have factual support for that position.

    If I claim I am wearing a black shirt what would you believe? Since you have no factual support for a yes or no position your only rational choice is to admit you don’t know. There is no reason to take either side.

    The issue of current atheistic thinking is largely identical to the black shirt anecdote. Religionists over the past millennia or so have maligned those who do not accept popular beliefs in deities and have defined for themselves that atheism means a belief in non-existence. In these more enlightened times those who find theistic claims not credible have adopted the rational perspective and definition of atheism of the largely neutral position.

    That you continue to very irritatingly insist that the archaic definitions are correct simply shows you do not appreciate the changes that have happened in the atheistic community during this past century. Meanings of words are continually changing as society changes. To continue to insist that an outdated definition is correct is simply naive.

    Bring yourself up to date and move on. The atheistic community has defined atheism to mean an absence of belief while some atheists may also choose to insist that god(s) do not exist.

    That is simply the state of play at this time – deal with it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Hey that's what I keep saying.
     
  8. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    That video got shut off right when that moron brought said "Does that mean you have to belive 100% that there is no God? No."

    While that I was reaching for my mouse, that moron brought up the Mickeymouse term: Strong Atheist.
    You video is wack.

    ATHEISM IS 100% BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD.




    Yes it is.
    Disbelief = Denial of God = Atheism.

    1. Disbelief means I do not believe in God, but I also do not have to be 100% certain there is no God. WRONG.

    2. Disbelief means that I believe 100% that there is no God. RIGHT.

    3. Youd definitions for disbelief and atheism are not what atheism really means. They are a definition internet meme definitions.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It means whatever we say it means.
     
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I agree.

    1. Disbelief means I do not believe in God, but I also do not have to be 100% certain there is no God.

    2. Disbelief means that I believe 100% that there is no God.



    There is no problem with the logic behind definition #1.
    There is no problem with the logic behind definition #2.
    #1 just doesn't have validity in common real world use. It is an internet meme definition created by kindergarten mickeymouseatheists
    In the real world, when real atheists use the terms atheism, disbelief, denial etc., they are refering to definition #1.
     
  11. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Yes, and still look at what lixmynuts has to say!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I assume once an idiot, always an idiot!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. QUEST EONS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    36
    Actually the question is not in disbelief its in character. Think about what point you are arguing and then decide if it is relevant to your ultimate motive on this website.

    For instance mine is to shine light on subjects that actually matter, and not to argue tiny tidbits of heresy that ultimately serve nothing in the overal progression or well being of man/woman kind.

    Best of luck with your endeavors.
     
  13. baumgarten fuck the man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,611
    You are correct, sir. Words are defined by consensus.

    A word is like a bottle, its meaning the drink contained inside. You use a word to convey its meaning, just like you use the bottle to hold a drink before you serve it. Arguing over the definition of a word is like saying that one particular drink should or shouldn't be contained in one particular bottle.

    Who cares what bottle holds what drink? Forget the bottle. It has no intrinsic value. The drink is what will quench your thirst and give you the pleasure of its taste.
     
  14. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Right you are!
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Lixluke - you can either choose to use words correctly - or choose to use whatever interpretation of those words you want.

    Just don't be surprised if other people choose to use words correctly and therefore clash with your interpretation.

    You are also one of many many people who continue to incorrectly classify Agnosticism on the same line, usually as a "middle point" between Theism and Atheism.
    THIS IS NOT CORRECT.
    There are two lines - the Theism / Atheism line (belief in God or no belief in God) and the Agnostic line (your stance on the available knowledge with God).

    If you fail to see the difference between these two lines then please refrain from discussing this topic further, as you will merely continue to go round and round in the circles you are treading, wearing down the patience of those that bother reading your posts, posts that will soon become covered in drivel as you spout the same rubbish without providing anything new or useful.
     
  16. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Either cite evidence that I said any of those things or get lost for lack of ability to use any sense.
     
  17. Fire Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    238
    I don't see the problem here.

    If Coolskill/Lixluke wants to think that most atheists are agnostic, then fair enough.

    That also means that most theists are agnostic, of course.
     

Share This Page