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

Originally posted by googlefudge
We really don't.

Psalm 14:1 "For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Here is my complete and exhaustive debate ending answer [yet again] on this topic.
This subject is not up for debate, this is the answer, deal with it.
Don't you just love answers which cannot be questioned, which have become dogma?
Fortunately, such is not the case for the question at hand.
As long as human history continues, we will have discu ...[text shortened]... ons would face the same censure as the "LOB" atheist.
That, and some form of deserved ridicule.[/b]

Kind of like your stance on a flat Earth.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Don't you just love answers which cannot be questioned, which have become dogma?

See, this is the thing, what you are stupidly arguing about is the definition of what an atheist is.

This is stupid, because: A) this definition is not up to you to decide or weigh in on as you are not an atheist
yourself [this being the label of a gro ...[text shortened]... e they do not have sufficient reason to think otherwise.

YOU are the one asking for ridicule.

You're absolutely right, of course.
It's emphatically NOT up to me to determine the meaning of words.
That is for society to determine.
The current (and ancient) meaning should hold sway, unless and until another meaning gains enough currency to change the course of the tide.
Much like the words "gay" or "faggot," for instance.
Unfortunately for your little club, the term "atheist" does not mean "lack of belief" (which, as demonstrated, is a non-sensical phrase), but rather "does not believe/rejection of."
The latter is the commonly held definition, as much as it is also the ancient meaning.
Of course you would prefer this to be different than what it is, but the argument itself proves otherwise.
After all, were this the traditional view, what would we be arguing about otherwise?

Word salad notwithstanding, you cannot argue with logic.
And logic stands steadfastly against your moronic posturing and transparent word play.

Your complaint about non-commital positions taken by any thinking person is laughable.
They are decidedly NOT lacking beleif as much as they are lacking exposure enough to formulate an opinion.

You're going to have to do much, much better than this, son.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
the term "atheist" does not mean "lack of belief" (which, as demonstrated, is a non-sensical phrase), but rather "does not believe/rejection of."

I've heard you make this claim before but I don't think you have "demonstrated" it, despite what you may think. Could you just state succinctly why you think it is "non-sensical" ~ without smothering it with haughty waffle and attempted message board put downs ~ and in so doing, perhaps do your stance some justice. So. The idea that one can have a "lack of belief", according to you, is "non-sensical" because ... ?

Unfortunately for your little club, the term "atheist" does not mean "lack of belief" (which, as demonstrated, is a non-sensical phrase), but rather "does not believe/rejection of."

"Does not believe" is the same as "lack of belief". It does not mean "believes the opposite."

Originally posted by FMF
I've heard you make this claim before but I don't think you have "demonstrated" it, despite what you may think. Could you just state succinctly why you think it is "non-sensical" ~ without smothering it with haughty waffle and attempted message board put downs ~ and in so doing, perhaps do your stance some justice. So. The idea that one can have a "lack of belief", according to you, is "non-sensical" because ... ?

It is non-sensical because it lacks mooring in reality, is not tethered to logic.
Is that enough non-haughty-waffling and attempted-message-board-put-downs for you?
Or do you need more?
Instead of relying on ol' opaque Freaky, perhaps you can spotlight a singular field of thought which expresses itself in the negative.
Good luck with that!

Originally posted by rwingett
"Does not believe" is the same as "lack of belief". It does not mean "believes the opposite."

Stutter much?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is non-sensical because it lacks mooring in reality, is not tethered to logic.

This is simply an assertion and you haven't demonstrated it to be true. I am asking you to explain your assertion.

Originally posted by FMF
This is simply an assertion and you haven't demonstrated it to be true. I am asking you to explain your assertion.

I merely point you to what has already been posted.
Forgive me for not wanting to repeat myself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I merely point you to what has already been posted.
Forgive me for not wanting to repeat myself.

I don't believe you have demonstrated that your assertion is true, despite your claim that you have. If you actually did demonstrate it, you wouldn't be repeating yourself.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Someone apparently needs to be the person playing whack-a-mole with people idiotically
and offensively trying to redefine most atheists out of existence and apparently it's going to
be me.

This is a done and dusted completely worn out topic where no debate is possible.

So there is nothing left to do but smack idiots like GB over the head till t ...[text shortened]... given by all the major atheist organisations.
It's thus the only one that is actually correct.

And no, it is THE answer.

If yours is THE answer then every 'atheist' who believes there is no god is not a real atheist, which also means you are not a real atheist because you admitted that you believe there is no god.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]And no, it is THE answer.

If yours is THE answer then every 'atheist' who believes there is no god is not a real atheist, which also means you are not a real atheist because you admitted that you believe there is no god.[/b]

🙄

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Here is my complete and exhaustive debate ending answer [yet again] on this topic.
This subject is not up for debate, this is the answer, deal with it.
Don't you just love answers which cannot be questioned, which have become dogma?
Fortunately, such is not the case for the question at hand.
As long as human history continues, we will have discu ...[text shortened]... ons would face the same censure as the "LOB" atheist.
That, and some form of deserved ridicule.[/b]

'Too, the atheist so enamored of this absurd descriptor is at odds with literally every other facet of life as it pertains to thinking. No one outside of the atheist describes their thought process in the negative: the entirety of academic thought is centered on progression of ideas from one to the most current--- anyone who proclaimed their current position as a lack of belief in the previous positions would face the same censure as the "LOB" atheis t.That, and some form of deserved ridicule.'

A risky paragraph to post old chap. Would only require minor adaption to apply to 'Flat Earthers.' (If i had the inclination).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'Too, the atheist so enamored of this absurd descriptor is at odds with literally every other facet of life as it pertains to thinking. No one outside of the atheist describes their thought process in the negative: the entirety of academic thought is centered on progression of ideas from one to the most current--- anyone who proclaimed their current ...[text shortened]... chap. Would only require minor adaption to apply to 'Flat Earthers.' (If i had the inclination).

It would be risky...
If the expression stopped at what something isn't.
Those who are exposing the globe model as inaccurate are also offering a substitute shape.
To match what the atheist claims, the FE movement would need to declare something akin to either the earth has no shape or possibly a lack of belief in the earth's existence.

Thanks for looking out, though!

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]And no, it is THE answer.

If yours is THE answer then every 'atheist' who believes there is no god is not a real atheist, which also means you are not a real atheist because you admitted that you believe there is no god.[/b]

I thought that given your arguing for a flat Earth there was no longer any statement you could
make so stupid that it could surprise me...

Apparently I was wrong.

Someone who believes that a claim is false, also by definition lacks belief that that claim is true.
I explained it all with a diagram for those who like looking at pictures.

Me, some time ago...

A THEIST is a person who has a belief, [a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist.

An ATHEIST is any person who is NOT a theist, ie they LACK a belief that a god or gods exist,
or believe that gods don't exist.

WHY these people believe that gods exist, or lack a belief that gods exist, or believe that gods don't exist...

IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DEFINITION OF THE WORDS.

These definitions say absolutely nothing whatsoever about who is right, they say nothing else about
what these people believe, or how valid their reasoning is.

The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not they believe in the existence of gods. Period.

Whether these people have any views on the supernatural, agree with your bizarre definition of it,
share your warped 'logical reasoning', or agree or disagree on anything else, is irrelevant.

For clarity, lets do this with explicitly with set theory.

For all those idiots who otherwise complain, lets start with the set P, the set of all people.
The qualifying criteria, "being a person". [thus ruling out all the 'your definition applies to rocks' nonsense]

Now lets define a sub-set of P, that lies entirely within P so that the members of this new set are all also
members of P.
This set we will call T. The set of all theists.
The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] 'who believes [has a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist'.

Now lets define a new set A. The set of all atheists.
This set will be defined as "All the members of P that are NOT members of T".
The qualifying criteria, "being a person" [P] "who does not believe [have a firm conviction] that a god or gods exist"


To represent this graphically, we take a piece of blank A4 paper. [landscape].

The entirety of this piece of paper represents the set P, the set of all people.

Inside one half of this piece of paper we draw a circle. This circle represents the set T, the set of all theists.

Everything on the paper OUTSIDE of that circle, is Not-T, [~T] and is the set A, the set of all atheists. [P but ~T]

We can now add in more details.

In the other half of the A4 piece of paper [in the set A] we can draw another circle [that does not overlap with the
first circle] that represents the subset of A [the set of all atheists] who believe that gods do not exist, in addition
to lacking a belief that gods do exist. This is the set SA, the set of all strong atheists.

Completely inside the set T [without touching or crossing the sides] we can draw a smaller circle, which
will represent the set GT, the set of all gnostic theists who not only believe that a god or gods exist, but who
also claim to know that a god or gods exist.

Completely inside the set SA [without touching or crossing the sides] we can draw a smaller circle, which
will represent the set GA, the set of all gnostic atheists who claim to know that a god or gods do not exist,
in addition to believing that gods do not exist, and lacking a belief that gods exist.

And finally we can define the set AG, the set of agnostics, as being members of the set P, who are not members
of the set GT AND are not members of the set GA. These are all the people who claim not to know if a god or gods
exist, OR, claim that you cannot know whether a god or gods exist.

It should look something like this.

http://s33.postimg.org/yltgvfkb3/Sets_of_theists_and_atheists.jpg