"Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?"

Originally posted by KellyJay
You should come back to this post in a week or two and see how you prove me point.

Well no, because for that to happen I would need to have the slightest clue what your point is.

Your grammar is so bad that your meaning is lost in a jumbled word salad.

You need to take the time to post more coherent thoughts before I am even going to know what
your point is let alone accept it.

You seem to post with the assumption that everyone already knows what you are talking about
and can thus understand your half formed thoughts... We don't and I can't.

If you want to prove your point then [assuming it's actually correct] you are going to do the hard
work of actually writing coherent and thought out posts that actually prove it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Some atheists?
To whom do you refer?

I was quite explicit. Anyone who has not heard of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Then you're agnostic, not an atheist.

No, I'm not agnostic, I do not believe that nothing can be known about god. I do believe that a lot of people claim to know a lot about god without actually knowing anything, but that's a rather different thing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]They can't find sufficient evidence or reason to become convinced that such beings exist.
Ah.
So they're convinced God does not exist.
At least, they're operating under that assumption.
Makes sense.[/b]

I am most certainly not operating under the assumption that god does not exist. I very much hope that he does, and that after my expiry on this mortal plane I might continue to exist elsewhere.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I am most certainly not operating under the assumption that god does not exist. I very much hope that he does, and that after my expiry on this mortal plane I might continue to exist elsewhere.

I am hoping there is a God who will reward atheists in the afterlife.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was quite explicit. Anyone who has not heard of God.

You cannot find such a person.

Originally posted by googlefudge

The agnostic has a belief: [b][THEY] cannot make up [THEIR] mind and therefore operates under the assumption that gods do[] not exist.

Fixed that for you...

No, an agnostic person may assume that gods do not exist, or they may believe that they do
exist but don't claim to know that they do or claim that it cannot be ...[text shortened]... spute many centuries ago.
Only crazy people or liars claim otherwise... You are both of course.[/b]

Fixed that for you...
No, you "fixed that" for yourself.
It wasn't wrong and is clear to every reader.

No it's really nothing like that at all.
Oh.
Ok, lets go with a lottery example and show why it doesn't prove your point.
I guess it was after all.

The person who received information of matching numbers is akin to a person who hears it is possible to have a relationship with God.
This person knows lotteries exist and is at least persuaded winners are chosen.
Upon hearing of the matching numbers, he doesn't believe his luck whether in joy or dread.
If he does not go to collect his winnings, he has made a decision about the outcome--- whether he fails to collect out of sheer disbelief of otherwise is inconsequential at this point: he has decided on a course of action.

There are an infinite number of things I am not doing right now.
I hope you're insightful enough to see how this doesn't apply.
Those things you are not doing are not under consideration.
The split second you begin to consider any one of them or all of them, you are forced to make a decision about it/them.

Not scientifically.
Actually, the discussion has been centered on two questions which are exclusively scientific in nature.

Of course there are morons such as yourself with all kinds of crazy ideas, but that doesn't make any of them valid or worthy of consideration.
Your lack of curiosity is not an indictment on those with an open mind.

The question of whether the Earth is flat or not was settled beyond reasonable dispute many centuries ago.
Yes: the thinkers of man's history always held it to be a stationary stage around which the universe revolved.
The geocentric model held sway for centuries.
Even when a political movement hastened the heliocentric model, there were many dissenting voices which argued against the same.
Today, we can see that for hundreds of years the pseudo-scientific description of the earth as a globe simply doesn't pass the most elementary test: why can we not detect any curvature?

I just might be crazy and I consider every man a liar, so you might be close in your assessment.
That being said, neither you nor anyone else has been able to answer the two questions, so I'm not completely sold on the crazy part just yet.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Which is why I asked for clarification.
It is assumed that a person lacking in self-awareness or self-consciousness hasn't formed enough mental acuity to have a frame of reference for anything beyond the physically-dependent sensory activities.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well no, because for that to happen I would need to have the slightest clue what your point is.

Your grammar is so bad that your meaning is lost in a jumbled word salad.

You need to take the time to post more coherent thoughts before I am even going to know what
your point is let alone accept it.

You seem to post with the assumption that every ...[text shortened]... to do the hard
work of actually writing coherent and thought out posts that actually prove it.

You like having it both ways, you pronounce I'm wrong, then you claim I cannot be
understood. If this is how you view Atheism I can see why you believe Atheism is as you
describe, it means what you want when you want it to mean something else it does.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Which is why I asked for clarification.
It is assumed that a person lacking in self-awareness or self-consciousness hasn't formed enough mental acuity to have a frame of reference for anything beyond the physically-dependent sensory activities.

It doesn't matter. Such a person is not a theist. Therefore they would be an atheist.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You cannot find such a person.

I wasn't going to. But I believe they do exist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You like having it both ways, you pronounce I'm wrong, then you claim I cannot be
understood. If this is how you view Atheism I can see why you believe Atheism is as you
describe, it means what you want when you want it to mean something else it does.

I have written two posts to you since that train wreck you expect me to understand
and in both of them I made it abundantly clear that I had not the foggiest what point
you were trying to make. I am not trying to have it both ways, I am entirely consistently
having it one way.

Your post was an incoherent mess and I have no clue what your point is or was.

And my definition of atheist and atheism is utterly consistent and clear and has been so
for years. If you believe that my use of the word is inconsistent then I can only conclude
you have read or understood nothing I have posted on the subject.

Theist means a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Atheist means a person who is not a theist, and who therefore lacks belief in the existence of gods.

I have been saying this for years and years, unchanging and unwavering, the very definition of
consistency.

If you can't see that then you are simply to illiterate to communicate with.

Originally posted by rwingett
It doesn't matter. Such a person is not a theist. Therefore they would be an atheist.

Not self-described nor understood.
You're not making the atheists look very thoughtful.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wasn't going to. But I believe they do exist.

Your belief is ill-placed.
History teaches that man has always had a spiritual mind which understands deity.
It's a good thing you didn't go looking: you would have wasted a great deal of time.