Question to athiests who say...

[Berzerker]

yeah, you did

Atheism is lack of belief, please consult the dictionary before telling me what I believe or deny.

And I did consult a dictionary and it said atheism is a denial of God. Now where did I tell you what you believe?

 

[Andrei_V]

And I did consult a dictionary and it said atheism is a denial of God.

Did you also notice the 'disbelief' or 'lack of belief' thing?

If not, read again.

Another good thing to do is to visit BBC page on atheism.

 

[Berzerker]

I just responded to that, atheism is a denial of God. Obviously a dis-belief precedes the denial but it aint atheism until it becomes a denial.

Fundies know God exists
Atheists know God doesn't exist

 

[mdwh]

According to atheism, there is no right or wrong, good or bad... All that is made up for the good of society, therefore Stalin, Mao, etc were just as legitimate in what they did as Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson... After all, under the Atheist philosopy, "it's only wrong if it's illegal and you get caught." and if you're the one making the laws, then you can do no wrong. (plus all the people you kill were obviously weak, and unfit to pass their DNA along in accordance to Natural Selection, therefore you did them and the human race a favor). Any religion will have a set of rules and eternal consequences to NOT following those rules, whereas the basis of Atheism is that the only rules are Physics and Natural Selection, everything else is made up and "fake"

Completely wrong, sorry. Again, why are theists here so keen to tell us atheists what we believe?

Most of us have concepts of right and wrong, just like theists. We don't always agree what is right or wrong - just like theists.

(And the consequences that result from your actions in the real physical world will be a lot more real than those that result from the non-existent "eternal consequences" that every different religion has.)

Atheism, on the other hand, believes that sin is an artificial concept, so they have the right to treat anybody how they want to (provided it isn't technically illegal),

No it doesn't. We believe that sin doesn't equate to immorality - so disbelieving in a religious concept like sin doesn't equate to being amoral.

3. Yes, You do have a point there... Some of them religions out there make Atheism look downright cosy compared to what they consider to be "moral" (like Rastafarianism.... How the HELL is getting blitzed out of your skull supposed to get you closer to God? All that accomplishes is killing brain cells....)

All religions are cosier than non-religion, as they get to appeal to "It's my religion", whilst atheists rely on evidence and reason to justify and judge actions.

Of course, do keep in mind that I made that post under the influence of excessive sarcasm, and wasn't particularly serious (other than being seriously p---ed off at the time).

As was my reply ;p I realise that not all theists are like that.

 

[warpus]

I just responded to that, atheism is a denial of God. Obviously a dis-belief precedes the denial but it aint atheism until it becomes a denial.

Fundies know God exists
Atheists know God doesn't exist

And some atheists just don't have an opinion.

 

[Xyan]

This dictionary business is getting stale. You are athiest when you think you are athiest. The dictionary picture are only people and their definitions are ajusted every edition.

Not every theist think the same way and not every athiest think the same way either. It is pointless to generalise to such extent.

Forums like this will be interesting when we concentrate on sharing our views and not qualifying who should or should not.

Challenge the views instead.

 

[azzaman333]

Question to athiests who say may he/she rest in peace

Personally, I don't want random idiots to go through a cemetary and screw with my dead relative's bodies.

 

[mdwh]

Talk about easy targets, nobody is telling you what you believe. But if you dont believe in God but aint sure, you're not an atheist. Atheists are sure just as Fundies are sure...

Well let's suppose the dictionaries are wrong, and you are right - what am I then?

I can't be an agnostic, because an agnostic is someone who claims God's existence can't be known.

I don't go around telling Christians that they aren't Christians unless they believe in 7 day creationism. Why the obsession in telling what atheists are allowed to call themselves as?

Because atheism rejects the notion of God?

I reject belief in God. I also don't know if God exists.

Question: Do you believe in pixies?

Thats a contradiction in terms, one doesn't know and the other does know.

Know what? I don't know anything about God, I don't believe in him!

And in that context disbelief is a denial, the second definition re-enforces the first.

So why do all these dictionaries repeat the definition twice with different words? (And later on, I see you retreat to "Obviously a dis-belief precedes the denial but it aint atheism until it becomes a denial." - so all the dictionaries listing "disbelief" are wrong then?)

There are three definitions of atheism - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism (which has sources for all the definitions). Then read that talk pages and the archives where this has been debated over and over, by people who want to redefine atheism to only mean positive belief in no Gods.

The way you're reading dis-belief it would include all those people who dont believe but aint sure.

Bingo! Why do you want to discount them? By your system, we would have no word for them. When we count people who don't believe in ghosts, unicorns or pixies, we wouldn't think of ignoring everyone who also say that they don't know for certain.

We wouldn't label someone as a fundamentalist if they said they didn't believe in invisible flying monkeys, just because they didn't qualify it with "But I don't disbelieve either, and I don't know, and I aint sure", and then disassociate themselves from the other people who didn't believe!

Well, why not? You've re-defined atheism to include agnostics...not me...

Not all agnostics. And I haven't re-defined - I acknowledge that there are several definitions of atheism.

Is that your answer to the question: is there a prime mover?

If you say "Is there", I would answer "I don't know". If you asked if I believed, I would say "No".

Which makes me an agnostic and an atheist, but apparentely I can't be both.

So getting to the point - "nobody is telling you what you believe" - right, so there's no point getting stuck in a word definitions debate. The point is, you asked a question, self-identified atheists then responded. There's no point telling us we can't be atheists - we've explained what we believe.

When you say things like "That makes atheism untenable", that only applies to some people. Maybe some of those atheists will be here to argue with you - but if not, then bad luck.

 

[Xyan]

The correct definition of those who are "not sure" is actually 'confused'...

 

[Perfection]

Perfection, first, I'd like to apologize: I was in a bad mood yesterday, and your comments were sort of like the trigger for me to go into my berserk mode (sort of like one minute there's plain ol' Bruce Banner, then the next it's HULK....SMASH!!!!, or how the zener effect works in a diode... at X-.001V, there's nothing happening, but at X volts, the diode junction breaks down and current flows). Thankfully, the red haze of rage has subsided, and I'm able to think clearly now (well as clearly as anyone who thinks Nikola Tesla was one of the greatest geniuses of all-time can think).

I realize now that you didn't specifically say I was STUPID, only that I wasn't as smart as you were.

If you define Intelligence in such a manner: I = IQ (where IQ = base intelligence), then you're likely right.

I define Intelligence in this manner: I = (IQ+K+CS)LoM (I+ total intelligence, IQ= Base intelligence, K = total Knowledge, CS = Common Sense and LoM = Level of Maturity), which would mean that, from my point of view, I'd likely be right.

HAHA, you think you're more mature then me. Except, I don't blow up on internet forums.

That brings me to something that someone else brought up, and that you seem to be forgetting: It is possible to critically and logically possible to come to different conclusions from the same set of results due to differing points of view, past experiences and other things that are not covered by pure, scientific logic.

Of course, but often one of those results is in fat better then the other.

You say that nothing could possibly exist before the Big Bang, and I say, where's your proof? Hyperdimensionally speaking, it is possible. Another example of the "certain point of view" thing is your response to my idea of what could be considered an afterlife without a God:

Careful, I'm only saying it's logically impossible if time begins with the big bang. I've stated that it very well may not be the case. My point is that under that system we need not find a cause for the big bang (because it doesn't have one) nor what occured beforehand (as there was no before).

The main point is not that the origin of the universe disproves God only that it doesn't require God and that the common objections folk raise can be easily removed.

You say "it's just energy changing states" but I say, "Well, that could be considered a sort of afterlife, from a certain point of view."

That may be rather mind-bending logic, but if one can accept the idea that two paralell lines will eventually cross due to the "curvature of the universe" and the fact that, from a quantum standpoint everything in existance is real only about 50% of the time (due to the wave/particle nature of things, solid matter litterly blinks in and out of physical existence about a billion times a second, at leas according to one theory I've read), then as far as I'm concerned, such thinking isn't such a big stretch, nor is belief in God such a large leap of faith.

That quantum stuff you're talking about screams fringe-wackjob, but your larger point that weird things make God not so faith filled is erroneous. We accept the weirdnesses of the universe not on faith or emotion but on the scientific methodology and the fact that it has proven these weird things to be true. That certainly doesn't mean it's anything goes in terms of weird ideas, they have to meet certain empirical standards before we can call them not faith based or less faith based.

Of course, I'd like to pose a friendly challenge: I give a list of Christian philosophical books to read, which are written by some great Christian thinkers (Ravi Zacharaias, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterson, etc), and you give me an equal amount of books by atheistic philosophers of your choice and we both read them and then discuss the conclusions we came to.

Sound fair enough?

Nah, too much effort.

 

[Berzerker]

Well let's suppose the dictionaries are wrong, and you are right - what am I then?

I dont know, what are ya? An atheist who doesn't know if God exists?

I can't be an agnostic, because an agnostic is someone who claims God's existence can't be known.

Today its synonymous with people who dont know if God exists.

I don't go around telling Christians that they aren't Christians unless they believe in 7 day creationism. Why the obsession in telling what atheists are allowed to call themselves as?

What obsession? All I did was point out that atheism is untenable because it denies the existence of God. Y'all didnt like that and started arguing about definitions when the definition I used was self-evident - atheists that deny the existence of God. Then I'm accused of attacking atheists and telling you what you believe blah blah blah.

I reject belief in God. I also don't know if God exists.

Atheists know God doesn't exist

Question: Do you believe in pixies?

I dont even know what they are. Will a pink unicorn on the far side of the moon do? No

Know what? I don't know anything about God, I don't believe in him!

But you dont know if God exists, that doesn't make you an atheist. They know God doesn't exist.

So why do all these dictionaries repeat the definition twice with different words? (And later on, I see you retreat to "Obviously a dis-belief precedes the denial but it aint atheism until it becomes a denial." - so all the dictionaries listing "disbelief" are wrong then?)

I just explained that to you, the first definition provides context for the next definition. A dis-belief precedes a denial but it aint atheism without the denial. You're acting like the denial aint even in the definition. You say you dont believe God exists, but you say you dont know if God exists. Atheists deny that God exists.

Bingo! Why do you want to discount them? By your system, we would have no word for them.

Thats why agnosticism has become synonymous with not knowing if God exists.

We wouldn't label someone as a fundamentalist if they said they didn't believe in invisible flying monkeys, just because they didn't qualify it with "But I don't disbelieve either, and I don't know, and I aint sure", and then disassociate themselves from the other people who didn't believe!

So why would we label someone an atheist when they say they dont know if God exists? Atheism is a Fundie position in that it is absolute.

If you say "Is there", I would answer "I don't know". If you asked if I believed, I would say "No".

Which makes me an agnostic and an atheist, but apparentely I can't be both.

Thats right, "I dont know " is not atheism. They do know...

So getting to the point - "nobody is telling you what you believe" - right, so there's no point getting stuck in a word definitions debate. The point is, you asked a question, self-identified atheists then responded. There's no point telling us we can't be atheists - we've explained what we believe.

"Right"? I didn't start this griping about definitions, Andrei did and y'all have joined in to argue about definitions. Dont blame me for that, frankly its a waste of time since y'all ignored my point. Now what question did I ask? I said atheism's denial of God's existence is untenable. If you're an "atheist" who doesn't deny the existence of God, dont respond? I aint talking about you. Pretty simple...

When you say things like "That makes atheism untenable", that only applies to some people. Maybe some of those atheists will be here to argue with you - but if not, then bad luck.

None of these "atheists" have argued against what I said, they're arguing that they dont deny the existence of God. Well, then let the atheists who deny the existence of God argue.

 

[Andrei_V]

Well, then let the atheists who deny the existence of God argue.

I'd like to see them first, just to make sure they do exist, and not a product of somebody's wild imagination. It so happens I have not seen any single of such 'atheists-deniers' in my whole life.

I guess I'm just very unlucky.

 

[Berzerker]

turn on a TV, listen to the radio, read a book...

 

[Andrei_V]

turn on a TV, listen to the radio, read a book...

I do that all the time, and your point is?

 

[warpus]

All I did was point out that atheism is untenable because it denies the existence of God.

Doesn't accept the existence of Gods, actually. Actively denying only covers a subset of all atheists. Not all actively deny.

Man, why am I getting involved here..

 

[Andrei_V]

Now what question did I ask? I said atheism's denial of God's existence is untenable. If you're an "atheist" who doesn't deny the existence of God, dont respond? I aint talking about you. Pretty simple...

Well, next time you ask atheists a question, better specify explicitly that you mean only "atheists who actively deny the existence of a prime mover", otherwise I can practically guarantee you, you will be misunderstood.

 

[azzaman333]

Berzerker, I have an issue with your definition of an athiest.

An athiest according to my definition is someone who believes the most logical conclusion is that there is no god(s).

An agnostic according to my definition is someone who cannot reach a conclusion on whether a god(s) may or may not exist.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What obsession? All I did was point out that atheism is untenable because it denies the existence of God.

No. It. Doesn't.

Ok?

It. Does. Not.

Eventhough you might have met atheist who claim such rubbish, it doesn't mean that it defines atheism. That's as bs as me claiming christians believe God hates Fags, or God is Happy when a Soldier Dies. I saw a few wacko christians claim such nonsense, but the majority of them are actually very reasonable people.

I am an atheist JUST because I feel you need a incredible amount of arrogance to claim a. knowledge about the existance of God and b. His/her/it's intentions.

If you disgaree with that, by all means, discuss. But redefining the concept atheism to be able to attack it is low.

 

[VX250]

This thread has drifted off-topic ...

 

[holy king]

According to atheism, there is no right or wrong, good or bad... All that is made up for the good of society, therefore Stalin, Mao, etc were just as legitimate in what they did as Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson... After all, under the Atheist philosopy, "it's only wrong if it's illegal and you get caught." and if you're the one making the laws, then you can do no wrong. (plus all the people you kill were obviously weak, and unfit to pass their DNA along in accordance to Natural Selection, therefore you did them and the human race a favor). Any religion will have a set of rules and eternal consequences to NOT following those rules, whereas the basis of Atheism is that the only rules are Physics and Natural Selection, everything else is made up and "fake"

strawman!!