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.
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.
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.
Then it doesn't matter which god you accept, as long as you accept at least one? 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.
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
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."
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.
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."
An unacceptable definition, no matter what the source. Fine. Then debate has already taken place and been settled. This position is, in our opinions, wrong and invalid. 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.
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
