My Shortest Possible Replies

Originally posted by JS357
"Even if we accepted Atheism as somehow the default and normal condition of all human beings from birth it still doesn't insist that it is the truth."


Anybody who spells "atheism" with a capital "A" isn't talking about atheism, they are talking about an imagined ideology. It's a set up.

Yeah. Atheism is only capitalised when it's the first word in a sentence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
atheism is ultimately limiting as it seeks to reduce everything to a purely material perspective. In failing to make room for the supernatural, nothing in scripture makes sense to them, how can it? yet for those who are prepared to make room for it, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to describe God in Biblical terms. It is the equivalent of l ...[text shortened]... sis to dismiss the inherent existence of intelligence in the universe, in fact, its inexcusable.

Actually atheism does nothing of the sort.

Atheism is simply (for whatever reason) the lack of belief in gods.

There are plenty of (deluded) atheists who still believe in the supernatural.
Just not gods.

You are arguing (badly) against materialism, and philosophical naturalism, and
science.

Any or all of which could lead TO atheism... But none of which are required for
or derived FROM atheism.


If you want me, or anyone else, to believe that the supernatural exists then prove it.
JREF will give you a million USD prize, plus you win the Nobel prize, instant fame...ect ect.

Till then I will stick to believing only in that which HAS been demonstrated to exist.

Originally posted by sonship

No atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

It is absent because of the presence of an assertion that no God/s exist.

If you don't have a belief in the existence of a god or gods then you are an atheist.

That would make a new born baby an atheist. And as much as you'd like to cloak your philosophy as a defaul ...[text shortened]... re neither theists or atheists.

Ooops. This was suppose to be my short answer thread.

LMAO - who bet on page 3? *money changes hands*

Originally posted by JS357
You can define atheism any way you want.

And you can choose to ignore the mainstream and philosophical definitions that already exist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
...
Rocks are not atheists or theists because it's a question that only makes sense when
talking about sentient beings that can actually have beliefs.

The absence of belief may be necessary, but it is NOT sufficient. Your own final sentence confirms that fact.

Crack some dictionaries open, especially some that address philosophical subjects, eg Stanford, or Routledge.

The definition you give applies to rocks. Your definition is wrong. Babies are not atheists according to accepted mainstream and technical definitions.

Originally posted by apathist
Babies are not atheists according to accepted mainstream and technical definitions.

This is a very important thing to argue about. 😛

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you want to include something other than science as a method of determining
the nature of reality then you need to demonstrate it's effectiveness.

How do you propose demonstrating that the bible is a valid and reliable source of
information on the identity of this hypothesised universe creator or creators?

The Bible isn't just one book it is a compulation of several spanning
thousands of years, but because those books have a theme about a single
God it seems like it is just one book. That alone sets the Bible apart from
any other text I'm aware of.
Kelly

Originally posted by apathist
The absence of belief may be necessary, but it is NOT sufficient. Your own final sentence confirms that fact.

Crack some dictionaries open, especially some that address philosophical subjects, eg Stanford, or Routledge.

The definition [b]you give applies to rocks. Your definition is wrong. Babies are not atheists according to accepted mainstream and technical definitions.[/b]

Ok let me be clear once and for all.

I give not one flying [sex act] what it says in ANY dictionary.

Every single major national and international atheist organisation (I know of)
defines atheism as the simple lack of belief in gods (they don't say 'in humans'
because they assume the people reading are not complete [sex act] idiots.)


That is the correct meaning as it is the one used by atheists and atheist organisations
and is also the most etymologically sound.

Atheism is the negation of theism, it's mirror opposite.

As theism is the belief in gods then that means that atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

PERIOD.



It's not hard to comprehend.

what's a little tough to comprehend is this arrogance -

I give not one flying [sex act] what it says in ANY dictionary.

This seems like total disregard for anyone's authority but your own.
You believe in no god except yourself ? Then you are not really an atheist.

Originally posted by sonship
what's a little tough to comprehend is this arrogance -

I give not one flying [sex act] what it says in ANY dictionary.

This seems like total disregard for anyone's authority but your own.
You believe in no god except yourself ? Then you are not really an atheist.

No.

Its the recognition that dictionary's are not the authority on what words mean.

Dictionary's are attempts to collate the meanings of words as used, and they
are changed and updated and corrected.

The meaning of the word atheism is not dictated by dictionary editors.

Particularly as over the years the majority of them have been biased theists
who were prejudiced against atheism and brought into the lie that atheism
requires belief that gods don't exist as opposed to simply not believing that
they do exist.


And please note that I clearly stated in my post that the definition I use is the
one used by every major atheist organisation and prominent/famous atheist.

This IS the common use meaning and label as used by those that wear it.

Claiming that atheists must believe that gods don't exist to be atheists is
simply wrong as a large proportion of atheists, including activist atheists, simply
lack a belief in gods and don't believe that gods don't exist.

Just as I don't get to define what it means to be a Christian however I want so as
to include or exclude people who otherwise label themselves as Christians.
YOU don't get to define atheism however you like so as to include or exclude people
who otherwise label themselves as atheists.

Any dictionary that claims that being an atheist requires a belief that gods don't exist
is simply wrong.



EDIT: Also try to remember that I don't believe in knowledge by authority.

That's your Shtick.

Its the recognition that dictionary's are not the authority on what words mean.

Dictionary's are attempts to collate the meanings of words as used, and they are changed and updated and corrected.

So they do tell you what words mean. It is just that they occasionally have to update those meanings.

The meaning of the word atheism is not dictated by dictionary editors. /quote]

The editors usually have no dog in the fight. They are usually objective and just helping people with word meanings.

Are you getting conspiracy paranoia about dictionary writers now too ?

Hold on for awhile. Maybe the Webster's Dictionary definition of atheism may change in a few decades to " a lack of belief in God/s by anything ".

Then you could argue that you updated definition includes rocks, trees, unborn babies, nonexistent people, jelly beans, asparagus, fetuses for they all lack belief in God/s.

[quote]
Particularly as over the years the majority of them have been biased theists
who were prejudiced against atheism and brought into the lie that atheism
requires belief that gods don't exist as opposed to simply not believing that
they do exist.

Paranoia and conspiracy theory.

By the way, I believe that if I step out of the window of a five story building, I will fall to the ground below. Am I "baised" ?

Bias is often in the eyes of the beholder. "Everybody who doesn't see all things my way is biased."

And please note that I clearly stated in my post that the definition I use is the one used by every major atheist organisation and prominent/famous atheist.

some new atheists have updated the definition upon realization that they do not always succeed in placing the burden of proof on the theist.

So they have jury rigged a new definition to attempt again to place all burden of proof on theists and leave no burden whatsoever on the atheist.

In other words "Atheism is the default reality" I breath therefore I am an atheist.

Try to make the theist shoulder all possible burden of any other reality.

Originally posted by sonship

Its the recognition that dictionary's are not the authority on what words mean.

Dictionary's are attempts to collate the meanings of words as used, and they are changed and updated and corrected.

So they do tell you what words mean. It is just that they occasionally have to update those meanings.

[quote]
The meaning of the wo ...[text shortened]... t.

Try to make the theist shoulder all possible burden of any other reality.

You are claiming a god exists.

You have the burden of proof to demonstrate that that claim is valid.

You have that burden regardless of the definition of atheist.

You are claiming a god exists.

Sure, some burden is on me for saying " I think we are on the right track to believe God exists."

And I have many times supplied my reasons for believing we are on the right track to believe. I never claimed I could PROVE it.

You cannot say I supplied no evidence for my belief.

You have the burden of proof to demonstrate that that claim is valid.

I acknowledge some burden rests on me for my claim.
Some burden rests on the atheist too.

Atheists of the past like Bertand Russell of Anthony Flew shouldered their portion of the burden willingly.

It seems lately the new atheists want to maneuver themselves from ALL responsibility. This could be a sign that they realize past arguments had too many weaknesses.

One solution is to create a gray area so a person is both agnostic and atheist simultaneously. That is a concoction.

Choose which you want to do:

1.) admit that you don't know if God exists.

2.) state that God doesn't exist.

Don't try to have at one time the comfort of being undecided and the assertion of decision that your mind IS made up in the negative.

You have that burden regardless of the definition of atheist.

I don't argue that I shoulder some burden.

It is you that is trying to place yourself beyond all responsibility for your claim of God's non-existence.

Originally posted by sonship

You are claiming a god exists.

Sure, some burden is on me for saying " I think we are on the right track to believe God exists."

And I have many times supplied my reasons for believing we are on the right track to believe. I never claimed I could PROVE it.

You cannot say I supplied no evidence for my belief.

[quote]
You ha ...[text shortened]... to place yourself beyond [b]all responsibility for your claim of God's non-existence.[/b]

It is not a balance scale of burden. The atheist has no burden unless he takes the strong step of asserting not-G (as opposed to 'it is unlikely that G'😉. The price he pays is that his claim is weaker.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok let me be clear once and for all.

I give not one flying [sex act] what it says in ANY dictionary.

Every single major national and international atheist organisation (I know of)
defines atheism as the simple lack of belief in gods (they don't say 'in humans'
because they assume the people reading are not complete [sex act] idiots.)

...[text shortened]... that atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

PERIOD.



It's not hard to comprehend.

Quite an amusing and revealing rant! You come across as arrogant, unreasonable and ignorant. Nearly every one of your assertions are false.

Some people are too stupid to realize when they lost the silly argument.