Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has been my experience that only very literal people can't flex a definition to better describe the world or situation being discussed. They think its the word that defines the world. It ass backwards.
there is the definition. But the god part is the real problem. some people are describing the universe ... so I lack belief in the universe because I am atheist? really?
dont make no sense at all ...
To be honest, if we can't make an argument for our case with what ever people say atheism is, we might wanna rethink if we should even be in the game.
Can't rep you again, Arach, for the last two posts. I have questions but they are off topic.
Nobody can "lack belief" in something they have considered and contemplated. That's not possible...because, once considered, one necessarily has a "belief position" relative to it.
It's like someone telling you it is possible to think of "nothing at all". It cannot be done...you will be thinking about thinking of nothing.
The "Atheism" definition proffered is so bogus...it even presents a Belief Position concerning your supposedly nonexistent Belief Position. Y'all actually believe that you don't have a belief!
Garbage. Or rather, a very crafty use of equivocation. having/ not having belief, is two different things - in the context.
Having a belief -position of pretty much everything. One either believes, or not
But that applied to a proposition or claim, if one does not believe in the claim one has no belief in that claim, even if they necessarily have a belief -position as regards that claim.
Now that everyone (with the wit or integrity to see what you tried to pull there) has seen though your false argument, the question only remains, were you too dim to see the false argument, or crafty enough to hope that nobody else would?
If you were an atheist pretending to be an anti - atheist in order to look the Rest of atheism look good, you couldn't be worth more divisions to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
It doesn't really matter to me trans. I just lack belief in a deity. I don't really lack, I don't think, I laid out all the observations, look at trends, and a deity just doesn't match the best we can do.
I have no need to fight the definition. Its makes no difference to the argument.
theist: "oh yeah atheism is religion"
arach: yeah ok, lets talk about died and rose
theist: Atheism is more than a lack of belief
arach: some act that that way, lest look at this 6 day thing
theist: atheism has it own faith
arach: yeah. ok, look at revelations, you telling me they didnt do drugs?
To tell ya truth trans, your better than that. Just sayin'
Yes, I am better than that - because that daft exchange between the 'theist' and you has nothing whatsoever to do with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
Can't rep you again, Arach, for the last two posts. I have questions but they are off topic.
What a pity. Especially that you seem to think that Arach speaks for atheism, even if he lifts a few atheist phrases that are in fact valid, though he then adds on some final remark that it debunks atheism (or at least the atheists he has issue with) in some way.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-07-2020 at 08:26 PM..
What a pity. Especially that you seem to think that Arach speaks for atheism, even if he lifts a few atheist phrases that are in fact valid, though he then adds on some final remark that it debunks atheism (or at least the atheists he has issue with) in some way.
Hey! I have to spread reputation points around to eventually give you some rep points. Anyway, it won't be the first or last time I disappoint.
Arach has an energy that seems unmatched on this forum. I appreciate that about him but I don't come to him for insights into atheism and I don't think he would want me to.
Nobody can "lack belief" in something they have considered and contemplated. That's not possible...because, once considered, one necessarily has a "belief position" relative to it.
It's like someone telling you it is possible to think of "nothing at all". It cannot be done...you will be thinking about thinking of nothing.
The "Atheism" definition proffered is so bogus...it even presents a Belief Position concerning your supposedly nonexistent Belief Position. Y'all actually believe that you don't have a belief!
The longer we pursue this idiocy, the more absurd and preposterous it becomes. Beliefs are beliefs whether they are positive ones or negative ones. What the hell ELSE do you think they could possibly BE that you BELIEVE???
The longer we pursue this idiocy, the more absurd and preposterous it becomes. Beliefs are beliefs whether they are positive ones or negative ones. What the hell ELSE do you think they could possibly BE that you BELIEVE???
If you cannot understand the concept of lack of belief perhaps it's time to drop the PhD from your name.
A positive belief is I believe in extraterrestrials.
A negative belief is I don't believe in extraterrestrials
A lack of belief is I don't have enough evidence to decide if I believe in extraterrestrials or not.
Stomping your feet and yelling insults does not change the fact that the three above are three different
The longer we pursue this idiocy, the more absurd and preposterous it becomes. Beliefs are beliefs whether they are positive ones or negative ones. What the hell ELSE do you think they could possibly BE that you BELIEVE???
"Preposterous" is a apt descriptor for that illogical spew.
The most wild, hocus-pocus, Religious claims have greater merit.
It's like a "Laurel & Hardy" skit..."Ollie...I believe I don't have a belief!"
If you cannot understand the concept of lack of belief perhaps it's time to drop the PhD from your name.
A positive belief is I believe in extraterrestrials. = I BELIEVE extraterrestrials exist
A negative belief is I don't believe in extraterrestrials = I BELIEVE extraterrestrials do NOT exist
A lack of belief is I don't have enough evidence to decide if I believe in extraterrestrials or not. = I do not KNOW or BELIEVE whether or not extraterrestrials exist.
Stomping your feet and yelling insults does not change the fact that the three above are three different
Yes they are and I clarified them for you by stating them in their BELIEF forms.
Hey! I have to spread reputation points around to eventually give you some rep points. Anyway, it won't be the first or last time I disappoint.
Arach has an energy that seems unmatched on this forum. I appreciate that about him but I don't come to him for insights into atheism and I don't think he would want me to.
The FAQ seems like a good enough resource anyway.
Ok. I see. Well, the anti -atheist atheists certainly have an amazing energy to keep posting accusation after case, when they get kicked out as fast as they can be filed, unwilling to admit they have lost.
If we are going down that path that only an atheist gets to say what an atheist is or a theist gets to say what a god is, then the same can be said for the new labels. An anti-religious theists gets to say what an anti-religous theists is and an anti-atheist atheists gets to say what an anti-atheist atheist says one is. What happens if they don't claim the labels?
I think the focus is on the implications of being an atheist rather than the literal meaning of it.
Atheism is a subset of rationalism. Rationalism is based on the logical assessment of evidence to evaluate claims. Atheism is related just to the god -claim and (so atheists say - by atheist definition), "The evidence does not make the god -claim credible". We are all atheists if one doesn't believe in a god. One is a theist if they believe in one. Very simple
What one does about it is varied and complicated. They can do nothing, they can be activist. They can be god -believers who don't sign up to any religion (that's what they put on the paper - 'Nones'), They tell us what their motives are, we don't tell them. Some non -believers battle atheism like a lot of latter -day crusaders, using arguments that would embarrass the bananaman. I agree that they ought to be the ones to define what they are and what they do and why, but I have got to say that I have seen their reasons (slipping out every now and again) and know why, while the reasons they give are crummy logic, lying accusations about (activist) atheists and persistent Twittertweet slanderising.
By their rotten fruits shall ye know them, and open -minded rationalist fruit it ain't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or rather, a very crafty use of equivocation. having/ not having belief, is two different things - in the context.
What a pity. Especially that you seem to think that Arach speaks for atheism, even if he lifts a few atheist phrases that are in fact valid, though he then adds on some final remark that it debunks atheism (or at least the atheists he has issue with) in some way.
Ok. I see. Well, the anti -atheist atheists certainly have an amazing energy to keep posting accusation after case, when they get kicked out as fast as they can be filed, unwilling to admit they have lost.