Threads about Atheism and what it is.

[ChristineM]

Not what I said nor implied. As long as religious people viciously attack non-believers you better not like them. Best to ignore arrogant people IMO.
If you call all "non-religious" people also a religion called "non-religious" or whatever. It will be one of the biggest religions with 1.2 billion.

I have been viciously attacked by religious people (bombed) but i do not dislike religious people in general. However i will try to pount out their errors. For some reason they treat this as as attack

I would prefer the label group, religion it too hung up with superman powers

 

[ChristineM]

What you are doing is making the word 'know', lose its inherent meaning, which is what we personally believe we know.

So, no, you are actually making the word meaningless, and at this point, it probably already is meaningless, anyway, so who cares.

Please look up the definition of know. I strictly adhere to that definition

To know is not to believe

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why, why can't you people just read the dictionary before asking questions that only expose your ignorance of a subject.

Atheism is not a belief system, Atheism is a position on belief, the lack of belief in a deity.

Atheism is not a world view, although atheists hold world views that are similar, atheism is still just a position of lack of belief.

Is atheism a science?

wut?

Atheism claims there are no gods,

wrong again, anti theism claims this, and those that identify as Anti theist are also classified as Atheists. Which I can remotely see how it might be confusing.

Atheism is a position on belief or the lack of beliefs.

How can so many people get it wrong so consistently.

just a quick search negates the need of all of these arguments/

You are absolutely correct. ALL atheists share a lack of belief in god(s). Some atheists are anti-theists and take it a step further and assert that there are is no god(s). Anti-theists are a subset of atheists. Attempting to define an entire set using attributes of one of its subsets is simply ludicrous. That's like stating that all beer drinkers drink beer and some beer drinkers also drink whiskey, therefore all beer drinkers drink whiskey. Yet many theists attempt to do so all of the time.

 

[Jumi]

It is a bad sign that in general atheists are easily annoyed.

I'm not sure if they're more easily annoyed than other people. I just think it's sad when people make effort to bully others no matter what gods they believe in.

 

[Desert Snake]

Please look up the definition of know. I strictly adhere to that definition

To know is not to believe

That definition makes no sense, and is an absurdity of word usage.

• person y knows that there are god deity
• person z knows that there aren't god deity

Both of these are personal beliefs, informed by what they believe, they know.

 

[Kenny]

I'm confused again,
why would theists care whether or not athiests believe in any or all `Gods` ?
The cap is for the theists !

We don't. It is usually the atheists (as the OP suggests) that gets worked up

 

[ChristineM]

That definition makes no sense, and is an absurdity of word usage.

• person y knows that there are god deity
• person z knows that there aren't god deity

Both of these are personal beliefs, informed by what they believe, they know.

The definition is the definition, if you don't like it have a word with the dictionary compilers to get it changed.

One is based on belief

The other is based on evidence

 

[ChristineM]

We don't. It is usually the atheists (as the OP suggests) that gets worked up

So why are you guys constantly trying to diss us or convert us?

 

[Desert Snake]

The definition is the definition, if you don't like it have a word with the dictionary compilers to get it changed.

One is based on belief

The other is based on evidence

This makes no sense. Beliefs can be evidenced, or not. In the religious understanding, evidenced belief isn't better than non evidenced belief, so, the import here, is the belief, not whether the person believes they know, or not.

Your usage makes the word know mean nothing.

Which, like I said, probably doesn't matter, at this point, since it generally is meaningless.

 

[LuisDantas]

Some people hold different conceptions about what constitutes a "belief", "faith", or even "truth", let alone "belief in a deity".

We could probably benefit from some form of standard test for concepts and truth models, so that people might answer it and communicate some of their models to each other.

 

[ChristineM]

This makes no sense. Beliefs can be evidenced, or not. In the religious understanding, evidenced belief isn't better than non evidenced belief, so, the import here, is the belief, not whether the person believes they know, or not.

Your usage makes the word know mean nothing.

Which, like I said, probably doesn't matter, at this point, since it generally is meaningless.

So provide evidence of god or cite any instance where evidence of god has been put forward.

Consider if such evidence is put forward faith ends as it becomes knowledge.

I have provided the definition, i abide by the definition. Your misunderstanding of the definition (deliberate or otherwise) seems to be the stumbling block here.

 

[ChristineM]

Some people hold different conceptions about what constitutes a "belief", "faith", or even "truth", let alone "belief in a deity".

We could probably benefit from some form of standard test for concepts and truth models, so that people might answer it and communicate some of their models to each other.

I use dictionary definitions. Seems some don't

 

[LuisDantas]

Dictionaries are useful mainly once a true, solid consensual understanding is settled.

Apparently that is not the case for these subject matters.

 

[Desert Snake]

So provide evidence of god or cite any instance where evidence of god has been put forward.

...why? I don't care if you believe that you know, that there aren't god deity.

Consider if such evidence is put forward faith ends as it becomes knowledge.

I don't think you understand where your word usage, is going. A person can always say that they aren't convinced by an argument, and ultimately you have two opposing viewpoints each claiming to 'know', their position. Hence , your word usage makes your word meaning, meaningless.

I have provided the definition, i abide by the definition. Your misunderstanding of the definition (deliberate or otherwise) seems to be the stumbling block here.

Your definition is sort of hilarious.

 

[stvdv]

I have been viciously attacked by religious people (bombed) but i do not dislike religious people in general. However i will try to pount out their errors. For some reason they treat this as as attack
I would prefer the label group, religion it too hung up with superman powers

No, that is the same with me, that's why I said "better not like those who viciously attack you". I kick them out of my life immediately, otherwise I might dislike them after a while. They are not worth to stay in my memory as a "dislike". I rather have "likes" in my brain cells.

I did try for 4 years in Baptist Church to point out "their errors" make them listen to logic and common sense. But I have learned by experience that religious people who demean other thinking humans suffer from an incurable disease called "arrogant superiority complex". I read once this is incurable. I could not believe this. I do have quite good reasoning power. But really now i believe it. Aha, NO now I "know" it. They can not be cured of their ignorance. Of course the group I tried it on was only 10.000 so I'm not sure if that counts as scientific proof. But IMHO "I just know for myself now".

Aha you mean with "Freedom of Religion"
"superman powers". I liked superman film, so for me superman is quite nice. For me religion is too hung up with Proselytizing+++
I have been lucky. My parents got fed up with church, so i never was taught many stupid dogma's. And then I found my own Belief System. Only past 6 years I really tried to be open to religions, but now I know that this is very unhealthy people for me. Even being around people who judge my feelings mentally I can feel it now. They can fool themselves, but they can't fool me. And I can't fool myself either. Those people make me sick, really sick. Of course I can block those emotions, but I don't want to block my feelings, so now I block these people instead.

 

[LuisDantas]

This makes no sense. Beliefs can be evidenced, or not. In the religious understanding, evidenced belief isn't better than non evidenced belief, so, the import here, is the belief, not whether the person believes they know, or not.

Your usage makes the word know mean nothing.

Which, like I said, probably doesn't matter, at this point, since it generally is meaningless.

I don't know what you mean by a religious understanding, but evidenced belief has very clear advantages, particularly if it means to be convincing.

 

[ChristineM]

...why? I don't care if you believe that you know, that there aren't god deity.



I don't think you understand where your word usage, is going. A person can always say that they aren't convinced by an argument, and ultimately you have two opposing viewpoints each claiming to 'know', their position. Hence , your word usage makes your word meaning, meaningless.


Your definition is sort of hilarious.

You seem to me making an awful lot of noise for one who doesn't care.

Please do not insult my intelligence be cause a dictionary definition does not massage your ego.

Not my definition but that of the OED and other dictionaries

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't know what you mean by a religious understanding, but evidenced belief has very clear advantages, particularly if it means to be convincing.

Traditionally, evidence isn't valued more, in some religious belief systems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's etymology would show numerous different historical usages which is why there is a debate over its meaning

I sometimes wonder why there's a tendency to do that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If Obama created it, Trump will find a way to kill it.

Thank God.