Religious people need to be offended from time to time

Holy crap, take the time to spell check. It's very distracting that you are constantly misspelling/typing every other word. Everything you say come across as uneducated simply because it looks like a five year old typed it.

We both don't agree on what religion is, and your argument isn't compelling. You won't come to terms with what I've said either. So it would be pointless to continue this dialog.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I already explaiend why I don`t use spell check so that`s an Ad Homonym.

Also, the reason my arument isn`t compelling is that you don`t want it to be. Keep in mind you didn`t even understand my arugment originally, and I doubt you do now. That`s oen of the Reasons I reject the enture Mythology opresnted by conemporary Atheism, since the claim of `Reason`guiding yoru thoughts is undermined when you make stock arguments.


Think abotu it, it doens`t matter wat I say or how well the spellign is, you`ve decided I`m wrogn form the word go since I cotnradict the tennets of yoru `Non-Religious Philosophy`, and thefefore must be wrong, and must be Religious, and Religious peopel ar eincapable of compellign arguments.


But that doesn`t make me wrong. Atheismn is still formally defined as the beleif that there are no gods, or as a rejection of Theism, and Religion is still a very brioad word with no absolute meaning. If you don`t beleive me, chekc most standard dictioanries, or the Encyclopedia Brittannica, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or other refeence works.


The only reason Atheism is even defined ss a lakc of beelif now is becaue it helps in arugments. That`s what makes it hypocritical to tell me I`m redefinign words o suit my arugments. The Truth is, Atheism was redefiend to suit an arugment 15 to 20 yeard ago, as `Lack of beleif`. No oen in the 1980`s defined Atheism as `Lack fo belief in gods`.


The reason Atheism was redefined as a Lack of beleif is becaue if its a beleif, then yoi are takign a position you have to defend, but by sayign tis the abscence of beelif you don`t have o defend it allow ing you to be on permenant offence with no need for defence.

However, hwo the word is actually used undermiens the new definition sicne the same peopel who insist Atheism is a mere lac of beleif in gods will also say thigns like `God does not exist`or `God is a fairy tale for adults`, which is a sstement of fact that God doesnt exist, a position they take, a beleif. The lack of beelif definition is just silly tosh.


As for religion, think abotu what I said above, If contemoproary Athism (Not mere Atheism0 has a structured beleif system that exlains the world we liv ein and how to conduct outselves, then what relaly makes it different form ReligionÉ

If Reigion relaly is limited to pnly bleif sstems that are Thesitic, and Atheist are in no way Religious, why shoudl i acept any argument hat religion is dangerous and causes cnflcitÉ Wou;n`t `Non-religiosu OPhilosophies`also creat ocnflcit when peoepl disagreeÉ

The Truth is, yoru arguments arent compelling becsuseyou refuse to consider these points.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Your refusal to "accept" that atheism can be a simple lack of belief in gods is irrelevant, because there are millions of atheists who feel that way. Millions of people who will not take a hard stance that there is NO god for the exact same reason that they can't believe that there IS one: the absence of evidence.


I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't care how Atheists, or anyoen else, feels. The Reality remains, yoru Midn has to proccess all concepts it is inorduced to. An Atheist has simply come to the conclusion that God does not exist.

That is a beelif, not a lack of beleif. I'm not sayign all Atheist are hard lien abotu it though.

Also, the "Lack of evidence' rubbish has gotten old. Not only have Theisst presented evidence, regardless of if youthink it qualifies as convincing, but I have spoken to too many Atheists now to beelvie they were all simply pointign to a lack of evidence.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't care how Atheists, or anyoen else, feels. The Reality remains, yoru Midn has to proccess all concepts it is inorduced to. An Atheist has simply come to the conclusion that God does not exist.

Don't tell me what I believe. Are you freaking deaf and blind? The only conclusion I have come to is that no argument for the existence of god has been compelling, so I have no reason to believe in one. I don't know if god exists and I don't really care either.

Also, the "Lack of evidence' rubbish has gotten old.

So what? It's the truth, I am not going to change it because you're bored.

Not only have Theisst presented evidence, regardless of if youthink it qualifies as convincing

NO. NOT "REGARDLESS". The fact that your evidence is not convincing is, in fact, the only thing that matters here. If your evidence were convincing, there would be no such thing as an atheist.

but I have spoken to too many Atheists now to beelvie they were all simply pointign to a lack of evidence.

Exactly. YOU think that you are entitled to decide what atheists actually believe, which makes you supremely arrogant as well as completely wrong.


I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I dn' think I am entitles to descide what others beelive, I think I am entitled to uestinign if they truly beelive what they say though.

My arugmnet is not "Yoru positon is X", its that you are self decieved into thinking soemthgin abotuyoruself thatis not True.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I dn' think I am entitles to descide what others beelive, I think I am entitled to uestinign if they truly beelive what they say though.

Then question it, and stop telling me what I believe. Question it, and don't tell me that I have actively argued against the existence of god when I have never done any such thing. When you say this:

"I don't care how Atheists, or anyoen else, feels. The Reality remains, yoru Midn has to proccess all concepts it is inorduced to. An Atheist has simply come to the conclusion that God does not exist"...

you are telling me what I believe. Stop pretending otherwise. You are telling me that I have come to a conclusion that I have not. Your pathetic inability to process "I don't know" is not my problem.

My arugmnet is not "Yoru positon is X"

No, your argument is that nobody's position is "Y" even after you have been told that my position is "Y".

You cannot conceive the position "I don't know", then that is on you. I am not trying to sway you. I don't care what you believe. If you tell me that you have a personal belief then I will accept that. But you are the one who keeps telling me that I am incapable of not knowing whether there is a god. Over and over you have said that atheists don't have a lack of belief, that they disbelieve. But you are wrong. I don't disbelieve because there is NO EVIDENCE that there's no such thing as god. I don't believe because there is NO EVIDENCE that there IS such thing as god.

That means I don't know. It is a lack of belief either way, which makes me an atheist because I do not believe in god.


I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I explained in PM, but will here as well.



I had a friend online who helped me in the spelling, so please do thank her for the clarity.

For someone who has said that I am not too bright, you seem to not really understand simple things.

I did admit error, and even apologised to you in an earlier post, so its obvious that I can admit error. I just don't admit that I am arrogant or doing anythign wrong here, ad that it is different than what you did to me in misrepresenting my argument.


Let me explain using an illustration. Please don’t' commit the common Internet fallacy of thinking this is about you personally, as its not. It's used as an illustration.

For the purposes of his illustration, I will use a Real argument I often hear, and I will be in the position you are with me in that I reject the Argument.


However, the distinction is in why I reject it, and more importantly, how.


There is a common “Atheist” argument we run into on the Internet routinely, and while I do not know if you use it, or have even heard it before, I do suspect you are familiar with it as it is a common one. If not though I will explain it as it is short.


The argument goes like this; People say they believe in an Afterlife, but deep down they really don't. If they did, then why would they be sad when Loved ones die? Even loved ones they say are in Heaven now? If they truly believed their loved ones were in heaven, wouldn’t the be happy?

Considering that people are in sorrow, and often deep sorrow, at the loss of Loved ones, it must mean that they don’t really believe in an afterlife, they just say they do to try to bring themselves comfort. But deep down,they know its not True.


As I said earlier, I reject this argument. However, I do not reject the argument for the same reason you reject me saying Atheists don't really lack belief. I actually accept the basic proposition that people can think they believe something they really don't, or tell themselves they believe something they don't really Truly believe in. To that end, I accept that it is fully possible that someone really doesn’t believe in any kind of an Afterlife but has convinced themselves that they do either in conformity to a Religion they hold to out of upbringing or culture, or simply because they don't want to admit that the people that have died simply no longer exist. It's entirely possible that this can be the case, and I'll go a step farther and admit that it is likely that fr some people this is exactly what happens. However, I do not believe it is accurate to say that anyone who feels sorrow at the loss of a loved one to death must not Truly believe they live on in some form elsewhere. Where I disagree with the argument is in its Universal application,and in its fault Logical Premise that sorrow at the death of someone indicates a belief that hey no longer exist. The entire argument presumes that the only Reason one would feel sorrow at the death of a Loved one is the belief that they ceased to exist. This is not the case, as it can just as readily be that they feel sorrow simply because they are separated from their Loved one.

Death is similar to any other separation, and we see sorrow all the Time in this life caused by separation where Death is not involved. For example, a Mother who see's her son Grow up and move to another State to attend college or for work may feel sorrow that her Son will no longer live near by. He is not dead, and will likely call her, and visit her, but he is still not going to be there. This may cause grief to befall the Mother. Granted, that sorrow is usually not as strong as he sorrow caused by Death, but in Death you don't get to visit the Loved one who died, or call them. You are completely cut off from them for potentially an extended period of Time. The sorrow caused by Death is the sorrow of nor being able to be around them or speak to them.

So, I do not accept the argument that people don't really believe in an afterlife, because it rests on a faulty assumption that sorrow can only be caused by believing their Loved ones no longer exist. But I do not reject the argument based on the Atheist saying someone doesn't believe what they believe, and the Atheist who makes the argument isn't even arguing that these people don't believe what hey believe. The argument is that they don't believe in an afterlife, but think they do. The argument is that it is a form of self deceit, in which the people accept the finality of Death and know there is no afterlife but refuse to admit this, perhaps even to themselves, even though they rally know its True.



I reject the claim that Atheism is a mere lack of belief in a god. You don't have to accept what I am saying, but I'm not saying you don't believe what you believe,I'm saying that it's a form of self deceit. (Which is not the same as abject dishonesty, please allow for some nuance here.) The only reason you say Atheism is a lack of belief is because your own Community has said it an it has become popular. If we were having this conversation in the 1980's it wouldn’t have even come up since Atheism wasn't understood even by Atheists as a mere lack of belief back then. The definition of Atheism as a lack of belief in gods only stared about 15-20 Years ago, and perhaps earlier as these things grow slowly sometimes. Atheists in the 1980's wrote books and essays and gave speeches just like today, but they openly declared Atheism as a belief that there was no god, they did not say it was a lack of belief in gods. Atheists like Issac Asimov, or Stephen Jay Gould, or Anthony Flew (Who si now a Deist I know, but we're discussing the 1980's) all have readily accessible materials discussing Atheism and stating that it is a belief, as did Earlier Generations of Atheists like Bertrand Russel, H. G. Wells, or Aldois Huxley. Indeed, even the Enlightenment Thinkers, like Deiderot, Rousseu, and Buffon. Atheist communities and fliers and meetings still have pamphlets one can occasionally find that describe Atheism in terms of belief, as opposed to lack of belief. It only became prominent to say Atheism is a lack of belief in gods around the turn of the century, and then only as a Polemic tool, but the idea of Atheism as a mere lack of belief has spread, and now people accept it as an integral aspect of Atheism and its defining feature, and understand themselves as living in that experience.


What I am actually arguing is that you have accepted this narrative, and it defines ho you understand the topic, but it's not the Reality even for you, it's just the Mythos of your own Community.

I am also not opposed to Atheists arguing that people do not believe in an afterlife on the grounds that they are telling people that what they believe is not what they believe, I oppose it because it is inherently locally flawed given the alternate reasons for sorrow, but what reason other than self identification do you have to illustrate that I am wrong about Atheism?

Its not that I'm dishonest or arrogant, I sincerely don't see Atheism as a lack of belief, and would need a convincing argument to change my Mind. A Convincing argument is not personal self reporting.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I completely understand your afterlife story. But it really doesn't relate in any way to our conversation. There is a completely valid reason for rejecting that position, one that you have illustrated (and which I have argued before, myself. I'm in complete agreement).

You do not have a valid reason for telling me that I am deluded. I have given you a completely reasonable position that you will not address.

The only reason you say Atheism is a lack of belief is because your own Community has said it an it has become popular. If we were having this conversation in the 1980's it wouldn’t have even come up since Atheism wasn't understood even by Atheists as a mere lack of belief back then. The definition of Atheism as a lack of belief in gods only stared about 15-20 Years ago, and perhaps earlier as these things grow slowly sometimes. Atheists in the 1980's wrote books and essays and gave speeches just like today, but they openly declared Atheism as a belief that there was no god, they did not say it was a lack of belief in gods. Atheists like Issac Asimov, or Stephen Jay Gould, or Anthony Flew (Who si now a Deist I know, but we're discussing the 1980's) all have readily accessible materials discussing Atheism and stating that it is a belief, as did Earlier Generations of Atheists like Bertrand Russel, H. G. Wells, or Aldois Huxley. Indeed, even the Enlightenment Thinkers, like Deiderot, Rousseu, and Buffon. Atheist communities and fliers and meetings still have pamphlets one can occasionally find that describe Atheism in terms of belief, as opposed to lack of belief. It only became prominent to say Atheism is a lack of belief in gods around the turn of the century, and then only as a Polemic tool, but the idea of Atheism as a mere lack of belief has spread, and now people accept it as an integral aspect of Atheism and its defining feature, and understand themselves as living in that experience.

No. I am not part of an atheist community. I have never attended a meeting or a society, I do not read books about atheism. Ever. I've no doubt that you have encountered people who fall into this box you want to place me in, but they are not me and I don't care what they think. It does not alter my position, one which I have held for my entire adult life.

When it comes to the existence of god, I believe there is only one logical, reasonable position to take: "I don't know". This is what I have been saying all along, and you have never bothered to explain why you think it is acceptable to tell me that I am deluded. It is arrogant. And dismissive. Do you refuse to accept my position because you have no argument against it?

What I am actually arguing is that you have accepted this narrative, and it defines ho you understand the topic, but it's not the Reality even for you, it's just the Mythos of your own Community.

You find it necessary to declare not only my beliefs, but also my membership in a community... one in which I do not participate.

Its not that I'm dishonest or arrogant, I sincerely don't see Atheism as a lack of belief, and would need a convincing argument to change my Mind. A Convincing argument is not personal self reporting.

An even less convincing argument is you reporting what I believe. I do not need to input of other atheists to decide on my own beliefs. All I need is to exist in the world. There is no credible evidence for god. There is no credible evidence against god. There is evidence against the veracity of much scripture, but that's rather immaterial to the existence of a higher being. My point is, you keep insisting that I must have reached a conclusion either for or against the existence of god and you are wrong.

Now, either tell me why it is impossible for me to not know one way or the other, or admit that you've just been putting words in my mouth to make it easier to pigeonhole me.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

What I'm sayign is, the definition fo Atheism was never "Lack of beelfi in a god", and Modern Atheist ebgan usign thatd eifnition fairly recently as a Polemic tool. its mroe the iodea of it beign a mere lack of beeif than the Reality thatpropesl it as well.

Lsck of belefi makes no sense giventhat the peoepl who alledgely lack beleif udnrstand the ocnceopt, and still have to do soemthgin withthe concept. Mins do nto allow vaccumes. You have to categorise God somehow.

You either acep thatGdo is real, or you think he is not Real, or you are uncertain. Hwoever, sicn the idea is there, you have to do soemthign with it, reach soem conclusion, and you cna't merley lack beelif, as lack of beelfi is lack of any sort of toguth abotu it at all. COncepts ae THoguths, the concept of God is thede, you have to dosoemthign with that concept.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

by failesmichael -


I never said you were stupid, I said the way you refuse to do any spell checking/proof reading makes you appear uneducated. Because as I've said three times now, its distracting from the "message" you are portraying. And no I go into debates with an open mind, I've changed my stance many times when the evidence is compelling.

You may not have said I was stupid, but Hadmatter did, and you're replyign to a post I left him.

Still, I'll reply.

But you know why my spellign is as it is. There is no Logical reason to brign it back up.

With that said, I've changed my position too, but that doesn't mean much as I'm routinely called closed minded or stubborn. You did that go me, recall.

The reason I dont' think your open minded on this topic is because of how you have approached it. If I am wrong, then show me thaty by addressign the topic honestly. That doens't mean you have to agree with me to shwo you are open minded, but at leats entertain the thought that I am right and accept what I say for the sake of argument, then offer a Reason why ts not. Just dismissing it is rather not compellign in its own Right, and no mater how open Midned you aay you are, you ma still suffer Biases you need to overcome. This is True of us all, so don't take that personally.




I understand and have READ what you've said. I still don't find it compelling, words meaning DO change when a large enough consensus agrees on the said words new definition.


Earlier, you accused me of redefinign terms just to suit my arguments. Well, that's the problem I have wth definign Atheism as a Lack of beleif in gods.

If the only Reason Atheism is defined as a lack of beleif in gods is to use it as a Polemic tool for debates, then why shoudl I accept this Definition as Valid? The Atheists who tell me that Atheism is a mere lack of belefin gods don't themslves use the term to actually mean that, they are only tellign me this is its definition.

The Truth is, virtually all of the Atheists who tell me Atheism is a mere Lack of Beleif also tell me that God does not exist, either in those words, or by usign other words like "God is a FIcional Character" or "GOd is a Myth' or "God is a Fairy Tale".

They want to State as a fact that God doe snot exist, only to then say they merley lack beleif. That's not consistent.

Or look at peopel who use Arguments ot try to prove that God doens't exist, or at leats shwo that God's existence is unlikely. Aythign from Dawkisn Ultimate 747, to Dan Barkers FANG Argument prove my point. If you activley Argue that God does not exist, or as Dawkisn says, most likely doens't eist, then how is that a mere lack of beleif? In roder to make an Argumetn you have to take a position. Lack of beelif is still not possible.

And then there's the position Hadmatter misreprsented from me.

Once you havd been intorduced to a COncept, your Midn has to proccess the COncept. WHile I am not arguin that it is uttelry impossibel to lack beelif in soemthing, and only active disbeleif is possible, as Hadmatter said I did, I am arguign that once you have a conceopt about soemthing you have to do somethign with the conceopt.


If someone calls themselves an Atheist, they have to underdtand what a god is suppsoed to be, and decide they do not beleive this god to be Real.

Lack of eleif is impossible since lakc of beelif means your Midn has no OCncept of the tign you lack beelfi in. It is empty where that thign is concerned. If someone Lacks beleif in a god, they lack any real thoughts abotu a god. Atheists define themselves as Atheists, meanign they do have a concept they are reactign to. Merely beign an Atheist means you have such a Concept.


That's he point. Once an idea is introduced, you can beleive the iea is True, reject the idea as False, or not be certain fo the idea, but your Midn has to procvccess the information, you cannot simply "Lack beleif". You have to make some kidn fo Determination about it.

So it doens't matter that words change definitions, what matters is if the Definition is accurate to the object we are discussing, and he idea of Atheism as a Lack of beleif in a god is not.





Look at the word F@g for instance, since its inception its changed MANY times. This goes the same for Atheism's definition. But this requires more than one person for it to work. Imagine this scenario for instance. A person from the 1500's use's the word f@g. He's using the 1500's meaning: "to tire, decline, or droop." He's using the old outdated meaning, much like your old and outdated meaning of Atheist.



At the same Time, if the New Definition makes no sense, it can be challwenged. In fact, if the New Definition contradicts the way the word is actually used, then the Definition must be challenged.

I challenge the idea of Atheism as a Lack of belef in gods because its logiclaly inconsistent internally, and not consistent with how the word is actually used even by those who define it as such.




Ok let me add on to your example of "lack of belief thing." Because its wrong, its not that John Smith lacks in belief of Peter Jones, he has no knowledge of Peter Jones.



That's kind of my point. A True lack of beleif requires lack of Knowledge. Once a concept is intorduced, the Human Mind has to categorise the COncept.


The Reason Athrism cannot be a lack of Beleif in a god is because the Atheist still has a concept fo what a god is supposed to be, and has decided that this god does not really exist. Lack of beleif is only possible when the concept is abscent.

But if th concept were abscent, then the Man who lacks belefi in a god woudl not call himelf an Atheist because the term "Theist" woudl have no meanign to him.



Knowledge and belief are two completely different things.



Actually, they aren't.


While I am not sayhing Knowledge and beleif are the same thing, they aren't completley diferent either.


A beleif is anythign you think is True. Knowledge is accumulaed information you gather over TIme. Every beleif you have is based on acucmulated information, so our beleifs stem from our knowledge.

Even if we have gotten ou conclusions wrong, or have been given misleadign or false information, our beelifs still stem from it,.

Kbnowelge and beleif ar thus related. In fact, beleifs are contengent on Knowledge.





Now let me add to your concept. Lets say that Michael Evers is a compulsive liar and John knows this. Making Michaels word much easier to dismiss. And just because the concept of Peter exists in Johns mind doesn't mean he can't lack belief in him. Especially if the person who told him so is a compulsive liar. "Absolute lack of belief" IS possible. For instance, I ABSOLUTELY lack belief that there are invisible purple unicorns running around my room. I ABSOLUTELY lack belief that you have a compelling argument.


The problem is, your "Absolute lack of beleif" is really a beleif that these thingss are not True. You can just as easly say you beleive there is no invisible purple Unicorn. In fact, that woudl be mroe accurate.

If you think the Invisibkle Propel Unicorn is not Real, then you do not Lack beleif in the Invisible purple Unicorn, you have descided the Invisible Purple Unicorn is fictitious.


The same applies to God, or even to me. You have descided that God does not exist. That is a beleif. That is not a lack of beleif.

That's kind of my point.


AN Atheist is not somone who merley lacks beleif in a god, an Atheist is someone who has descided that God does not exist.

Just like you have descided the Invisible Purple Univcorn does not exist.




Also you are literally putting words in my mouth and saying I've said things I haven't.


That's a misunderstanding on your part. The post you are replying to is Hadmatters, not yours, an he did say these things.



I haven't misinterpreted your position, it's just not a compelling position.


Hadmatter misrepresented me when he said I laiemd that lack of beelif was utterly impossible, only active disbeleif is.

Though you did misrepesent me when you claimd I said Atheism is itself a Religion.



I haven't even mentioned your position in the past, so congratulations for making stuff up. Also who is making assumptions about who's position now:



Again, re-read Hadmatters post, and understand this post was a eply to his.



"Bu then, misrepresentign my position is commonplace. I really don't expect hoensty from an Online Atheist who wantsd to down Religion."

I don't want to down religion, I know that some people need it. I don't care what people do behind closed doors. What I want to down is religion that is harming the public. I want to down the intolerance it brings on gay marriage and the like. So good job, you've proven your an ass who will make assumptions because people don't agree with you. While also making statements about said person that are untrue. Who's honest now?


Well, given how you seem to have mistaken whose post I was replying to, you may want to rethink you position on things a bit.

By the way, the idea of "Religion harmkng the public" is another problem I have with yoru pwn position. Religion doesnt oppsoe anything, or suppot anything. One of the biggest problems in a debate between Atheism and Religion, and oen of the reasons I reject the silly dichotomy anyway, is how Religion si treated as this one big entity all religious peopel follow. No one follows Religion, though. Peopel follow diffeent Religions. Some peopel are Christians, others are Buddists or Hindus or Shinto, but no oen follows "Religion".


Heck, not even all Christians oppsoe same sex marriage, or anythign else you could list.


Then there's the problem of your oen position not beogn religious. Religion brigns puiblic harm becaue Religion oppsoes yoru social values as an Atheist. Well, from my vantage point, what you're really saign is, society shoudl emrbace your values and beelifs, and all public policies shoudl be based on what youthink ir moral or right. if a Religiosu person objects, they should keep it to themselves behidn cloed doors and have no say in how heir society works.

That undermines any claim to tolerance. Religious peopel dont think of their Reliion in the same way you do. They think of thei religion as Reality. By askign them to hide thei Relgiion behidn closed doors and emrbace the Secular, compelltey nonreligiosu valies you hold to, your in effect tellign them to embrace yoru Religion. You see it as different. You see them as Religiosu and yoruself as Secular, and not Religiosu at all, they see it as you imposing your beelifs onto them and forcign them to comply.


You really aren't tolerant as a result. Peopel have to sumbit to how you think the world works and how you think society shodul wormk, withotu haing a day base don what they Truly beleive in.

How is that promotign tolerance and understanding?





This will be my last message to you. As I've stated it would be and is, a waste of my time to continue this discussion. Especially with someone who will dishonestly put words in others mouth.


Pity then, as that's a complete misunderstandign on yoru part.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

" You may not have said I was stupid, but Hadmatter did"

No, I didn't. You were honest about my words once, why start lying now?

"If the only Reason Atheism is defined as a lack of beleif in gods is to use it as a Polemic tool for debates, then why shoudl I accept this Definition as Valid? The Atheists who tell me that Atheism is a mere lack of belefin gods don't themslves use the term to actually mean that, they are only tellign me this is its definition.

The Truth is, virtually all of the Atheists who tell me Atheism is a mere Lack of Beleif also tell me that God does not exist, either in those words, or by usign other words like "God is a FIcional Character" or "GOd is a Myth' or "God is a Fairy Tale".

They want to State as a fact that God doe snot exist, only to then say they merley lack beleif. That's not consistent."

I don't. And even in your sweeping generalization, you're at least honest enough to use the word "virtually", so some part of you must realize that you're trying to sidestep the fact that there are atheists who simple lack belief and make no positive claim

" Hadmatter misrepresented me when he said I laiemd that lack of beelif was utterly impossible,"

You have expressed this same sentiment multiple times in this post alone.



I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Hadmatter, here is what you said.

Zarove is famous for insisting that anything you can call a "worldview" or "belief system" is actually a "religion". He will do this everything.

But, he also just said it was "impossible" to simply lack a belief in gods and to not actively disbelieve in them, so you know the kid isn't too smart.

Sayign I am not too smart is sayign that I am stupid and its a semantic to say otherwise.

Also, I'm not sidesteppijn the fac tthat soem Athists merley lack beleif, Im acknowledign that soem dont direclty say "There is no God". That doesnt alter my point abotu hwo the Human Kidn works though.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Sayign I am not too smart is sayign that I am stupid and its a semantic to say otherwise.

No, it isn't. Just as saying "not too hot" isn't the same thing as saying "frozen". They are different.

Also, I'm not sidesteppijn the fac tthat soem Athists merley lack beleif, Im acknowledign that soem dont direclty say "There is no God". That doesnt alter my point abotu hwo the Human Kidn works though.

You wrote the following:

"The Atheists who tell me that Atheism is a mere lack of belefin gods don't themslves use the term to actually mean that, they are only tellign me this is its definition."

See? You're only acknowledging that some atheists say it, then you go on to assert that they do not actually mean it.

Just as you have been doing with me in PM, you are attempting to dictate my position, and the position of all atheists who say the same thing.




I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You're beign semantic.

when you said I was not too Briht the lesr emanig si that Im stupid. Lets nto play that game.

Also, Im nto dictatign yoruposition, I'm sayign your position is wrong. I'm sayign thatyou have bouht into an incorect perception fo yoruself and Atheism.

You seem to think that a position taken in a discussionsi the same as ones True beleifs.

reply share

add reply

formatting help