to the atheists on the board

aphie,

Unfortunately, there is a rather large problem with your revelation.

After further review of the entire situation, I just had a revelation. One of the real questions of ontology, "is there a god," can be interpreted in a far different way.

If we define whatever event or "cause" brought us to this point -- a point where humans have a consciousness and are able to think, then what we are really debating is not whether or not "god" exists but more importantly, what traits such a thing would have in relation to us.

I don't think so. Amongst everything else, the theist says God exists! And, If you are looking for traits of God, then you first assume there is a God and then you attach an expectancy of traits to it, even though you cannot establish there is a God!

You are assuming it would or should have traits in relation to "us" (by "us" I take it you mean human beings). But why would it or should it?

I'll define a first cause event as "god." If you do not believe in a first cause event, then I will define "god" to be whatever system of events took place to get us here.

Now, at this point, the question of whether or not "god" exists is solved. God does indeed exist. However, we have now changed the question into, "what does this 'god' share in similarity with us?"

The problem that has always existed in tandem with the god question is defining what god is. If I choose to define god as whatever first cause or sequence of events that brought me into existence, then I no longer need to prove god, but have succeeded in shifting the burden of knowledge to a point where I must now start to understand what god is, what the word "god" truly means to me, and if it has any relationship to a consciousness like my own -- or is it something so much greater than myself, that I cannot comprehend it at all.

Because you define something, it does not mean the something exists.

The only things that can EXIST are in a context of space and time.

Here is where ART might say, 'as an idea of God exists, therefore God must exist' , which I think is what he is trying to propose by way of flawed reason.

The idea of God may well be created, bya person or thing that has an idea of God, but it is only the person or thing which is EXISTS within space and time.

It remains an idea. If that is all God is then God is an idea. Not much from that then.

Obviously it does not follow because the idea of God has been created then God exists. Neither is it the case that the belief that God exists means God exists.

Under those terms it is clearly of equal value to say the belief that God does not exist means God does not exist.

However, as there is no substantial or supportable evidence that God exists, this adds more than mere emphasis to the argument that there is no reason to suppose God did or does exist.

Furthermore there is no reason I can see to add layers by attaching another - meaning by name - to the concept of'whatever system of events took place to get us here'.

Why the hell call 'whatever system of events took place to get us here', God or god or "god", as you say !!

Call the the system of events which took place to get us here just that very thing...the system of events which took place to get us here. I agree, attempt to understand them, but better to label them by what they are, instead of adding extra emotive connotations to it by calling it God.

If something is appearing to be something else, a little judicious application of Occam's razor usually works well to tidy stuff up nicely.
 
DICTIONARY PROOF THAT AN ATHEIST IS SOMEONE WHO
SIMPLY *LACKS* belief in god

Its easy to prove that even the DICTIONARY supports
the common definition of atheism which is:
Simple lack of belief in god(s)
Or lack of theism (theism being belief in god)

We know that there are many kinds of atheists, and
the dictionary supplies several definitions, which is the
correct thing to do, but it seems to be missing at least
one of the definitions under "atheism".

AAaaahhh but not really. This dictionary is only being
inconsistent as I shall prove.

Here is one of the dictionary definitions of atheist:


Atheist
2. A godless person.

Now ask yourself the questoin. According to THIS definition
is a new born infant an atheist?
Is a new born infant a "godless person?

The obvious answer is YES.



Question #2: Does a godless person NECESSARILY require
**ACTIVE DISBELIEF** in god/gods.

Answer: NO. The case of this infant makes this very clear.

THEREFORE, an atheist is *NOT REQUIRED* to have active
disbelief in god, ONLY a *LACK* of theism, which is god belief.

So in fact, the dictionary *DOES SUPPORT* the definition
of "a lack of belief" for atheism

It simply failed to explicitly inlcude it under "atheism", but
does in fact include it under "atheist".



1)I have provided strong evidence outside of the laymans dictionary
that "lack of belief" is commonly supported as a definition
of atheism.

2)I have even provided an encyclopedia which supports this definition.

3)Now I have shown, that even the dictionary supports this
definition through its definition of ATHEIST.



Open and shut case. Checkmate.



peace

axeman
 
Harry -

You just posted a definition for atheism from a website
which is run by WWW.AllAboutGod.com!!

Does it really surprise you that they got the definition wrong???

The author I previously quoted already stated that theists
LIKE TO misdefine atheism because it makes it easier to attack
them.

Here is the dead giveaway:

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods,

Gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE not belief, so they are
blatantly wrong here. They dont even know what
agnosticism is.


I think its PATHETIC that these theists register a FAKE
domain name of "atheism-1" to mislead people. How sad.


peace

axeman



Quote from harrytrader:

http://www.agnostic-1.com/

Agnostic - Agnostos
The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, "to not know." An agnostic is one who admits, "I don't know." The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover.

Agnostic - Sitting on the Fence
By definition, an agnostic is not committed to believing in or disbelieving in the existence of God. Nevertheless, while agnosticism claims to "sit on the fence," many agnostics are "practical atheists," in that they actively pursue the atheistic lifestyle; that is, they tend to subscribe to moral relativism and live out their lives without any concern for ultimate accountability.


http://www.atheism-1.com/

Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.
More...
 
The art of definition has to do with context.

What is the meaning that is attempting to be conveyed with a word in a sentence?

Does the definition of the word alter the meaning of a sentence?

When we discuss an atheist, are we discussing the mental state of the person who is an atheist, or are we discussing their clothing, their residence, what they had for lunch, etc?

Or are we discussing their belief systems as they relate to the concept and existence of God being either true or false.

It is funny to watch an atheist use the term Godless to define atheism.

Godless would mean exactly what?

Less than God?

Without God? How can someone be without that which is claimed not to exist?

Not holding a belief in the existence of God?

Believing in God, but not trusting God?

Is a stone Godless? No.

The problem with definitions is that most people lack the precision of the language to properly convey their ideas.

Language has the capacity to educate and enlighten, convey meaning and ideas, illustrate concepts....or it can be used to confuse and distract from essential meaning.

A theist is one who willingly and consciously holds the existence of God to be true.

So, the inverse of that would be one who willingly and consciously held the existence of God to be false....i.e. atheist.

The key aspects here are the adverbs willingly and consciously, indicative of a chosen state of mind and consciousness, not an involuntary state of mind. Linguisticly, they shape the state of holding the belief as one of choice, and not an involuntary condition.

If one does not hold a belief to be true, is it because they have chosen to do so, or because they lack the ability and capacity to do so?

When we discuss a vertebrate, it is known to have vertebrae. An invertebrate is without vertebrae, but this situation is not a choice but a fixed and defining condition. An invertebrate does not become a vertebrate by desiring to grow a spine, or by believing that they can grow a spine. An invertebrate does not willingly and consciously choose the status of invertebrate over vertebrate. It is not a choice.

Can an atheist become a theist? Sure, that is part of the definition and condition of being an atheist....i.e. the ability to become a theist. The mind is not fixed in belief, it is a flexible and mutable component of the mind, as beliefs are not indigenous.

This is what makes the definition of a theist and atheist fundamentally different than the definition of a vertebrate and an invertebrate.

One is a fixed condition...the other is a condition of choice!

The atheist is so due to choice, not due to involuntary conditions.

The key of course to understanding any term that is derived as a result of negation, is to fully comprehend the precedent term that it is a product of.

So the key component to understanding a theist is not the fact that they have no belief in God, but that this belief is the result of choice, not an involuntary condition of a human being.

Consequently, an atheist chooses not to hold the concept of God as true.

This is the conditional and correct understanding of the terms atheist and theist, that their condition and respective status are a direct result of mental state by choice, not by involuntary processes.

Can a stone hold the concept of God to be true or false?

No, of course not. So a stone could be neither atheist nor theist.

Could a plant hold the concept of God to be true or false?

No, of course not. So a plant could be neither atheist nor theist.

Could a newborn human being hold the concept of God to be true or false?

Of course not.

The pre-requisite to hold the status of theist or atheist is the ability number one to form a concept, and secondly make a decision to hold that concept true or false in their mind.

A Godless human being is such by choice of not holding the concept of God to be true, so an atheist is a person who willingly and by choice holds the concept of God to be false.
 
ART: "A Godless human being is such by choice of not holding the concept of God to be true, so an atheist is a person who willingly and by choice holds the concept of God to be false."

True, this describes ONE KIND of atheist, but not all forms
of atheists.

Like a typical theist, you force a single definition on ALL atheists.
Fact is.... even the dictionary definition of atheist DOES NOT
require active disbelief...as in .... "a godless person".

A person alone, never having human contact, on a desert island is "godless".

You like to act confused...but the word "godless" is pretty easy to understand. WITHOUT GOD. Duh.

The encyclopedia I quoted states atheism is simply lack of belief.

A long list of prominent philosophers and historical atheists
also support this definition.


You are hereby over ruled. You have made no case at all.

We understand YOU WISH that ALL atheists are only people
who actively disbelieve, but this is obviously not the case.

You possess no authority to claim otherwise.

Now back to your pop psychology you go.



peace

axeman
 
ART:
>How can someone be without that which
>is claimed not to exist?

Are you MAD? If it doesn't exist, the default position would be *WITHOUT*. My god you are logically challenged.


>A theist is one who willingly and consciously holds
>the existence of God to be true.

>So, the inverse of that would be one who willingly
>and consciously held the existence of God to be
>false....i.e. atheist.

I know you've been told this before, but you're still doing it so I'll say it again...

You are confusing (or merely twisting for your own purposes) the "a" portion of athiest to mean "inverse" or "anti" or any number of other word meanings. It doesn't mean those things...it means "without".

Get it?

JB

PS. No
 
art give up your are wasting your time. God himself could not change these guys minds.

They believe they are atheists therefore they are atheists.
 
>God himself could not change these guys minds.

I'll accept and consider logical arguments from any source. So far "god" has decided not to offer any arguments, logical or otherwise.

>They believe they are atheists therefore
>they are atheists.

Actually in my case, I don't claim to be nor believe that I am an athiest.

JB
 
Nice strawman man and Ad Hominem.

We believe we atheists are people who lack belief in god,
not simply because we believe this but for the following reaons:

1) The dictionary supports this with its definition of ATHEIST as a "godless person"
2) The encyclopedia supports this definition
3) Prominent scholars on atheism support this definition
4) Atheist organizations support this definition
5) Atheists support this definition.


Clearly, the only people who refuse to change their minds
under this MOUNTAIN of extremely strong support is YOU guys.

Case closed.


peace

axeman


Quote from jem:

art give up your are wasting your time. God himself could not change these guys minds.

They believe they are atheists therefore they are atheists.
More...
 
Quote from Turok:

>God himself could not change these guys minds.

I'll accept and consider logical arguments from any source. So far "god" has decided not to offer any arguments, logical or otherwise.


JB
More...

LMAO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top