Lack of belief in gods.

[Willamena]

Exactly, How is that different than Santa Clause? What is your reason for forming a disbelief about him, while he is just a collection of words? Or belief in gawd, while he is just a collection of words?

Is my authority not enough? What if I tell you emphatically that I made it all up and he does not exist? Will you form a belief then?

Santa Claus is much more than a collection of words: Santa brings us tangible presents, which he places under the tree while simultaneously drinking room temperature milk and eating stale cookies. How is that the same as whatshisname (scrolls up) Thomas Cruz?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I believe he does not exist. The rest was rhetorical was it not? I figured you could follow.

Well, i can follow no problem, if you lead somewhere. But be serious here. I asked 3 questions, you answered one and did not specify which. How do you figure I can follow that?

I figure you can follow that reasoning? Thanks!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Santa Claus is much more than a collection of words: Santa brings us tangible presents, which he places under the tree while simultaneously drinking room temperature milk and eating stale cookies. How is that the same as whatshisname (scrolls up) Thomas Cruz?

Seriously, I gave you tangible details about Thomas, just as tangible as your examples about Santa? How is it not the same?

Santa brings presents.
Thomas has kids.
Santa eats milk.
Thomas builds houses for a living.

 

[Willamena]

Seriously, I gave you tangible details about Thomas, just as tangible as your examples about Santa? How is it not the same?

Santa brings presents.
Thomas has kids.
Santa eats milk.
Thomas builds houses for a living.

I must have missed that post.

I do believe in Thomas. I'll give him about 45%.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It seems to me these days that the religion with the mo


I have doubts that we'd ever be able to get rid of religion. I think spirituality is an integral part of humanity and that simply trying to get rid of it wouldn't really work.

I agree that getting rid of religion would be a practice impossibility in the foreseeable future. That premise does not justify any conclusion concerning the legitimacy of any religion or that it (or spirituality) is integral to humanity.

I do not believe the goal would be to get rid of religion, but to increase tolerance to the right to believe what you believe, and tolerance to the responsibility to be questioned and challenged on those beliefs.

Human sacrifice never stopped until those beliefs were challenged.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I must have missed that post.

I do believe in Thomas. I'll give him about 45%.

Do you;
Believe he exists,
or do you not believe he exists?

Is there a third possibility? Maybe you hold neither belief?

I must have missed that post.

I do believe in Thomas. I'll give him about 45%.

LOL, even after I emphatically assured you that I made it all up?

 

[Willamena]

Do you;
Believe he exists,
or do you not believe he exists?

I can't say, as I missed those "details" you were talking about. And, in either case, I wouldn't say, because I'm an anti-realist.

Is there a third possibility? Maybe you hold neither belief?

That would be a given, provided I recognize another belief.

LOL, even after I emphatically assured you that I made it all up?

As I said, I missed that post.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I can't say, as I missed those "details" you were talking about. And, in either case, I wouldn't say, because I'm an anti-realist.


That would be a given, provided I recognize another belief.


As I said, I missed that post.

Ok. I'll quite picking on you (i.e. asking for clarification). Have a great day!

 

[Curious George]

Well, i can follow no problem, if you lead somewhere. But be serious here. I asked 3 questions, you answered one and did not specify which. How do you figure I can follow that?

I figure you can follow that reasoning? Thanks!

Was that last bit like a sentence with an increase in tone to denote a question, lol.

Anyway, cheers it was obviously a misunderstanding. I honestly thought you would follow. Certainly not a reason to get testy. The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is entailed by the first. And the answer to the third, which I am sure is just a point that you are trying to underscore by asking a question is, sure. It would certainly be possible to neither believe the man exists nor believe the man does not exist. For instance, my refrigerator neither believes the man exists nor believes the man does not exist.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Your argument was literally: we define atheism as not theism because we define atheism as not theism.

Ok, not everyone has strong reading comprehension I suppose.

Let me spell out what my 'argument' was in that post. Atheist is a word, with a definition, and people that are aware of that definition use the word properly (as oposed to those that don't)

A - lack of

Theism - belief in a deity

Atheism - the lack of belief in a deity.

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".

This isn't exactly a well kept secret. You do have dictionaries where you live right?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Was that last bit like a sentence with an increase in tone to denote a question, lol.

LOL actually there was a question mark to denote a question lol.[/quote]

Anyway, cheers it was obviously a misunderstanding. I honestly thought you would follow. Certainly not a reason to get testy. The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is entailed by the first. And the answer to the third, which I am sure is just a point that you are trying to underscore by asking a question is, sure. It would certainly be possible to neither believe the man exists nor believe the man does not exist. For instance, my refrigerator neither believes the man exists nor believes the man does not exist.[/QUOTE]LOL, but what about the stew in the refrigerator? Cheers!

 

[Curious George]

Ok, not everyone has strong reading comprehension I suppose.

Let me spell out what my 'argument' was in that post. Atheist is a word, with a definition, and people that are aware of that definition use the word properly (as oposed to those that don't)

A - lack of

Theism - belief in a deity

Atheism - the lack of belief in a deity.

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".

This isn't exactly a well kept secret. You do have dictionaries where you live right?

I see. So your argument isn't "that's what the word means," rather it's: it is better to use the definition as follows from the etymology.

In that case let us examine a little closer.

Atheos =not God. Ism=belief or state; however since atheism as people are so quick to point out tracks with theism (god belief) so with atheism we get not-god belief. Or more appropriately belief of no gods. Incidentally, this does describe my views. How about yours?

 

[Curious George]

LOL actually there was a question mark to denote a question lol.

LOL, but what about the stew in the refrigerator? Cheers!

That is what I have to say about the stew.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

That is what I have to say about the stew.

LMAO! you have no idea how much I needed something like that right now.. I wish I could give two ratings.

 

[Curious George]

LMAO! you have no idea how much I needed something like that right now.. I wish I could give two ratings.

LOL, I was going to just put "it wanna dip my balls in it" but I figured I better explain the allusion, otherwise everyone would have been like: what the he'll is wrong with that guy"

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

yea, you don't wanna know what happened to the last girl (much less feller) that asked me if I wann dip my balls in it!

Holy SH

 

[Thumper]

I see. So your argument isn't "that's what the word means," rather it's: it is better to use the definition as follows from the etymology.

In that case let us examine a little closer.

Atheos =not God. Ism=belief or state; however since atheism as people are so quick to point out tracks with theism (god belief) so with atheism we get not-god belief. Or more appropriately belief of no gods. Incidentally, this does describe my views. How about yours?

It's when someone transposes "not-god belief" to "belief of no gods" that they end up with a faulty assumption. Couldn't it just as appropriately be "NOT god-belief?"

That is, why assume that atheism should be parsed as atheos-ism instead of a-theism? (Isn't word play fun?)

A quick hint here -- if someone is not sure about which definition is more appropriate, why not actually listen to real atheists who say it's "a-theism."

 

[Thief]

It's when someone transposes "not-god belief" to "belief of no gods" that they end up with a faulty assumption. Couldn't it just as appropriately be "NOT god-belief?"

That is, why assume that atheism should be parsed as atheos-ism instead of a-theism? (Isn't word play fun?)

A quick hint here -- if someone is not sure about which definition is more appropriate, why not actually listen to real atheists who say it's "a-theism."

we've done this.....beyond belief and reason.....

Can't take the declaration out of it

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I see. So your argument isn't "that's what the word means," rather it's: it is better to use the definition as follows from the etymology.

In that case let us examine a little closer.

Atheos =not God. Ism=belief or state; however since atheism as people are so quick to point out tracks with theism (god belief) so with atheism we get not-god belief. Or more appropriately belief of no gods. Incidentally, this does describe my views. How about yours?

Not more appropriately though..More narrowly. Sure, you might believe there are no gods, and you are an atheist. However, you are still atheist if you just haven't thought about it, haven't heard about it, have heard about it and remain unconvinced etc.

Babies are all atheist until such a time as some evil person brainwashes and conditions them to believe in nonsense.

 

[Thief]

Not more appropriately though..More narrowly. Sure, you might believe there are no gods, and you are an atheist. However, you are still atheist if you just haven't thought about it, haven't heard about it, have heard about it and remain unconvinced etc.

Babies are all atheist until such a time as some evil person brainwashes and conditions them to believe in nonsense.

omg.....here it is again.....

pasting labels on babies.....