Why Atheism???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I don't have to argue for the absurdity of the virgin birth TH.
You don’t have to argue any point.
Like I said the ever expanding burden of proof is on you. Have fun with that
There’s nothing logically inconsistent about it within the Christian context. I’ve set out that much and that was the point. That you’re attempting to turn it into something else is your concern. Your declaration regarding my duty is both errant and uncontrolling.
I already said that the difference between your vain imagings and mine is that I use creativity and you subject yourself to prefabricated delusions.
Then you mistake or misstate the case a second time. I said the central difference is, to be a bit more blunt, you’d be dissembling where I’m relating what I honestly believe and experience as the truth. That’s a fairly substantial difference before we approach the details.
I may not be asserting or establishing a truth but I am at the very least demonstrating how your assertions of truth are not worth taking seriously.
No, you’re only demonstrating that men are capable of making any sort of claim. It doesn’t follow that every sort of claim is disreputable or that none should be taken seriously, even when there is no methodology to provide an objective proof. A liar tells one woman that he loves her while Romeo declares the same in truth to the object of his affection. That one declaration is false says nothing of the other.
No one has to disprove my assertion that virgin birth is ludicrious.
Rather, I’ve set out why it is not, why it is entirely consistent within the context of God’s existence, which itself is an article of faith that can neither be established nor refuted objectively. I’ve met the only burden my position requires. You can do no better, posturing to the contrary notwithstanding.
I can make up whatever I want to justify whatever silly claims I wish.
You absolutely can. And you can say you love and lie. Same objection and rebuttal as previously offered. And I omitted your example, as it was essentially the same one I refuted with illustration in our last exchange. So if there’s nothing new…
For someone as bright as yourself you certainly need things repeated quite often.
That’s like being criticized by Liberace for being flamboyant. And a nice side step of actually engaging. :thumb: But I know that probably means you've worked up another set of declarations...
God assuming a physical form makes perfect sense if you presuppose the irrational.
That would be a declaration. To answer in kind: there’s nothing irrational about it and you cannot, have not and will never illustrate the contrary.
I could imagine any number of gods who would be able to behave in any number of ways that contradict reality to satisfy my sentiments.
Same argument I previously answered. I omit yet another variation on that theme, previously rejected in principle.
I am the judge and my sensibility is the standard. The same is for you, whether you have the guts to admit it or not. I'm not convinced that you do.
My point was that telling me you find a thing this or that way, in terms of value, is to be expected given you decide that value for yourself. And so, I said that ludicrous was a subjective value. Your calling a thing ludicrous then establishes nothing other than your reaction. You might as well be declaring chocolate ice cream the finest of all ice creams. There’s no courage in recognizing that.
It's tragic that some would confuse your eloquence for intelligence.
It’s tragic that you confuse this sort of witless insult with repartee.
There's not much work I have to do to sustain my point:
I’d agree that if slight effort sustained a point yours would be nearly irrefutable…
virgin birth is biologically impossible.
Hence, miraculous. I omit the rest of your illustration since the point is here and what followed was little more than insult and I've answered you more fully on this point before.
No argument will ever be good enough for someone who believes in virgin birth and the efficacy of healing blindness with dirt and spit.
Then you should be relieved, since no argument is precisely what you’ve set out.
Talking to you is like arguing with a drunkard.
I’d agree in this much, you appear to be having a great deal of difficulty in understanding me. So there's some truth to what you say, if not as you intended it.

I didn't come to you with any particular claim. You chose the example and I provided a context. It is rational, sustainable and as supportable as your own.
No, no and no. There's nothing rational about virgin birth especially when the support of that argument is something that is infinitely more absurd than the proposition in question.
Yes, yes and yes, to match your effort…and the rest of your, let’s call it an answer for want of a more descriptive phrase, is opinion previously countered.
You already said you have no evidence for the virgin birth.
Ah, I see the problem. I thought you understood I was speaking in terms of physical proof…objectively irrefutable. The Bible itself is testimony, evidence and report, as is the experience of the Christian in his walk with God.

Evidence that would satisfy you?
There exists no such thing. How else could we be having this argument?
And there you have it. When a man cannot name the standard that would satisfy his objective nature that nature cannot be said to exist within an understanding of the question. Thank you.
No one can prove the perfect nature of good because there's no such thing. How else could it even be a question?
You can choose to cynically question love without diminishing the reality or value of it.
I think this entire post of yours is an example of you trying to be too smart.
Ah, the old “you think you’re so smart” gambit. My high school response then…No, I know I’m smart, I think I’m right and the nature of your response assures me.

Were God to manifest before you none of those would be established. Only God overwhelming your will with His own or your relational experience of Him can satisfy on point.
None of those things are going to happen and I know why. Do you?
Yes. I just finished telling you..
You claim the extraordinary without providing a single shred of evidence for anything.
Not true at all. The argument between us isn’t over the proof of or for God. We both should understand (and I’ve been clear on this) that neither the Theist nor the Anti-Theist can make his case objectively. It’s the nature of the question. But you’ve made rather bold declarations regarding reason and those I have answered. I didn’t do so with the idea that you would have any interest in seriously entertaining them. I did so, instead, because I felt it was important that the attempt be made to reach you and those your words might influence absent serious contention.
I don't have to lift a finger to demonstrate the fallacy of any of your stupid little beliefs :chuckles:
I'm certainly not going to dispute the effort. The result is another matter.
all I have to do is call you an intellectual retard and move on.
True, if you mean to be seen as someone who lacks ability and maturity. But to each his own.

Re: complexity as an argument against God.
Why isn't it unreasonable? I set out the counter and you meet me with declaration...
You really think your word games are going to work on me.
If by word games you mean applied reason and by work you mean put in clear relief your inability to meet the inquiry, yes. I think it does nicely.
Great argument: assert that my argument is sad, especially since I can't see it.
The thing I noted as sad, the sort of example you use in repeating the same ineffectual argument on more than one occasion, was
“2000 years ago Deborah ripped her head open and twelve children popped out. It's okay, my god Dfjxncxlk made it all possible because he has the power to do so.” Sad would describe it to a tee. I set out why the first time you attempted it.
If you are a lawyer
I am.
I hope you're out of work and your reputation is tarnished.
Then your maturity is the equal of your reason and the only reputation you injure is your own.

No, but I respond to them as though they warranted reflection and reasoned response whenever possible. But we're talking about the state and disposition of your soul. You don't believe it and so can take the matter lightly. I do and so, for your sake, cannot.
Self-righteous indignation and preposterous claims made on a basis of zero evidence.
You’re young and I think lose yourself to the heat of battle in the moment, then find your better nature later. I’m not young, have established my credentials in every way that is meaningful to me and don’t look to others for validation. Self righteous? My concern for you is genuine. I have not said or asserted that I am morally superior to any man, though I would say I am more fortunate than many, through no merit of my own. And as to my claims and evidence, continue to declare and I’ll continue to set and sort out. :e4e:
 

bornslacker

New member
okay, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding of the term "atheist". Atheism isn't a "position" as you say. It's a response to a claim.

Let's say that people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster were called "pastafarians". Suppose there were several sects of pastafarians. Those who believe he had meatballs, those who believe he doesn't have meatballs, those who believe his noodles are soft and others who think they are al dente. Then there are others who believe in a complete different noodle god called holy macaroni. Holy Macaroni is totally different than the flying spahgetti, completely different God but their believers are also called Pastafarians because their god too has the attribute of noodles. Those who believe in Holy Macaroni do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster and those who believe in the flying spaghetti monster don't believe in Holy Macaroni.

So... here we go...

Person "A" believes in FSM and they're asked. "Do you believe in HM?"

His response: "No"

Then Person "B" who believes in HM is asked, "Do you believe in FSM?"

His response: "No"

Then Person "C" who's beliefs are unknown is asked, "Do you believe in FSM or HM?"

His response: "No"

Yes, you are correct, both the believers in HM and FSM are indeed pastafarians, yet they still have something in common with the person's beliefs that are unknown but rejects both HM and FSM.

Atheists are not making a claim, atheism is not a position. It's merely a response to a claim. In fact calling myself an atheist isn't totally accurate, I also reject fairies and goblins too. What's the word for someone who doesn't believe in those beings? This is the problem with most theists, they automatically assume that if we say we don't believe in your god that we're also simultaneously making the argument that there is no god. I can't know that there is no god, therefore I can't make that claim. I can however look at the evidence you've provided for your god and say, "sorry, I don't believe it". Which is EXACTLY what you do regarding every other god claim except yours.

The christian god and the muslim god and FSM are all god claims. You reject two of them, we reject all three. It's really THAT simple.
 

Tyrathca

New member
I'm not rejecting God at any point, only claims that run contrary to my understanding of Him.
Fine we can play semantics. You rejects most claims about god, atheists reject all claims about god.
It's the difference between two people arguing over what music constitutes the highest expression of art and the third fellow who doesn't believe music is art at all. You'd have me believe that to reject jazz as the highest expression is to reject the notion of art itself in that moment....sheer nonsense.
Of coarse that would be nonsense if anyone here were actually claiming that. TO use your metaphor, your rejection of jazz should give you some insight into why we reject all music. In no means are we saying that the two are identical, though there are perhaps some similarities.

Why do you reject the other claims about god? What would you think if you knew of no claims about god with which you could agree with?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Fine we can play semantics.
:chuckle: That's YOUR entire argument. I set out the distinction between the terms used and why one isn't an Atheist for saying no to Zeus so long as he says yes to the foundational truth of God. There's just no way around it. Dawkins or the fellow he lifted the phrase from simply didn't bother to think it through sufficiently (I've read Dawkins using it but believe it was coined elsewhere).
You rejects most claims about god, atheists reject all claims about god.
No. That's how you're attempting to slant it. It isn't the claims about God that an Atheist objects to, it is the claim of God.
Why do you reject the other claims about god?
I reject claims about God within my religion. Everyone follows their best understanding. Because I differ with those who find the observance of Christmas vaguely heretical, it doesn't follow that I reject Christianity or its God, to tie this back into the larger discussion.

To move it to another setting, are you one of those people who feel that if you identify as Republican or Democrat you HAVE to pull the lever in full support of party, have to agree with every plank? And if you don't are you less a (whichever)?
What would you think if you knew of no claims about god with which you could agree with?
Since the foundation of any claim would be His existence, that's a pretty self serving foundation, isn't it? Distinguish it from "what if you didn't believe?"
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
okay, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding of the term "atheist". Atheism isn't a "position" as you say. It's a response to a claim.
That would be a position. :plain: Any position is a response, to a claim, to a perception of reality. You name it. What Atheism cannot be is an act, which is part of the mistake that I noted.
Let's say that people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster were called "pastafarians".
Why move beyond the actual argument, since in altering terms you change nothing of substance? It only adds an element of the absurd to a serious discussion... But, If you run around saying "I love you" to rocks and trees because you find my expression to another human being silly or irrational, it in no part diminishes either my affection or the attachment of it to the real.

I address this particular spin in my response to your compatriot, but I'll echo a bit of it here, because I appreciate your effort while still finding fault with your conclusion.
...Yes, you are correct, both the believers in HM and FSM are indeed pastafarians, yet they still have something in common with the person's beliefs that are unknown but rejects both HM and FSM.
The only commonality apparent is in the verb, not the understanding that give the verb (rejection) particular meaning. That's where you err, where the founder of the phrase errs and why it fails.
Atheists are not making a claim, atheism is not a position.
That's not a rational statement. Can one surmise any fact from the declaration of Atheism? Can that fact be said to be relational to an object or idea? If you answer yes to any of those questions you have declared a position. The only question then is of what sort or kind? Is it rational or no? If Atheism wasn't a position it would be meaningless. It isn't a verb. It's a declaration of understanding.
It's merely a response to a claim.
Yes...it isn't a bird, it's a thing with feathers that can fly and lays eggs in a nest. Glad you cleared that up. And you still haven't addressed my argument as to why Atheism cannot be applied to my rejection of Zeus and why it must then follow that the phrase under consideration is neither accurate nor particularly clever. It only appears to be either if not fully considered.
In fact calling myself an atheist isn't totally accurate, I also reject fairies and goblins too.
Which would be another position and relevant were that topic under consideration.
What's the word for someone who doesn't believe in those beings?
No one who disbelieves in the obviously fabricated feels a need to label that rational response...now think through the implications with regard to Atheism...it doesn't really help you.
This is the problem with most theists, they automatically assume that if we say we don't believe in your god that we're also simultaneously making the argument that there is no god.
No. I make that assumption when someone tells me they're an Atheist, because that's the rather large point of the word/label. Tell me you're an Agnostic and I'll have another understanding. Try to tell me that I'm an Agnostic or an Atheist and I'll have yet another understanding, though that one will relate more to your current state of mind and medication levels.
I can't know that there is no god, therefore I can't make that claim. I can however look at the evidence you've provided for your god and say, "sorry, I don't believe it". Which is EXACTLY what you do regarding every other god claim except yours.
Then you're a very poor Atheist or one of those who has decided to merge the term with Agnosticism, running contrary to the point of language, which should be clarity and communication.
The christian god and the muslim god and FSM are all god claims. You reject two of them, we reject all three. It's really THAT simple.
No, though you assume it to be. If you're an Atheist you do more than that. The Muslim and I differ on the particulars of the foundational truth you reject whole cloth.
 

bornslacker

New member
No. That's how you're attempting to slant it. It isn't the claims about God that an Atheist objects to, it is the claim of God.

Holy crap dude!!!!

Maybe it's the term God that's throwing you off here.

Let's call your God Jerry.

My God is James.

You don't believe in James.

I don't believe in Jerry.

Our friend Bob doesn't believe in James or Jerry.

James is not an "understanding" of Jerry and Jerry is not an "understanding" of James.

James is James and Jerry is Jerry.

Not all theological claims or deities are God or even an understanding of "God."

Are you trying to make the argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Holy Macaroni are different "understandings" of "God"?

What about Buddhism or Janeism?

It's one or the other, either you concede that they too are understanding of "God"...

or...

You admit that not all theological claims are an "understanding" of "God"(as you describe him).
 

bornslacker

New member
Then you're a very poor Atheist or one of those who has decided to merge the term with Agnosticism, running contrary to the point of language, which should be clarity and communication.

Ah.. okay. Here's the issue.

Perhaps what I posted earlier in this thread will help you to understand the term atheism and agnosticism better.

Do a google search for weak and strong atheism so you know I'm not just making this up.

An atheist is not making the claim that there is no god. An atheist is simply not convinced by the arguments put forth by a theist for a particular god. If presented the question, "Do you believe in god" any answer other than "yes" makes you an atheist, including "I don't know."

To clarify, you said an agnostic would be someone who is "not sure". That's slightly incorrect and comes from a common mistake people make. Most people think there are three different levels.

Atheist = God does not exist

Agnostic = I don't know (atheist light, middle of the road)

Theist = God does exist.

The above is wrong.

Theism and Gnosticism refer to two different things.

Theism = Belief

Gnosticism = Knowledge.

So...

You can combine these terms.

1. Agnostic Atheist = I don't KNOW there is no god, but I don't BELIEVE there is one. (What most atheists are) (No claim has been made).

2. Gnostic Atheist = I KNOW there is no god and I do not BELIEVE in one. (This is making a claim).

3. Agnostic Theist = I don't KNOW there is a god, but I BELIEVE there is one. (No claim has been made).

4. Gnostic Theist = I KNOW there is a god and I BELIEVE in him/her.(A claim is being made).

You're presuming that anyone who calls themself an atheist is automatically a "gnostic atheist" and that's not the case.

Here's a few links to help you out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIKeC9k2-Jg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

I thought it was funny to hear a theist telling me that I'm not a good atheist. You have to love that. :)
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Ah.. okay. Here's the issue.
No, the issue was the error inherent in the phrase/quote/argument that confused the rejection of particular expression with the general, foundational truth of the terms being used. That remains unchallenged by your posts or any others, at least so far.

As for the terms. I related I was aware of the alterations made to the general understanding for particular ideas, but used the common and generally accepted definitions for the purpose of our particular. Agnostic then was meant to refer to "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." An Atheist is then "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." The more particular sub definitions and distinctions are of no importance in relation to our discussion.
You're presuming that anyone who calls themself an atheist is automatically a "gnostic atheist" and that's not the case.
Not really, but I appreciate your attempt to provide what you thought I might lack. It speaks to a spirit of discourse that I appreciate, even if the assumption that generates it is errant, as is true in our current case. Generosity is generosity, needed or no.

:e4e:
I thought it was funny to hear a theist telling me that I'm not a good atheist. You have to love that. :)
Which I didn't actually do, but glad to have lifted your spirits in any event.
 

bornslacker

New member
Your "common and generally accepted" definitions of atheism and agnosticism are wrong sir.

Theism only refers to belief. Hence when I say I'm an atheist I'm only saying I "don't believe" in your God. Unless I specifically say that I'm a gnostic atheist, the presumption should be that I only disbelieve god, not that I as you stated, "deny or disbelieve". Denial and disbelief are two different things. You can't lump them together.

It is pertinent in our discussion for the reasons I've stated above.

Also...

No, the issue was the error inherent in the phrase/quote/argument that confused the rejection of particular expression with the general, foundational truth of the terms being used.

This has been addressed. Your "general, foundational truth of the terms" are wrong. There is no error. Just an argument that rubs you the wrong way.
 

WandererInFog

New member
Your "common and generally accepted" definitions of atheism and agnosticism are wrong sir.

Theism only refers to belief. Hence when I say I'm an atheist I'm only saying I "don't believe" in your God. Unless I specifically say that I'm a gnostic atheist, the presumption should be that I only disbelieve god, not that I as you stated, "deny or disbelieve". Denial are and disbelief are two different things. You can't lump them together.

Have you ever heard anyone, in actual real life, use the term "gnostic atheist"? Probably not as the term is essentially a recent creation (and etymologically problematic one at that) that doesn't really exist outside of a handful of internet blogs and forums. What TH is using still represents "common and generally accepted definitions", as per:

American Heritage Dictionary 2009 -

Atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Agnosticism
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.​
(And that's just one among many. Feel free to look it up in other dictionaries and you'll see the same definitions.)

There has been some attempt in the past two decades to broaden the definition of atheism to the point where it would also encompass all those who would traditionally be labeled agnostic, though it hasn't really yet had any impact on the terms as they are commonly used.
 

bornslacker

New member
So according the the definitions that this forum uses anyone who denies a god claim is also simultaneously making the counter claim that there is no god?
 

bornslacker

New member
Main Entry:
the·ism Listen to the pronunciation of theism
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1678

: belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

So... the opposite of that definition aka atheism would be...


Main Entry:
the·ism Listen to the pronunciation of theism
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1678

: dis-belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically : dis-belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Sorry... can you point out in that definition where it's also making the counter claim that asserts there is no God?

I don't care what dictionary you throw at me, the words theism and gnosticism have a meaning, one is belief and the other is knowledge. Claim whatever you want about "common knowledge" or "traditional terms". The original point I made STILL stands.

Here, I'll rephrase it for you.

We are all agnostic atheists towards most god claims. I'm just agnostic atheist towards one more god claim than you.

When you understand why you reject those god claims, you'll understand why I reject yours.

Happy?

When you guys debate this kind of crap it just makes religion look bad. It's okay to be amenable to at least SOME logic now and again.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
So according the the definitions that this forum uses anyone who denies a god claim is also simultaneously making the counter claim that there is no god?
No, that would be the mistaken assumption of that phrase/quote--the idea that I am taking an Atheist's stand when I reject a notion of the larger question. It can't be logically sustained...and so my illustration earlier. According to the standard definition one who is an Atheist takes the position that no God or gods then exist. So an Atheist rejecting any particular God is doing so from the larger posture that every God is imaginary, where the believer (in whatever form) is beginning and ending in a very different place. :e4e:
 

bornslacker

New member
According to the standard definition one who is an Atheist takes the position that no God or gods then exist.

:maxi: NO!

Please!!! look at the word itself. What does theism mean? Belief in god right? Can we agree on that?

So an (a)theist (the opposite of theist) would NOT believe in god.

No "taking of a position" nothing else needs to be added. Simply, no belief.

So respond to this...

We all rejects some god claims, I just reject one more than you.

Can we agree on that?
 

skeptech

New member
To make the statement "We are all agnostic atheists towards most god claims" requires a stretch of the definition of atheism as "dis-belief in the existence of a god or gods." If your atheist, it isn't about a particular claim, it's about the existence of any god.

Which isn't to say that there isn't value in the statement BS made, but I think it's mostly rhetorical. It makes clear how atheists think of the Christian god, but avoids the fact that Christans have personal evidence in favor of their god, making other claims moot to them.

On another level, if you accept that we're all limited in what we believe by our intellect and our experiences, then either side could say, "when you realize why you believe what you do, then you'll understand why I believe what I do."

And a virgin birth is entirely rational if you accept as a premise that miracles (or asexual reproduction!) are possible. Arguing otherwise will get you nowhere. Of course, you can argue the premises, but I doubt much headway will be made against someone who has "knowledge" granted by a unique personal experience.
 

bornslacker

New member
To make the statement "We are all agnostic atheists towards most god claims" requires a stretch of the definition of atheism as "dis-belief in the existence of a god or gods." If your atheist, it isn't about a particular claim, it's about the existence of any god.

Which isn't to say that there isn't value in the statement BS made, but I think it's mostly rhetorical. It makes clear how atheists think of the Christian god, but avoids the fact that Christans have personal evidence in favor of their god, making other claims moot to them.

On another level, if you accept that we're all limited in what we believe by our intellect and our experiences, then either side could say, "when you realize why you believe what you do, then you'll understand why I believe what I do."

And a virgin birth is entirely rational if you accept as a premise that miracles (or asexual reproduction!) are possible. Arguing otherwise will get you nowhere. Of course, you can argue the premises, but I doubt much headway will be made against someone who has "knowledge" granted by a unique personal experience.

I agree with everything except the part about stretching the definition of atheism to "dis-belief in the existence of a god or gods."

That IS the definition of atheism.

Also, you claim "If your atheist, it isn't about a particular claim, it's about the existence of any god."

To you perhaps (and I'm not saying that's not valid) but I can't discount all God claims until I hear them all. So I take them on a case by case basis. Thus far no god claim has been able to convince me, thus my status as atheist remains.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
:maxi: NO!

Please!!! look at the word itself. What does theism mean? Belief in god right? Can we agree on that?

So an (a)theist (the opposite of theist) would NOT believe in god.

No "taking of a position" nothing else needs to be added. Simply, no belief.

So respond to this...

We all rejects some god claims, I just reject one more than you.

Can we agree on that?

actually theism not necessarily God, you seem more like an agnostic atheist:chuckle:


BTW: watch your language!
 

WandererInFog

New member
Sorry... can you point out in that definition where it's also making the counter claim that asserts there is no God?

Well, given that you just invented that definition of atheism yourself by editing the Miriam-Webster entry for theism (that you left the same date of origin in was particularly amusing given that the term atheism predates the term theism in the English language by a century or so), I don't see how it's terribly relevant. Atheism doesn't simply mean the opposite of theism. Language is a touch more complex than that.

We are all agnostic atheists towards most god claims. I'm just agnostic atheist towards one more god claim than you.

You can keep barking this over and over, but it doesn't make it true. Atheism isn't disbelief in a particular god, it's the disbelief in deity in a categorical sense.

When you guys debate this kind of crap it just makes religion look bad.

Bad to whom? Someone like yourself who has declared that they'd only believe in God if the evidence for Him went far beyond that which we have for something like, say, gravitation?
 

bornslacker

New member
Well, given that you just invented that definition of atheism yourself by editing the Miriam-Webster entry for theism (that you left the same date of origin in was particularly amusing given that the term atheism predates the term theism in the English language by a century or so), I don't see how it's terribly relevant. Atheism doesn't simply mean the opposite of theism. Language is a touch more complex than that.



You can keep barking this over and over, but it doesn't make it true. Atheism isn't disbelief in a particular god, it's the disbelief in deity in a categorical sense.



Bad to whom? Someone like yourself who has declared that they'd only believe in God if the evidence for Him went far beyond that which we have for something like, say, gravitation?

I'll link you this time so you don't try and claim I'm making things up.



Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Hmmm... Definition A and Definition B. Strange. It would appear as though there is more than one meaning of the word atheism.

Perhaps that's because they know what I've been saying all along. There's weak atheism (A: a disbelief in the existence of deity) and strong atheism (B: the doctrine that there is no deity). In other words, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

Go ahead... tell me I'm making things up. It just entertains the rest of us here. :mock:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top