Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
DaVinci stated that its a wretched pupil that does not surpass his master, fortunately for me, thats not the case. Master it is true that one needs a calm environment upon which to reflect and when such an environment is disturbed we can get a jagged and distorted reflection but the illustration was intended not to convey a state of tranquillity bu ...[text shortened]... hessboard has been disturbed as force is set in motion.

Man I love a good chess illustration.

Hush, child. You're not helping.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It is fairly demonstrable that Pascal's Wager is bollocks.

I mean, to some, it looks okay on the outside, but looking at it with the light of reason, even a theist can reject it as absolute bollocks.

But apparently not GB. He clings to it like a comfort blanket.

Originally posted by googlefudge
But apparently not GB. He clings to it like a comfort blanket.

I've told him before that there is no 'there' there, regarding Pascal's Wager.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hush, child. You're not helping.

sorry this aint the embroidery class sista, try down the hall.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I don't think you're a 'shrinking violet'. Anyone who claims this is an idiot.

Well that's at least one thing we can agree on.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that's at least one thing we can agree on.

I still think you're a super Wendy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry this aint the embroidery class sista, try down the hall.

So the guys get idiotic and inapplicable insults.

But women get misogynistic idiotic and inapplicable insults...

And yet you try to maintain that you are not a misogynist... Good luck with that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I still think you're a super Wendy.

But that is because you are a complete and total moron who lives in a fantasy world
oblivious to all evidence about the nature of reality and of those living in it.

Originally posted by moonbus
I would be quite happy to discuss Pascal's wager, but it deserves a thread unto itself.

Really!
As soon as one accepts there is more than one religion the argument is shot.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So the guys get idiotic and inapplicable insults.

But women get misogynistic idiotic and inapplicable insults...

And yet you try to maintain that you are not a misogynist... Good luck with that.

yes Wendy because the text completely ignored my brilliant illustration and was treated with all the contempt it deserved

Originally posted by googlefudge
But that is because you are a complete and total moron who lives in a fantasy world
oblivious to all evidence about the nature of reality and of those living in it.

Hey googlywoogly have you managed to spring Duchess64 out of jail yet?😵

Originally posted by googlefudge...

Babies are people, who don't have a belief in god or gods and are thus not theists.
The correct term for that is ATHEIST. ...

Willful ignorance is not cool. All we need to do is realize that standard dictionaries do not provide technical definitions, and then go research. Do that, and it becomes clear that babies are not atheist.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://www.redhotpawn.com/board/post.php?threadid=168681&frompage=22&replytoid=3584009

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Philosophy Pages
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe

atheism

Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true.

About Religion
http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Weak-Atheism.htm

Weak atheists do not find the evidence for the existence of gods persuasive.

I admit you are not the only person who has become hopelessly confused by the standard dictionary definition. That definition is not wrong, it is just incomplete. Anyway, has anyone ever told you that you are a very unpleasant human being?

Originally posted by apathist
Willful ignorance is not cool. All we need to do is realize that standard dictionaries do not provide technical definitions, and then go research. Do that, and it becomes clear that babies are not atheist.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://www.redhotpawn.com/board/post.php?threadid=168681&frompage=22&replytoid=3584009
[quote]‘Atheism’ means t ...[text shortened]... is just incomplete. Anyway, has anyone ever told you that you are a very unpleasant human being?

And the same to you. Your willfull ignorance on this topic extends to not reading my posts, or your own links.

I don't get my definition from the dictionary, I in fact explained in detail why doing so was stupid.
You on the other-hand seem determined to do nothing but use the dictionary, just picking a different
dictionary.

I get my definition from the major atheist organisations which ALL define atheism as a lack of
belief in gods and not a belief in the lack of gods.
They define it as not being a theist which matches the root meaning and derivation of the word.

What's more I have provided multiple links to the aforementioned atheist organisations the only people
who's opinions matter on this topic.

I give not a damn how many philosophers you quote. They are wrong if they claim atheism is something
different than what it is to atheists.

Atheists are people who are not theists. And thus are people who simply lack a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.

Period.

Nothing you can say, or post, will ever change that fact.

And I will never ever stop correcting people who get this wrong.
There are many places in the world where atheists are persecuted for being atheists, for simply lacking beliefs,
and one of the many tactics used by theists to try to discredit atheism and atheists is by lying about what those
words mean. Tactics I will oppose anywhere I find them.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Of course you omitted the next bit...

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that
the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine
are of little or no philosophical interest.

Well that's nice, but given that we atheists make clear that atheism is about the non-belief in any and all gods
currently or previously worshipped and includes present day polytheism as well as ancient beliefs and pantheons
the author has just ruled themselves out as somebody who has the slightest clue what they are talking about.
By talking about a capitalised monotheistic "God" as being the only interesting thing to talk about 'philosophically
speaking' demonstrates clearly this persons bias and ignorance of the fact that atheism isn't some abstract philosophical
position argued over by philosophers.

I note further that "'Atheism’ means the negation of theism," means ~theist or not-theist which means someone who
lacks a belief in god... Sound familiar.

Oh, and one of your sources meant to prove me wrong agrees with me...

http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Weak-Atheism.htm

Weak atheism is defined as simply the absence of belief in gods or the absence of theism. This is also the broad, general definition of atheism. The definition of weak atheism is used as a contrast to the definition of strong atheism, which is the positive assertion that no gods exist. All atheists are necessarily weak atheists because by definition all atheists do not believe in any gods; only some go on to assert that some or no gods exist.

Some people deny that weak atheism exists, confusing the definition with that of agnosticism. This is a mistake because atheism is about (a lack of) belief whereas agnosticism is about (a lack of) knowledge. Belief and knowledge are related by separate issues. Thus weak atheism is compatible with agnosticism, not an alternative to it. Weak atheism overlaps with negative atheism and implicit atheism.

Also Known As: negative atheism, implicit atheism, soft atheism

So not only are you wrong and a moron, but you don't even read the sources you are desperately scrabbling around for
to try to prove me wrong.

How many times do you have to loose before you give up?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Very unlikely. Grampy is not known for being able to engage in conversation. He prefers to quote bumber stickers that have long ago been debunked.
Now if you would like to start a thread on the topic and present some historical evidence, I would be willing to have a look at it. Don't expect your 'historical evidence' to stand up to scrutiny.

Don't expect your 'historical evidence' to stand up to scrutiny.

So you've clearly made up your mind then, would be wasting my time.