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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you're saying that someone that has never heard of gods (my daughter), and therefore has no opinion of gods, is a theist?
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Absolutely wrong given the language base this form stems from. 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. And you of course are a model of adaptability and reason.
