I see no value in atheism

[Unification]

wow.
Another one who cannot comprehend the difference.

So you think that removing a not makes it say what you want it to say?
Wonder why you feel the need to remove the not in first place?

I do not believe god exists.
I also do not believe god does not exist.

Your inability to comprehend that fact is your problem, not mine.

I'm not worried about removing a "not," I understand what you're saying, friend. I don't view you as an atheist, I view you just as myself, a conscious human being.

I am aware that an individual cannot know what they individually do not know. Unconscious of conscious experience. That same individual cannot know something without internally experiencing that knowledge. Anything else is a "belief" and "belief" is inevitable. An individual can have all of the head knowledge they like, it's not really knowing unless experienced.

 

[Curious George]

What comment is this in response to?

I think it is response to our lengthy discussion over definitions- at least that is how I took it. It was funny.

 

[leibowde84]

The opposite of faith is doubt, so even if someone has some doubt they are not a theist?

I think it is response to our lengthy discussion over definitions- at least that is how I took it. It was funny.

I still don't get it, but I can't figure out the post before his. But, it's no biggie.

 

[JoStories]

Well that is where we are having trouble understanding each other, so I can only try to clarify. I believe what I believe, it does not strike me as a choice, but as a reaction. If, for example I could chose to believe in God, I would.

Ok. You call it a reaction, I call it a choice. I think we are just dancing around semantics but it's all ok. I respect what you wish to call this.

 

[JoStories]

I will try and be patient...but it requires an effort on your part to be forthright and honest with me....ask me what you like, and I will provide my honest understanding....

Can you explain to me why he or anyone has to be forthright and honest with you, to use your vernacular, when it appears that the only opinions you post here are insults, name calling and attacks. I will never understand a person who likes to debate resorting to these tactics. Poor form.

 

[JoStories]

"kiddies Q and A"?

It seems we have had a few like this of late. All bluster and name calling with no real ability to carry on a civil conversation. I just don't understand it leibowde. I guess I'm getting too damned old.

 

[JoStories]

The term "lack" merely means "to be without". "Lack" simply means "the state of being without". Remember, "lack" is not used here with a negative connotation (which would be absurd unless the Oxford English Dictionary was taking a stance against atheism).

I understand how you see this leibowde but I still don't agree. But hey, that's ok. I still love ya sugar, I think the difference here is two different world views that can't get past their cultural import. Know what I mean

 

[JoStories]

1. I meant what I said. No other atheists have made the claim on this thread thus far. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

2. Just because we have not gotten to an answer thus far, doesn't mean that one is not attainable. I enjoy discussing this topic, and I do improve my understanding by doing so. One thing is for sure, we won't get anywhere if we just drop it. Giving up is not an option for me.

3. This is an entirely semantic argument. If you find it "tiresome", ignore it. You are under no obligation to participate. But, being disrespectful by trying to bully those that are interested in discussing it is childish.

4. Atheism, in its most general form, merely requires an absence of the belief that God exists. That is the subject of this debate and my argument. I provided the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to substantiate my claim. If you have another definition that contradicts the one found from Oxford, please provide it with a link.

Ok. Then let me ask this?.....what comes to the mind of an atheist when they hear the term God? Nothing? Denial? A concept of what that entails? I am not trying to be obtuse. Asking. A serious question here.

 

[JoStories]

Certainly not a "complete absence of belief", but that is not relevent. They have a complete absence of "the belief that God exists", which is required for theism. Someone who "believes that God might exist" is not a theist, as they "lack the belief that God exists". I would say that a vast majority of atheists hold the belief that God might exist, but they are still atheists because they lack the belief that God exists.

Here we totally disagree. I see this person as agnostic or more to the point, just sitting on the proverbial fence. They don't lack the belief, to use your words. Nor do they have belief. They exist in a middle ground.

 

[Sapiens]

Ok. Then let me ask this?.....what comes to the mind of an atheist when they hear the term God? Nothing? Denial? A concept of what that entails? I am not trying to be obtuse. Asking. A serious question here.

What comes to mind when you hear the word "Jabberwocky?"

Same sort of nonsense.

 

[JoStories]

The definition does not say "a belief in God's existence that is lacking". If it did, I would agree with you. However, it says that an atheist is one who "lacks a belief in the existence of God". There is no indication that it is referring to a "lack" of evidence or insufficient belief. It is defined in this context as being without the belief that God exists.

IMO, "lacks a belief" implies choice to lack that belief. I don't believe that requires a lack of belief in evidence either, just a lack meaning there is no belief in God or whatever the concept in question might be.

 

[JoStories]

But, aren't you trying to add in a requirement to the definition of "atheism" that isn't already present. Namely, that to "lack" something, there is a requirement that one understands it as a concept?

I don't know about willamena, but I'm not. I just see this differently I think. There can be very few people left on earth that in some way have not heard the concept.. That means they have an understanding of that concept. That understanding then either leads to rejection or acceptance or further inquiry. IMO, of course,

 

[Nakosis]

Nope, I am with you completely. As long as you recognize that your definition is based on your own personal whim, I am with you. While we can spend days arguing about which definition is "better" or " more reasoned,"
we will need to have a definition in order to discuss issues. My challenge is to the people who assert atheist must mean...

What?! Well ok, but I had such an epic argument planned...

 

[outhouse]

If one sentence cannot describe atheism why are people content with one sentence descriptions of atheism?

We are not.

A few theist here do not want to grasp the current definition. We are debating against their personal opinion.

 

[Willamena]

huh? Now I am more confused.

Is there any truth to a planet you've never heard of orbiting a star you know nothing about harbouring life just like ours? More significantly, is it false?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you explain to me why he or anyone has to be forthright and honest with you, to use your vernacular, when it appears that the only opinions you post here are insults, name calling and attacks. I will never understand a person who likes to debate resorting to these tactics. Poor form.

Jo, you have my attention as you intended.

Have you actually read each and every post of mine and each and every response from the atheists? If not, you yourself are dishonest in attacking me without due research, I suspect you have made this post on account of just noting the outrage expressed in the responses from the culprits, but without noting the insults coming my way. I am one person, the atheists insulting me many. Sure, I've given as well as I've taken...and that's what the atheists in general do not like...they like to insult non atheist and religious folk incessantly, but are outraged when it is returned in kind...

So did you mean to be ironic on purpose? ...I had not engaged you in any way until this point,,,and our first contact is this unprovoked insult from you...this behavior is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. And btw, it seems your ego sense of self importance is ridiculously inflated in other ways too, your use of huge and bolded text makes you look a fringe type mentally....why can't you come down to size and show me you humble side?

Thank you Jo for your attention, I hope you understand I have no desire to offend you beyond this post...and nor do I wish to be insulted by you beyond this...all the best....

 

[JoStories]

Jo, you have my attention as you intended.

Have you actually read each and every post of mine and each and every response from the atheists? If not, you yourself are dishonest in attacking me without due research, I suspect you have made this post on account of just noting the outrage expressed in the responses from the culprits, but without noting the insults coming my way. I am one person, the atheists insulting me many. Sure, I've given as well as I've taken...and that's what the atheists in general do not like...they like to insult non atheist and religious folk incessantly, but are outraged when it is returned in kind...

So did you mean to be ironic on purpose? ...I had not engaged you in any way until this point,,,and our first contact is this unprovoked insult from you...this behavior is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. And btw, it seems your ego sense of self importance is ridiculously inflated in other ways too, your use of huge and bolded text makes you look a fringe type mentally....why can't you come down to size and show me you humble side?

Thank you Jo for your attention, I hope you understand I have no desire to offend you beyond this post...and nor do I wish to be insulted by you beyond this...all the best....

1. Once again, I am legally blind, hence the large font for my use.
2. I have read ALL the posts in this entire thread and have seen that both sides are at fault. We actually had this debate about the use of name calling and ridicule in debate not that long ago, which I'm firmly against as a professor and person who likes the art of debate. I find it has no place in a civil discourse. I have seen those who were short with you and how short you have been over the last 10 or so pages of posts. I note that you more often insult without trying to defend your position.
3. As for me, sir, I have little to no ego and tend to be kind to almost all here. I'm a Buddhist by practice and try very hard to follow those credos. In real life, you would find me quiet, reposed and tending to think often and long before responding to queries. I was merely trying to point out that being civil here seems to be a hard thing to find. I apologize if you were offended by my post.

 

[JoStories]

We are not.

A few theist here do not want to grasp the current definition. We are debating against their personal opinion.

I totally understand your position outhouse, I have read all of everyone's posts and like leibowde, I find the thread fascinating. I simply don't agree wi everything you are all saying about it. But hey, that's ok my friend. You are the one who is an atheist. You call it or rather, define it any way you like dear.

 

[outhouse]

You call it or rather, define it any way you like dear.

My only "real" point here. Is that the definition of implicit atheism is being ignored for no good reason.

I tend to follow academia here to a T using the wiki page to defend my position.

People that are not theist, are atheist. A person who does not believe in a deity is an atheist.

One does not have to reject theism, to not follow theism.

 

[Willamena]

It's not being ignored, so much as it's just not the topic of conversation.