Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by twhitehead
I already answered that earlier in the thread. Interesting that you repeat it like you didn't read the answer.

An agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to know whether God exists. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

[b]In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt to avoid facing and defending the problems in your posi ...[text shortened]... don't fit your definition of atheist. You will have achieved nothing with your silly word games.

You are wrong. I have no problem whatsoever defending my position and it is notable that instead of pointing out any problems you see in my position you wish to change the definition of a word.

When did I change the definition of a word? This is the definition I am working with: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

"a person who believes that God does not exist" You are the one changing the definitions to suit yourself.

And by trying to change the definition you wish to use strawman arguments by attacking something I don't believe.

Again I am using the dictionary definition and not your personal definition.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When did I change the definition of a word? This is the definition I am working with: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

"a person who believes that God does not exist" You are the one changing the definitions to suit yourself.

Well I don't use that dictionary (I am not american). Try some better ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
https://www.google.co.za/webhp?q=atheist%20definition
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheist

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I don't use that dictionary (I am not american). Try some better ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
https://www.google.co.za/webhp?q=atheist%20definition
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheist

Ha ha ha wikipedia a dictionary lol, well good for you. Oh lets try a British dictionary that might be a better one, after all they invented our language.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist?q=atheist

Oops.

Go on keep shifting the goalposts as you always do.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Go on keep shifting the goalposts as you always do.

I haven't shifted any goal posts.
I do agree that some dictionaries disagree with my preferred usage of the word.
Lets say we stick with your definition for this thread. What difference does it make?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I haven't shifted any goal posts.
I do agree that some dictionaries disagree with my preferred usage of the word.
Lets say we stick with your definition for this thread. What difference does it make?

It means a when a baby is born it does not believe anything. Therefore by the dictionary definition (not yours) it is not an atheist when it is born. Which means if you were not born an atheist then something convinced you to become an atheist. And that is what I am interested in.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt to avoid facing and defending the problems in your position. You see, if you say you have no position by saying you lack belief, then your position is not open to any scrutiny.

The burden of proof is entirely upon those who make claims that a supernatural God figure has revealed itself to them. Theists with religious ideologies need to back up their extraordinary claims. Until they do, people will not be able to subscribe to and share their beliefs. If they lack those beliefs, and therefore do not have any convincing reason to believe what the theists assert, then they are atheists of some stripe or other.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You hear sounds behind you. Footsteps. You look round and see it is your friend. Do you 'decide' it is your friend or do you 'realise' it is your friend?
Go back to English classes.

In your instance, yes, you realize it is your friend, because it is your friend. A "real"ization involves a "real", or true, thing. Now try this on for size.

You hear sounds behind you. Footsteps. You look round and see it is a person. It is dark. You cannot see their face. This person makes a motion and you 'realize' it is your friend. This person gets closer. You let them approach closely, since after all, it is your friend. This person sticks a gun in your face and demands your money. It is not your friend.
Did you realize it was your friend? No. You did not 'realize' anything. It was not your friend, but you decided that it was. Wrongly.

Go back to English class.

Realize
verb (used with object), realized, realizing.
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).

To 'realize' something, it must be true. You realize facts. If it is not a fact, then you cannot "understand it clearly". But if you simply "decide" something is true, that does not "make it real".

btw, before we get off topic with this next thing, let me cover it now. One can realize something is false, but this is because what they are realizing, that that thing is false, is true. If something is false, you cannot realize it is true, and if something is true, you cannot realize it is false. Your "real"ization is not real, so there is no REALization. If you "realize" something falsely, then you were just deciding wrongly that it was true.

Originally posted by divegeester
@Googlefudge has an encyclopedic explanation in his profile.

"Explanation" makes it sound like he is right.

Originally posted by googlefudge

In an article published in the Scientific American 3/14/13, it talks about how science can now 'detect' who we are thinking about. I mean 1000 years ago somebody would not have been ale to tell who someone else was thinking about, let alone comprehend the possibility. Science would not have been able to do that 20 years ago. Isn't really a ma ...[text shortened]... d I appreciate it.

And thankyou, your questions have been reasonable and well put. 🙂

This has glaring holes.

I know you're eager to "prove" your case, but this post is far from doing that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, because it's f'ing stupid and I thought I would give the self proclaimed 'intellectual' the
opportunity to spot how f'ing stupid it was.

He declined.

Now don't go and get all "science-y" on us now.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I already answered that earlier in the thread. Interesting that you repeat it like you didn't read the answer.

An agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to know whether God exists. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

[b]In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt to avoid facing and defending the problems in your posi ...[text shortened]... don't fit your definition of atheist. You will have achieved nothing with your silly word games.

Hmmmm, an atheist talking about 'word games'.

That's gutsy.

Originally posted by FMF
The burden of proof is entirely upon those who make claims that a supernatural God figure has revealed itself to them. Theists with religious ideologies need to back up their extraordinary claims. Until they do, people will not be able to subscribe to and share their beliefs. If they lack those beliefs, and therefore do not have any convincing reason to believe what the theists assert, then they are atheists of some stripe or other.

From the master of 'shifting goalposts'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It means a when a baby is born it does not believe anything.

And I have never suggested otherwise. Its kind of obvious.

Therefore by the dictionary definition (not yours) it is not an atheist when it is born.
So what does it matter?

Which means if you were not born an atheist then something convinced you to become an atheist. And that is what I am interested in.
I have already told you what made me become an atheist by your definition. Others in the thread never 'became and atheist' by your definition and still are not atheists by your definition, nor are they theists.

Originally posted by Suzianne
From the master of 'shifting goalposts'.

But you have to admit there is no proof possible of a deity. Unless said deity makes itself known to humans, there will be no proof. Humans cannot EVER come up with proof of deities unless said deity WANTS to be known.

I don't see that happening, do you?

All we have as proof are stories in the bible, self fulfilling prophesies and such.

2 and 3 thousand year old words are not even close to proof.

So all you have to fall back on is faith.

And you have it or you don't.

I can't say for certain there is no deity.

I can say for my own satisfaction there is no bible god.

Too many inconsistencies in the bible, which stands to reason for me, since for me it was only humans writing the entire thing and the NT was only produced in a political conference so many equally valid books were discarded such as the book of Judas where he is not a bad guy but commanded by JC to do what he did. A bit different from the 'official' bible version.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In your instance, yes, you realize it is your friend, because it is your friend. A "real"ization involves a "real", or true, thing.

What if they secretly are not my friend?

You hear sounds behind you. Footsteps. You look round and see it is a person. It is dark. You cannot see their face. This person makes a motion and you 'realize' it is your friend. This person gets closer. You let them approach closely, since after all, it is your friend. This person sticks a gun in your face and demands your money. It is not your friend.
Did you realize it was your friend? No. You did not 'realize' anything. It was not your friend, but you decided that it was. Wrongly.
But I never decided. I thought, I realised, but I did not decide. That is the wrong word for anything you described above.

Go back to English class.

Realize
verb (used with object), realized, realizing.
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
So, it is clearly not required for the understanding to be correct.

To 'realize' something, it must be true.
Not according to the definition you quote.

You realize facts. If it is not a fact, then you cannot "understand it clearly".
Yes I can. I understand very clearly the difference between elves and dwarves in the Lord of the Rings.

But if you simply "decide" something is true, that does not "make it real".
One does not decide beliefs.