Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by googlefudge
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 f ...[text shortened]... round for
to try to prove me wrong.

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

Has the definition for atheism (that you are using) always been the definition or is this the newly adapted one that protects itself from scrutiny?

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

Can you tell me what this means, or at least provide a definition of your apparent epithet, you know, for those of us who don't speak Moron?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can you tell me what this means, or at least provide a definition of your apparent epithet, you know, for those of us who don't speak Moron?

I already have, would you like me to translate it into whale so that you can understand it?

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

If the standard of evidence you have requires prior acceptance of its validity, then yes, I would be wasting your time. But you need to consider the possibility that the 'problem of perception' is probably yours given that you don't think your evidence would stand up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Has the definition for atheism (that you are using) always been the definition or is this the newly adapted one that protects itself from scrutiny?

It is far from new, and you can scrutinise it all you like.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Has the definition for atheism (that you are using) always been the definition or is this the newly adapted one that protects itself from scrutiny?

An atheist has always been someone who lacks a belief in God. It is hardly our problem that you have only just discovered this.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I already have, would you like me to translate it into whale so that you can understand it?

English will do, twinkie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My illustrious friend (and how I hesitate to use the term due to all the injustices and injuries you have done me!) a Wendy is a well known Glaswegian colloquial term for an impuissant pansy, a wuss, a wooster, a weak and spindly sapling, a wallflower, a shrinking violet, etc etc See how I enrich you with these cultural gems!

I fervently hope that a person named Wendy kicks your ass someday.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If the standard of evidence you have requires prior acceptance of its validity, then yes, I would be wasting your time. But you need to consider the possibility that the 'problem of perception' is probably yours given that you don't think your evidence would stand up to scrutiny.

If you are genuinely interested in historical evidence I suggest you look up Josh McDowell, and read a few of his books.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you are genuinely interested in historical evidence I suggest you look up Josh McDowell, and read a few of his books.

You believe there is credible "historical evidence" of Jesus' supposed divinity?

Originally posted by Suzianne
English will do, twinkie.

tee hee twinkie, that funny 😀

Originally posted by Suzianne
I fervently hope that a person named Wendy kicks your ass someday.

The only Wendy's I know are Ghost of a Wendy and Wendyfudge and believe me I would be surprised if they could crush an overripe grape.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you are genuinely interested in historical evidence I suggest you look up Josh McDowell, and read a few of his books.

I am not genuinely interested in historical evidence as I don't believe any good evidence exists. I suspect that neither do you given your reluctance to present any. I was genuinely interested in seeing you try and present some so that we can explain to you why the evidence is not sound. It would appear you would rather not know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The only Wendy's I know are Ghost of a Wendy and Wendyfudge and believe me I would be surprised if they could crush an overripe grape.

You do a disservice to grapes by comparing yourself to them. Grapes have the good sense not to start ridiculous threads on RHP and subsequently get crushed. Although I admit that some of your threads do smell a bit ripe.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Has the definition for atheism (that you are using) always been the definition or is this the newly adapted one that protects itself from scrutiny?

People have used the term to mean different things in the past [which applies to a huge number of words we use]
not least because for long periods of history their were very few [certainly publicly] atheists [by current usage]
and thus the term was used almost exclusively by theists who want to discredit atheism and atheists.

Now however there are a great many atheists and we are [in many pats of the world] able to freely go public about
our existence and thus we can reclaim the term [label] and make sure it accurately reflects reality.

The thing that theists always get wrong is that there is a group of people who's commonality is a lack of belief in gods.
This is indisputably true.

And this group of people self label with the most appropriate term available, atheist, ie not-theist, because that is the
term that makes the most sense.

This means that there are [many] millions of people who identify as atheists, who simply lack belief in gods.

As the meaning of words is dictated not by stuffy academics at dictionaries but instead by usage, this means that
anyone claiming that an atheist is something other than a person who lacks a belief in the existence of gods is just
flat out wrong. Because there are millions of people who identify with that label with that meaning. As do the atheist
organisations that some of those people join.

Now none of this means that atheism is true, just that it is correctly defined.


I remain baffled at how many people are so pathetically terrified of properly defining atheism, as if a correct definition
proves that it is true.