Atheism is a non-belief, not a belief.

[MineralMan]

Too many people ask the question: "You're an atheist, you say. So, you believe that God does not exist?"

No, I do not believe that any deities or other supernatural entities exist.

There is a difference. You are asking if I believe something. I believe a lot of things. I believe my mother loves me, despite my shortcomings. I believe the sun will appear on the horizon twice today. I believe that water is the fundamental thing on this planet that enables life.

I do not believe there are any gods. I do not believe that Republicans have the best interests of this country at heart. I do not believe I will live longer than I live.

Atheism is a negative thing. It is A-theism. Not-theism.

So, the question is incorrectly stated. Don't ask me if I believe your deity doesn't exist. I believe nothing whatever about your deity. I do not believe that any deities or other supernatural entities exist. I do not believe your deity exists because I do not believe any such things exist, whether they're your particular deity or any other deity that someone may believe exists.

I do NOT believe.

[rug]

1. I believe you.

[MineralMan]

3. Thank you kindly.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. I believe

I will rec this post.

[MineralMan]

34. I believe that you did rec the post.

You appear to exist. You have stated your intention. Logically, I can believe you. Thanks!

[geek tragedy]

2. It depends--it can be either the absence of belief or it can be

the belief in absence.

Some people affirmatively believe there is no goods. Others take a more agnostic approach and have no beliefs.

Edited: Goods=gods.

[MineralMan]

4. Oh, I believe there is goods.

I can find them in any retail store. Uff da!

[geek tragedy]

11. I'm obviously very confused, Though that would explain

why I went to the market and asked for a deity.

[Warpy]

8. No, atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby

Atheists have never seen any evidence for the existence of any of the millions of gods that men have worshiped over thousands of years.

Agnostics have never seen any evidence but think that evidence could exist.

Apatheists don't know, don't care.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. and what of ascotchists?

those who never met a scotch they didn't like?

[MineralMan]

30. Why would one drink Scotch, when

Irish whiskey is available? Irish whiskey is the original. Scotch is just a pale imitation.

[rd_kent]

40. No, you are wrong. It is NOT a belief in anything, its a LACK of belief.

[ZombieHorde]

49. Agnosticism does not mean "no belief".

Agnosticism claims god is unknowable at this time.

[FBaggins]

5. Sounds like little to no semantic difference...

...but whatever floats your boat. :)

[MineralMan]

7. There is a distinct semantic difference.

Discovering the difference does require a bit of thinking, though. Atheism is not a religion. It doesn't involve beliefs of any kind.

[FBaggins]

13. Depends on how you define "religion"

If "religion" is the worship of the supernatural (or a "god"), then you could be right.

If "religion" is a "system of beliefs" then atheism certainly fits.

Either way... not believing that there is a god and believing that there isn't one... really aren't that different. Certainly not worth getting one's dander up over.

Take your statement "Atheism is a negative thing. It is A-theism. Not-theism"

The word actually means "without gods". It isn't the lack of theism... it's the lack of gods. Perhaps what you're looking for is "non-theism".

[MercutioATC]

6. It depends on your chosen nomenclature.

Many define "atheism" as an active disbelief in the existence of a "god" or higher power of godlike qualities.

The lack of an active belief while refraining from holding an active disbelief is typically described as agnosticism.

[MineralMan]

9. Mine is an active disbelief. I do not believe.

That is a negative declarative sentence. It does not allow any leeway.

I believe that (Not whatever) does allow an easy transition to belief in the reverse.

[MercutioATC]

12. Again, it's semantics.

Do you have an active disbelief in the existence of a god, or do you simply not actively believe in a god? There is a difference.

If you have an active (positive) disbelief in a god figure, many describe that as "atheism".

If you have a passive disbelief, many describe that as "agnosticism".

[Goblinmonger]

25. But don't you think that stating it as an "active disbelief"

presupposes that the thing not being believed actually exists. Do you have an "active disbelief" about unicorns? The tooth fairy? I know that pisses people off, but it really is in the same vein. I don't have an "active disbelief" because I have no belief in the gods of anyone. To frame it as "active disbelief" is, in my opinion, circular reasoning which starts at the "fact" that there is a god and some people believe and some people don't.

[MercutioATC]

50. I'm not sure that I understand. I DO have an "active" disbelief in unicorns, by my definition.

Do you?

[MineralMan]

31. A god?

I do not believe that ANY deities or supernatural entities exist. Christians do not believe that Kali exists. Kali is a god. By your definition, Christians are atheists. That's just silly.

No gods. No deities of any kind. I do not believe any such thing exists. Your god. The Hindus gods. Whatever gods.

[Lost-in-FL]

10. I always wonder why it is so hard for some...

to get the fact that others do not believe in anything.

[Silent3]

20. They want to equalize the situation.

Any belief carries a risk of being a false belief. By insisting that atheism is a belief, theists can view atheists as taking a risk of being wrong just as they are.

Because most people are atrociously bad at evaluating probabilities, theists can further say it's the same risk of being wrong, that is, an equal risk. The next step (because there appears to be no limit to how many rickety steps of faulty reasoning people are willing to string together) becomes, "Since we could both be wrong anyway, I chose to believe what makes me happy".

[darkstar3]

27. Abso-fraggin-lutely. Perfectly stated.

[MineralMan]

35. Well said, sir or madam.

[trotsky]

39. I don't know how you do it.

But you freaking nailed it again.

[rd_kent]

41. +1000000..Nicly done.

[stray cat]

16. Non-belief is a belief system - now if its an amorphous thought maybe not

[rd_kent]

42. You just contradicted yourself. You disproved your own thought.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

17. I believe in no gods.

I do however worship the ground that Grovelbot walks on.

Where I live, people get very nasty when you say that you're an Atheist.
I've had so many freaking people try to convert me that I've lost count.

[MineralMan]

32. But Grovelbot actually exists.

It is a vintage Japanese robot toy. Sadly, some parts of Grovelbot, namely its missiles, are missing. They were no doubt fired at Free Republic long ago. Resupply is essential.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

48. If we are able to find some more missiles, can we use biological warheads against FR?

[Silent3]

18. It's sort of like the difference in math between positive and non-negative.

The numbers greater than zero are positive numbers.
The numbers greater than or equal to zero are non-negative numbers.

0 is not a member of the positive numbers, but it is a member of the non-negative numbers. Both sets of numbers are infinite, so the difference between the membership of one number, 0, might seem trivial, but it's not, it can make a world of difference.

Lack of belief in the existence of a god and positive, assertive belief in the non-existence of a god will, in many ways, be functionally the same as far as the way people go about living their lives, but the former does not rule out a remote possibility of existence, while the latter categorically rules it out.

[Nihil]

56. Thank you for this explanation - that makes sense.

I think I grasp what you mean but can you confirm if I have it right
when I expand it back to words again?

To use the phrase in the OP in the context of your numerical explanation:

A) "I do not believe that any deities or other supernatural entities exist"

is exactly the same as

B) "I do not believe that > 0 (deities or other supernatural entities) exist"

but this is different from

C) "I believe that 0 (deities or other supernatural entities) exist".


If so, the OP's concern is that theists are frequently labelling atheists
as (C) whereas atheists label themselves as (B).

Before I go any further, am I right here?

:shrug:

[izzybeans]

19. I think the difference is rhetorical.

As an atheist I believe there are no supernatural entities. Just rearrange the sentence. This is a corollary to my belief in a relational realism where natural bodies in motion ebb and flow in relation to other bodies in their environment. Human social change is as natural as a warm summer breeze. "I believe there are no gods blowing me kisses in the summer time." This I believe.

Think of it like hypothesis testing. The null is just the flip-side.

I do not believe there is such a thing as "unbelief"/disbelief/non-belief. Disbelief is merely believing in something else. When someone calls us a non-believer. They really just mean "you don't believe what I do."

[gcomeau]

26. No it isn't.

As an atheist I believe there are no supernatural entities. Just rearrange the sentence.

Rearranging the sentence changes it's meaning. Let's try and illustrate this a different way.

Let's say you are going about your business one day and then someone comes up to you, points at some guy across the street, and asks you what your state of belief is regarding the proposition that that guy has exactly 37 cents in his pocket.

What's your answer?

Do you believe he doesn't? Based on what are you holding the belief that he does NOT have 37 cents in his pocket? Have you looked? Is it unreasonable to think there could be 37 cents in some guys pocket? You have no idea who this guy asking the question is, do you know he has no way of knowing how much change is in that guy's pocket so that 37 cents value in his question wasn;t just some random guess?

Or do you simply lack any particular belief that he does have 37 cents in his pocket because you've been given no reason to adopt that belief?

Clear that there's a difference now? "Not believing" and "believing there is not" are two significantly different things. Atheism is not believing a deity exists. You can ALSO believe a deity does not exist, but it's the "not believing" that defines atheism.

[rd_kent]

43. I disagree.

There either is or there is not. One either believes or one DOES NOT believe.

[NeoGreen]

21. For my part as an Atheist I like the quote...

attributed to F.L. Wright...

"I believe in God, I just spell it Nature."

When the fundies at my son's Boy Scout Troop ask me if I believe in God, I say 'yes'. Fortunately, their rules do not allow them to ask "denominational" specifics, otherwise I'd risk being declared an atheist and subsequently shunned. This way, I'm allowed to define God in my own personal way. Scientifically, my God is akin to the concept behind the "Gaia Hypothesis", something that maybe super-natural (intra) but is not Supernatural (exo). I put up with it so that my son may have some of the fun experiences of scouting that I had, before the fundies took over. Before a declared belief was required.

And not to mix things up too much, on a scientific level, I only conditionally accept the concept behind the hypothesis.

[HERVEPA]

22. To me, sounds like a distinction without a difference.

I'm an atheist.
There is no such thing as god as generally defined.
Both of your statements say the same thing to me.
No need to argue it though, I realize you disagree.

[NeoGreen]

29. How about: Null-State, Positive-State and Negative-State, Atheists?

In order to clarify the semantics, and show the Fundies they are Atheists too:

Null-State Atheists: declare no affirmations about God(s), such affirmations on if they do or do not exist are meaningless.
(God the concept is meaningless)

Positive-State Atheists: affirmatively declare there are no Gods.
(All Gods do not exist).

Negative-State Atheists: affirmatively declare there are no Gods, with a single (or collective) exception.
(All 'other' Gods do not exist).

[HERVEPA]

37. Well,

don't know about the first one. As people discuss the existence or not of gods, or pray to their god, don't see how the concept could be meaningless.

[NeoGreen]

54. check out response #28, five doors down...

:)

[NeoGreen]

23. Don't forget about PolyAtheism...

I have yet to meet a person who is not an atheist to at least one other God.

Given that, we are all PolyAtheists, we only differ on the number we do not believe in.

And given the number of Gods there are not to believe in, percentage wise, we're all a lot closer in our state of Atheism they we are apart.

Freedom Of Religion (proactive freedom)
- The freedom to self define what you do or do not believe in, regardless of the beliefs of others.

Freedom From Religion (defensive freedom)
- The freedom not to have the beliefs of others imposed upon you, whether you hold such beliefs or not.

(edited for spelling)

[kwassa]

52. Oh, I believe in all of the gods.

I am not an atheist to any of them!

I just gave you a new life experience.

Enjoy it!

[NeoGreen]

53. You do not exist...

:evilgrin:

Just kidding, and thanks for that.

But really, all of them?

Quite the complex world you live in.

:dilemma:

[Zodiak]

24. Two things to hold in one's head for this thread

1. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

2. You cannot prove a negative.

That being said, I describe my own position on the "god-issue" to be agnosticism. Atheism (or "hard atheism") is too dogmatic and illogical for me. I spend a lot of my time trying to separate myself from the concept of "belief", which I think causes too much harm in this world. Besides, "belief" is worth exactly nothing when it comes to describing the universe under which we live. "Observable fact" is much more powerful, and does not require "belief" to be true.

[yodermon]

28. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

All God-talk is nonsensical. I prefer not to even elevate their terminology to the level of even discussably coherent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

"So, you believe that God does not exist?"
"What are you even talking about?"

But that's just me.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[MineralMan]

36. See! Grovelbot exists.

His missiles are still missing, though. Can't someone help?

[jgraz]

38. Meh. Just avoid the issue by saying God doesn't exist and we can prove it.

All this metaphysical handwringing is a waste of time. Rejecting the existence of God is the philosophical equivalent of rejecting the "brain in a jar" conjecture. As long as we all accept the basic premise that the world is real and we can trust what comes in through our senses, there is ample proof that God cannot possibly exist.

[paulsby]

44. depends, you are leaving out 1/2

if you say you do not believe, you are correct. if you say "i know that god does not exist", that's entirely different. the latter is referred to as strong atheism. to state that you KNOW god does NOT exist. as you describe yourself, you are a "weak atheist", and you are correct. it is strong atheists who in fact make a leap, just like theists. to state that they know. heck, fwiw, some theists don't even make that leap. for example, some say "i have faith in god, but i don't KNOW he exists", iow they make a conscious choice to have faith, in the absence of knowledge or certainty.

[darkstar3]

46. Met any strong atheists?

Even the hated published atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, when pressed, will not state that "there is absolutely no god". It is a logically untenable position to say so, and they're educated minds know it.

[paulsby]

47. yes i have

one of my best and longest term friends. he's a strong atheist. he's also a critical care nurse, a powerlifter, and an all around interesting guy. i have met strong atheists.

[darkstar3]

61. .

Press your best friend on his "strong" atheism. Specifically, ask the question "Do you believe that it is impossible for any god-like creature to exist?" I think you'll find that he'll say "no."

It is logically untenable to claim that no god-like creature can possibly exist. After all, it's entirely possible that Q is real, and just likes to mess with us as much as he messed with Capt. Picard. But just because it's POSSIBLE, that doesn't make it PROBABLE, and since there is no EVIDENCE, I don't believe it is true.

That bears repeating...

Just because it's POSSIBLE, that doesn't make it PROBABLE, and since there is no EVIDENCE, I don't believe it.

(For the record, I'm beating this dead horse because I really believe that the concept of "strong atheism" was cooked up by theists attempting to create a strawman. I'm not saying you have malicious intent of any kind, I just don't really think that "strong atheists", as defined by believers, exist.)

[paulsby]

62. i'm well aware of the logical problems

with being a strong atheist. but trust me... they exist. i'm not sure if you are assuming i am a theist, but fwiw, that's an assumption i wouldn't make. i don't care who invented the term. i think it has descriptive validity. as a matter of simple logic (as you point out), saying god does not exist, is not the same thing as saying i don't believe in god. fwiw, i do not believe in sasquatch, but i can't say he doesn't exist. i think it's reasonably unlikely, but certainly possible. heck, after the celeocanth (sp?), it's possible. the differences between atheism and agnosticism are a little more difficult to nail down. some will say "i don't believe in god", others will say "it's unknowable (at least based on our present level of enlightenment and scientific knowledge) as to whether god exists", or "i don't know if god exists" etc.

[darkstar3]

63. Anecdotes = / = evidence,

and I don't know you, so when you say "trust me", well, that unfortunately doesn't really work for me.

Now if you can point to a strong atheist that I can research, I'll look into it.

[paulsby]

64. are you kidding

you asked HAVE YOU MET ANY STRONG ATHEISTS? that is a question that cries out for an "anecdote" iow, a personal experience. yes... i have met one. you can't ask a question, get a response that is in kind to the question, and then question the format. cmon. that's silly. also, fwiw, the strong atheist MESSAGE is certainly present. the other day, i saw one of the "atheist billboards" that have been in the news lately. it said "yes, virginia there is no god". that's a strong atheist statement, fwiw. read the following... "The atheist bus campaigns are a relatively new phenomenon. They began with one in the United Kingdom just last year. Since then, bus campaigns have occured in various cities in the United States, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Italy and Australia. The original bus ad in the UK read, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." This new FFRF slogan in Seattle is considerably more provocative... by design.". even if i conceded arguendo, there are no strong atheists (which i think is false, but again... arguendo), the strong atheist message is quite clear in these ads. and as the story notes, the signs are now strong atheist, whereas before were not e.g. "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." http://www.examiner.com/x-8947-LA-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m11d3-New-atheist-bus-ad-Yes-Virginia-there-is-no-God

[darkstar3]

65. Not kidding at all.

1. I agree that there was a minor format shift, but that was more a problem with my rhetorical style than with the actual debate. The idea I was trying to put forward is that I would like proof of the existence of a "strong" atheist, and unfortunately, I don't necessarily just "trust" you.

2. You missed the capital G in the phrase "Yes, Virgina, there is no God." That's very specific, and it denies only one God, the God of the Bible. That is not a strong atheist statement, which would deny the possibility of all gods, but rather it is atheistic to one God, a God which is easily proven not to exist in the state he is described in the Bible.

[paulsby]

70. ok

1) well, whether or not you trust me, you asked, and i answered in kind. there may be polls that delineate. from what i have read (wikipedia has a good article on it, as it does on many philosophical issues), most polls don't make the distinction, instead asking question such as "do you believe in god", which of course will not distinguish between the two. i did a quick google, and the only polls i could find that distinguish the two forms of atheism were online, and obviously not scientific. however the concept of strong vs. weak atheism is much older than some people have claimed, wikipedia referencing philosophers etc. referencing the distinction as far back as 1813. it's also arguable that if one makes the distinction, "agnostics" kind of dissapear. strong atheists are atheists. weak atheists are thus relatively indistinguishable from agnostics.

2) i think that's laughable. they referred to no God, because they know darn well that you can fit the # of polytheists in the US with a thimble. it;s still a strong atheist statement. it is strong, or as some philosophers refer to it (positive atheism). it works perfectly with the analogy to sasquatch. i am a weak asasquatchian. i don;'t say it doesn't exist. cause i don;'t know. i will give you an "a" for creativity on this point, though. what were they supposed to say to meet your definition "yes, virginia there is no God, Gods or any supernatural beings". that's not exactly pithy or poetic.

[darkstar3]

72. You lose this round.

1. Wikipedia*? I think not...

2. By standard convention, God with a capital G refers to the Abrahamic God of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The only way this billboard would have fit your "strong atheist" definition is if it said "No, Virginia, there are no gods."

It is trivial to prove that:
a) there is absolutely no evidence for God,
b) that by his own biblical definitions, God is contradictory, and
c) that probability suggests VERY strongly that this God cannot exist.

The probability here may not be zero, but no one would dispute the claim "There is no Invisible Pink Unicorn," and the probability for such a creature is higher than the probability of the existence of a creator God as described in the Bible.

Aside from all of that rhetorical bullshit, I know you don't think that an advertising campaign, boiled down to brass tacks and designed to get people talking about the POSSIBILITY of a godless universe, is the same thing as actual atheism...:eyes:

[paulsby]

73. you still don't get it

the VAST (and i mean) VAST majority of theistic americans fall under the abrahamic religions. the atheist sign was of course directed to people most likely to see it. i am sorry, but imo you are grasping at straws and playing games. the mere fact that you talk about winning or losing is evidence of this. i'm not interested in winning or losing. this isn't a game. this is a discussion. i think you are clearly wrong, but i'd be just as happy to be shown to wrong (in fact, happier), because then i could learn something and correct something in my knowledge base that was false. clearly, that hasn't happened. if that's what you are interested in then you unfortunately fall into the trap that many internet users do, the desire to WIN vs. the desire to exchange ideas, learn, and grow. but in brief, i think strong atheists exist, and unless people who claim to say "there is no god" are LYING, it's easy to find strong atheists. the fact that philoshophers CENTURIES ago even , discussed the concepts of strong vs. weak atheism is evidence of this. they were not doing this in a vacuum. they knew, as any rational person who lives in society knows, that some people are sure there is no god, and are quite willing to say so.

[darkstar3]

75. You are deliberately ignoring the points made to you,

and refusing to provide any verifiable evidence of your anecdotes when asked. I am not interested in WINNING, as you quaintly put it, but rather engaged in a debate, which has many back and forth exchanges, some of which fall completely flat as your previous offering did. My POINT, in using my prior topic sentence, was simply to grab your attention and have you read the rest of the post.

You latch onto this concept of winning vs. losing, and hold tightly to your lowercase g god argument for strong atheism even when the point on that topic has been very clearly made, and yet you accuse ME of grasping at straws?

[paulsby]

77. because it's an absurd point

first of all, strong atheism is a philosophical belief system that has been defined and discussed for centuries, and the examples are numerous of people who claim there is no god. there is a frigging sign on numerous buses claiming "there is no God" and you STILL won't admit this, because you are caught defending the indefensible. and this is the internet, so no matter how absurd your position, you HAVE to consistently defend it. it's insane. you want examples of strong atheists (something i have NO doubt you know exists and are arguing for the sake of arguing)? fine.

here you go:

penn jillette (one of my favorite performers btw)
"But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
bingo!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

dawkins btw, is a weak atheist. he is a de facto atheist as he calls it, but admits that he can't say definiitvely that there is no god.

want another? Anthony Flew. one of the most prolific and publically known strong atheists who (recently) converted to theism.
in a 1998 debate with William Craig, attended by 4000 people (lots of witnesses) he said "there is no God" as well as other similar statements...


http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HHrd3RdLRQkJ:www.churchinthewoottons.net/anthonyflewembracesgod.pdf+flew+%22there+is+no+god%22&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQscLzMbkL1p257AYG_IBtv2K8N8Q

note also that it doesn't surprise me that a strong atheist made the conversion, since strong atheism is a leap into the unknown JUST like theism.

the deathbed statement of basava premanand (note also the enhanced reliability of "dying declarations" as recognized in the penal system) . he was a publisher of Indian Skeptic magazine and a noted rationalist and atheist.

i refer specifically to :

"b. I do not believe in any supernatural power. All the powers that we encounter are in the realm of nature and nothing exists beyond that."

the first sentence is a statement of weak atheism. note that all strong atheists can positively embrace the tenets of weak atheism, they just go a stepfarther. a strong atheist can truthfully say "i don't believe in god". where he differs from the weak atheist is he not only does not believe in god, he makes the POSITIVE statement that god(s) do not exist.

now read the second statement. and note this was a prepared statement, not some off the cuff imprecise speaking. "All the powers that we encounter are in the realm of nature and NOTHING EXISTS BEYOND THAT".

that's textbook strong atheism. a positive statement about what does NOT exist . in his case he says "NOTHING exists" beyond the realm of nature. and unlike your capitalized singular "God" example, that you attempt to limit to the abrahamic god, this example does no such thing. he says NOTHING EXISTS beyond... and therefore espouses strong atheism clearly and convincingly against all and any gods

clearly a strong atheist.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/basava_premanand_is_dying.php

[darkstar3]

79. OK, this is my last attempt to stop your conflation of two separate points.

Penn Jillette is referring to the God of the Bible, as was Anthony Flew.

The statement that nothing can exist beyond the natural universe does not necessarily state that no gods can possibly exist. After all, Q exists in nature. Basava's statement was not that "nothing exists beyond what I have seen," but rather "nothing exists beyond the natural world in which we live."

The bottom line?

It is possible to be strongly atheist with regard to Zeus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the God of the Bible. That is specific, and it easy to prove that the probability of each of these things is infinitesimally small. You are confusing this, however, with "strong atheism," which is, by its definition, the BELIEF that no gods can exist.

Strong atheism doesn't just lack belief in any gods, it actively denies the possibility that any god-like creatures could exist. I've never met anyone who was a strong atheist, I've never read anything by anyone who was a strong atheist, I can't find a strong atheist on the internet, and therefore, until I am presented with evidence, I will continue to suspect that this is a rhetorical strawman.

[rrneck]

45. Well said.

I believe in Gandalf. And Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov. And Matisse's Red Room. And the moment when the wind lays just before sunset.

And when somebody comes up with a god that can deliver the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders to my door, I'll believe in that too. :P

[MineralMan]

51. Heck, I'd settle for just one.

I'm not sure what my wife would think of that idea, though. Perhaps I'll just remain the atheist geezer that I am and forgo the cheerleader...

[Meshuga]

55. Yep, people making assumption based on a limited world view is pretty annoying. n/t

[Festivito]

57. Ah, what a delightful way to waste some time.

It seems for you, and your perchance 600 or some followers, that atheism means believing there is no god. Okay, have fun.

However, for others that might see it differently, the word atheist might not be owned by you and your followers -- alone.

I, for example, see, etymologically, a description of an un-theist as someone believing there is no god, and a(in its oppositional sense)-theist as someone directly opposed to a belief in a god, thereby believing that god does not exist. But, that's me. And, I don't own the word either.

Sadly, the confusion leads people to ask you about your atheism where you don't want to hear their idea of what the word means to them. It seems when different people have a different ideas on what a single word should mean that they need either to resolve that difference or quit talking to each other.

Which leads me to ask: How did they know you were, in your own wording, an atheist?

[TZ]

58. "followers of atheism"

Do you even understand how WRONG that is? Unbelievable. Atheism means without belief yes. But there is no Atheists Bible of Non-Belief (although I've seen idiot deists try to claim Dawkins as an author). Atheists are not one and the same as you seem to imply.
The OP is simply trying to explain his views and NOWHERE does he claim he speaks for all atheists.
This is what annoys me the most..when deists try to put words in atheists mouths.

[Festivito]

59. Why put quotes around something when it's not a quote?

At least you were not quoting me, yet follow my post with quotation marks. Curious.
Do you understand how wrong that is?
Unbelievable? Quaint irony.

Do you think no one should claim Dawkins is an author? Oh, you mean no author should claim Dawkins -- literally taken. What would they claim him for anyway, it's not like he's dry cleaning...

Funny, how I can use a number (600) and use the word some, yet be accused of meaning all. Perhaps I was too close to the real number! Sorry. I just meant a made-up number, not what would be the real thing to you.

Do you really think there are 600 atheists. I would put the number higher than that, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I suppose, you putting words, like all, into other people's mouths, such as my own mouth, is okay to you, just not for deists in particular to do it to atheists. Have I got that right?

Either that or your funny.

[darkstar3]

60. For the record:

You're means "you are."
Your just means your.

Example: You're being a jackass, and your feebly sarcastic attempt to ignore what you actually said in a prior post just to piss off someone who doesn't agree with you is juvenile.

The point, if you actually give a damn about it, is that atheism doesn't have "followers" of any kind. Nobody cares one way or another about your estimates.

[Festivito]

66. Boy, you guys are dense.

I'm not saying there are followers of atheism, and I did not say that in my posts here. I'm saying there are followers of the definition of atheism, the definition presented by the OP. And, I would probably appear less juvenile, less pissy, less feebly sarcastic if any of your brains could bear to see the difference.

You're right, though, I slipped, making the my-funny not your-funny.

[darkstar3]

67. Abusing the English language

while throwing insults at your opponents will not obscure the fact that you are now contradicting yourself, and still being juvenile. :eyes:

[Festivito]

68. It's like round-robin idiocy.

At least you're a repeat poster, albeit, throwing insults while complaining about the throwing of insults.

Do notice the difference of pointing names at a person, and pointing names upon the ideas presented.

Maybe contradiction is all you want to see. Good luck with that.

[darkstar3]

69. Contradiction is all you have,

and as for me throwing insults, what can you expect? Pointing out that you're being an asshat here is going to insult you, and I won't apologize for that.

ETA: Don't forget that this subthread and the "idiocy" therein is built entirely on the shoulders of your post #57, which was derogatory and laced with condescension, and referred to "followers" of atheism. So don't complain when people end up in the mudpit you dug to begin with.

[Festivito]

71. Perhaps you just don't like people who disagree with you.

57. (from me) "...for you, and your perchance 600 or some followers, that atheism means believing there is no god."

It DOES NOT SAY: for you and your followers, that atheism () believes there is no god. And, it certainly DOES NOT SAY: followers of atheism: especially when it refers to followers of the POSTER that presents the meaning, NOT ATHEISM. Followers of a poster versus followers of atheism versus followers of the poster's idea for a meaning of atheism.

My 57 refers to people who follow THE MEANING, THE DEFINITION, of atheism as presented -- never stating that there are followers of atheism.

So, you can't put your quotes around that whole phrase you try to say I said, because it's not there. (The other responding poster did put quotes around the phrase, to make it look like I said it.) Instead you put quotes around the one word "followers" and then continue as though what follows is what I said. Very disingenuous.

But, I've come to expect no less.

[darkstar3]

74. You've come to expect no less, have you?

Given that this is our first encounter (in my memory) I find that comment bigoted as fuck. But then again, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, given the condescension and tone of every post you've dropped in this thread.

As for your assertion here that you never said "followers of atheism", I must concede that your literal text in fact does not say that, but any fool with a 6th grade reading level can see the implication of what you wrote. To dance away from it now in such a vehement fashion is disingenuous, so be careful how you use that word yourself.

[Festivito]

76. It was followers of that meaning, that particular meaning.

Not followers of atheism, as was several times errantly typed by others.

And, yes, hopefully a sixth grade dunce could see the difference and realize that "followers of atheism" was not implied here.

Therein lies a glimmer of hope even for you.

[TZ]

81. indeed I put in in quotations because that was what that mess of text was saying

I was simply breaking it down to the basic point/translation, using the quotes to make my point. The defensive insults hurled at me by this poster indicates that my comment was quite accurate. Nobody gets this damn defensive unless they realize they put their foot in their mouth.:)

[iris27]

78. Sorry, etymologically, a-theist means not having a belief in a god.

I believe the term you're looking for is anti-theist.

As for un-theist, that's so aurally clunky as to make me cringe.

[Festivito]

80. English is a clunky language. And, no, you're not sorry.

You believe in that one meaning of atheist.

It is said that English is a good language to speak with horses. I have seen horses shudder. It makes me wonder.

[MineralMan]

83. On second thought...

this is a new thread...

[MineralMan]

82. Followers? How would I have any followers?

When I post here, I am posting my opinion. I can do nothing else. Nobody "follows" me. I do not even pretend to lead anyone.

As for people asking me about atheism, that occurs when someone asks my religious beliefs. I tell them that I am an atheist. Generally, that begins a conversation, during which I explain what that word means to me. Typically, there is an interchange, with the other person providing his or her interpretation of the word. The resolution comes when it is understood by both parties what each party means by the word.

As for your assertion that atheist denotes opposition to belief, that is something you have inferred, incorrectly from my comments. I do not oppose anyone's belief. Why would I? I am completely indifferent to the beliefs held by anyone but myself. They're welcome to them as long as, to paraphrase Jefferson, those beliefs neither break my leg nor pick my pocket.

If someone asks my beliefs regarding religion or deities, I tell them. If they do not ask, I do not tell them. Discussion forums are a different situation. Here, we have a forum for the discussion of religion and theology. That forum represents an open question, so I feel quite free to discuss my disbelief here, and without further prompting.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

[Festivito]

84. Hopefully, people can follow what you say.

They may not be devoted followers along the lines of a religion(And certainly you're not collecting money from them! Neither am I.), but, you and your listeners at least should follow the same meanings of the words you share with each other. You are both then followers of the same word-meaning set. My original point was that they might not be sharing those same meanings and this is what leads to the ire expressed in your OP.

Now you note that they might disagree with your meanings and that the meanings are then clarified such that each others words are understood by both parties. In other words they now follow what you mean when you use the word atheist. Excellent. You then lead the follower to understand you further. Excellent again.

If you find this re-education of meanings happens too many times (per your OP), perhaps the meaning is too personal to you yourself inasmuch as it is not shared by people you meet who want to know you better.