• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In your own words - What does "Atheist" mean?

When in a hole, stop digging.

We already know you are attempting sleight of hand. It is unnecessary to advertise your ignorance.

Huh? How is explaining attempting a slight of hand?
 
Huh? How is explaining attempting a slight of hand?
You are trying to draw attention away from a logical fallacy.

This has already been covered. Why are you asking now?
 
You are trying to draw attention away from a logical fallacy.

This has already been covered. Why are you asking now?

What logical fallacy? I didn't see anyone pointing it out.
 
What logical fallacy? I didn't see anyone pointing it out.
Back way up. You were trying to equate the disbelief in proof with belief in disproof. Go home and work on it. A lot.
 
Back way up. You were trying to equate the disbelief in proof with belief in disproof. Go home and work on it. A lot.

You make no sense.
Let's try this one... if a Scientologist made a claim to you that Xenu exists. He provides some kind of what he thinks is an evidence of Xenu's existence.
Do you:
1. Ask for better evidence
2. If he cannot provide, reject it or wait for better evidence
3. And if there's no evidence as of yet
3.a. Do you DENY the existence of Xenu because of that?
 
You make no sense.
Let's try this one... if a Scientologist made a claim to you that Xenu exists. He provides some kind of what he thinks is an evidence of Xenu's existence.
Do you:
1. Ask for better evidence
2. If he cannot provide, reject it or wait for better evidence
3. And if there's no evidence as of yet
3.a. Do you DENY the existence of Xenu because of that?
Still on the wrong foot. Examine the question before attempting to answer.
 
Okay. Ask me that question again because I don't remember.
Define terms. What is the proper term for a person who believes there is no God or gods?
 
No...plenty of evidence, some merely refuse to accept it...that's 100% the person's fault...

You have a great deal of difficulty with facts.

There is not "plenty of evidence", nor is there plenty of "sufficient evidence".

This is a fact.

If there was actual real evidence the words "faith" and "belief" would not be required.

There is absolutely no tangible proof a god exists. The bible is NOT tangible proof. The Watchtower is even farther from tangible proof.
All you have is extrapolation. On a scale that really won't work for anything else other than religious belief.
All you have is the "god of the gaps". Plus a rather heaping helping of gullibility.
 
You have a great deal of difficulty with facts.

There is not "plenty of evidence", nor is there plenty of "sufficient evidence".

This is a fact.

If there was actual real evidence the words "faith" and "belief" would not be required.

There is absolutely no tangible proof a god exists. The bible is NOT tangible proof. The Watchtower is even farther from tangible proof.
All you have is extrapolation. On a scale that really won't work for anything else other than religious belief.
All you have is the "god of the gaps". Plus a rather heaping helping of gullibility.

For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." Romans 1:20

It can be compared to a a driver who ignores a sign that says “Detour​—Turn Left”...a police officer stops him and starts writing him a ticket but the driver tries to argue that he did not see the sign...his words carry little weight because the sign is in plain view and there is nothing wrong with the driver’s vision...as a driver, the responsibility for seeing and heeding such signs is his as it is with the evidence of God in nature...that “sign” is in plain view and as reasoning creatures, we are capable of seeing it...there is no excuse whatsoever for ignoring it...
 
For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." Romans 1:20

It can be compared to a a driver who ignores a sign that says “Detour​—Turn Left”...a police officer stops him and starts writing him a ticket but the driver tries to argue that he did not see the sign...his words carry little weight because the sign is in plain view and there is nothing wrong with the driver’s vision...as a driver, the responsibility for seeing and heeding such signs is his as it is with the evidence of God in nature...that “sign” is in plain view and as reasoning creatures, we are capable of seeing it...there is no excuse whatsoever for ignoring it...

What is sufficient evidence for you is far and away not sufficient evidence for billions and billions of others.

This is a better scenario than yours.

You're driving down the road. You come across a crime scene in the street. A person has been shot. Just so happens I live on that street. There's a bullet casing sitting in the gutter right in front of my house.
You then determine I must be the murderer. Case closed.
 
What is sufficient evidence for you is far and away not sufficient evidence for billions and billions of others.

This is a better scenario than yours.

You're driving down the road. You come across a crime scene in the street. A person has been shot. Just so happens I live on that street. There's a bullet casing sitting in the gutter right in front of my house.
You then determine I must be the murderer. Case closed.

Yeah, that makes a lotta sense...not...:roll:
 
So let's see if an example of why you should not just simply "go"with the dictionary.

That would be because the dictionary only gives "a" definition, the most commom use of the word. It does not give "the" definition of a word as in the only definition.

The example i would like you to explain is the word "altruism". Look it up in the dictionary and then tell me if you understand why it is "a " definition of the word and not "the "definition of the word.

The problem with the dictionary definition of atheism is that it is given from the perspective of a theist rather than that of the atheist.

Homie, I posted this back in April. Shoulda asked me back then. I would like you to explain why it took you this long to reply. The problem with necroing threads is that I've lost interest in the topic, or learned stuff that has changed my point of view.

So, nah.... ;) :lol:
 
"An atheist is someone who believes that the evidence on the god question is at the same level as the evidence on the werewolf question." :2wave:
 
Yeah, that makes a lotta sense...not...:roll:

That's the point.

You see "evidence" where others don't.
Others see "evidence" where you don't.
Still others don't see any "evidence" at all.

If there is "evidence", then god's doing a pretty crappy job of displaying it.
Or, there's no "evidence" and all you're really doing is stretching to connect some dots that are not actually there.

Aside from the "one true god", do you see "evidence" of other gods anywhere?
 
Wait, what?

Please do me a favor.
Can you define what agnostic means, what atheist means, and what the difference is between them?


Again, the working definition of Atheist, for most atheists, seems to be:

"The lack of sufficient evidence to justify a belief in god or gods."

Or boiled down to the most simple:

"A lack of belief in god/gods."
Please keep in mind it's not a lack. A lack implies a deficiency, like there _should_ be a belief, but there isn't. Think of it like those who have an iron deficiency; they lack iron because the body should have a certain amount to function in a healthy manner.

It's better to say "absence of faith-based belief." And this isn't just a pedantic game in semantics--all theists are atheists in the sense they don't have beliefs in all the other gods except the one(s) they believe exist. They don't lack a belief in, say, Zeus; they simply don't have one.

Sent from my BLA-A09 using Tapatalk
 
This is the problem. That is the definition of Agnostic, not an Atheist. An Atheist holds that there is no God. It's an affirmative position rather than a passive one.

Several members of the conversation object to the distinction. Stating there is no God is a as unproven and unprovable as a statement that there is a God. Hence, stating affirmatively that there is is no God is a statement of faith, making Atheism a religion. They find this offensive, even though the logic is very plain and very simple.
No. Atheists just don't have a belief a god exists. There is nothing there.

Now, if a theist would proffer a definition of a god that can be debated, that might be different. But I _don't_ have faith there are _not_ invisible unicorns between my walls or that there is _not_ a jolly old fat man in the North Pole making toys to be delivered to all children on Christmas Eve. Those simply don't exist. But again, those concepts are defined enough that they can either be falsified or dismissed due to an absence of empirical evidence.

All too often, the god concept is defined, by default, to be unfalsifiable, rendering your point moot.



Sent from my BLA-A09 using Tapatalk
 
We seemed to have changed a few definitions along the way in this aged chain.

"In my own words" theism is defined as a believe in the existence of God or Gods, and that makes atheism as a disbelief in the existence of God or Gods.

Agnostics are the ones with no belief either way, neither proclaiming existence or nonexistence of God or Gods.
 
No. Atheists just don't have a belief a god exists. There is nothing there.

Now, if a theist would proffer a definition of a god that can be debated, that might be different. But I _don't_ have faith there are _not_ invisible unicorns between my walls or that there is _not_ a jolly old fat man in the North Pole making toys to be delivered to all children on Christmas Eve. Those simply don't exist. But again, those concepts are defined enough that they can either be falsified or dismissed due to an absence of empirical evidence.

All too often, the god concept is defined, by default, to be unfalsifiable, rendering your point moot.
If you insist that Atheist is the same as Agnostic, then what do you call the group of people that believe that God does not exist?. It's an important distinction.
 
No. Atheists just don't have a belief a god exists. There is nothing there.

Well said.

I've heard it described using a courtroom analogy: Atheists have found god "Not Guilty" of existing.
 
If you insist that Atheist is the same as Agnostic, then what do you call the group of people that believe that God does not exist?. It's an important distinction.
Oh absolutely not. Agnostic means "without knowledge." They feel there is inadequate information out there for us to know whether a god exists.

Atheist means "without theism," so atheists feel they have enough knowledge to make a a judgment call to rank the Western god concept (as currently defined) up there with Santa and Zeus.

But both groups are intellectually honest enough to review any empirical evidence that might point toward a deity existing. Oftentimes, it's the poorly-defined god concept that both groups can dismiss, just for different reasons.

I don't know anyone who has the belief you describe, that a god doesn't exist. I don't know what group a person like that would fall into. Maybe anti-theist?

Sent from my BLA-A09 using Tapatalk
 
If you insist that Atheist is the same as Agnostic, then what do you call the group of people that believe that God does not exist?. It's an important distinction.

If something does not exist, why would anyone have to step beyond not having the belief it exists to actively believing it doesn't?
 
Back
Top Bottom