I agree.
The atheist is without God. Lacking belief in God implies that the atheist can realise God, while being an atheist where they can decide for themselves whether or not God exists.
You can't lack belief in something that doesn't exist, and to an atheist, God does not exist.
Lacking belief in God does not imply the atheist can
realise God. To
realise something is to comprehend it as a fact, and it is precisely because atheists don't comprehend God as a fact (i.e. don't
realise God) that they lack belief. And it is this lack of belief that defines them as atheist. Now they can comprehend the notion of God that others consider to be a fact, but they lack belief that this notion
is a fact. And those that believe God to be a fact are not the determiners of reality.
That's because dictionary definitions are based on common usages of the general populace. So while the definition is a part of what constitutes theism, it fails miserably in explaining what theism is.
Yet there is just one thing that defines
all theists: belief in the existence of a god.
Theism and atheism are inextricably linked. So we can refer to theism to give a broader picture of atheism.
Not really, when atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of a god. The other aspects of theism are irrelevant in this regard.
There can be no "other" in any practical sense as we have to make decisions, and act upon them, from moment to moment.
What "other" are you talking about? I didn't mention "other" - so please clarify.
Atheist, refers to someone who is without God, not to someone who claims to be without God.
No, it refers to someone who lacks belief in the existence of God. By definition these people will act, from moment to moment, as though there is no God. You would consider them "without God". But there are also non-atheists who act, from moment to moment, as though there is no God. There are people in this world who believe that God exists (i.e. non-atheist in the modern sense) yet give it no moment's thought. These people would also be considered, by you, as being "without God". You would consider them atheist, even though they have a belief in the existence of God.
The meaning of the word is self-explanatory.
The original meaning may have been. But the meaning has changed. You need to deal with the modern meaning, not the archaic.
The atheist is without God. It is exactly correct. The modern meaning, is a symptom of the original meaning. If you use the term atheist in accordance with what it means, everything the atheists remark about God or theism stems from the perspective of being without God.
Whether the modern meaning is a symptom or not, you need to stick to the modern meaning if you are to meaningfully discuss matters with those who use it in the modern sense. Your refusal to do so is simple obstinacy, and from after this post I shall simply ignore any argument stemming from your efforts to push the original meaning.
I have given reasons. State your objections by all means, but quit with the games.
I can not see the reasons you have given. Please simply direct me to the post(s) where they were given. This is not a trick or attempt at playing games, Jan. It is a request for you to either restate those reasons or simply link to where they were given. I will then be able to state any objections I have with them.
No, Jan, it's simply highlighting your proclivity to use and redefine words in a non-standard way to suit your position rather than to be helpful to any ongoing actual discussion. The time wasting is in your usage of terms and readers' subsequent efforts to interpret.
It seems you can't grasp that atheist is a real position.
I am patently aware that it is a real position: it is the position where one lacks belief in the existence of god(s).
It already implies that God exists.
It makes no such assumption. Others have already pointed this out to you, I see. But just to reiterate: belief in the non-existence of God does not imply that God exists. I lack belief in the existence of USD1,000,000 in my bank account. Oh, look, according to you I'm implying it exists.
It states that there are people who are without God.
It states that there are people who lack belief in the existence of God. These people, by definition, will be "without God", but so will others who are not atheist, if they live their lives as though God does not exist (i.e. even if they believe God to exist they may believe that God has zero affect on their day-to-day lives).
That you cannot accept that God is, or lack belief in Theos (exist), is merely a symptom of atheist. The reality being you are without Theos.
It's not a symptom of being an atheist, Jan, rather it is what defines an atheist: lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Deal with it.
You need to be shown something so that you can accept. This is because you are atheist, without God. A theist does not need to be shown anything to comprehend God. Just as a compassionate person does not need to be shown what compassion is, to know what it is.
So God is simply an emotion? A subjective viewpoint? With no objective reality? Fair enough. If that's what you think.
You're right. Your not believing in God is not a choice, and you cannot choose to believe in God, no matter how much you may say you do believe. We either come to the realisation of God, where belief is an automatic response, or we are without God, and belief is impossible, until we come to the realisation.
Then in future I expect you never to accuse atheists of simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of God, or imply that it is in any way a matter of choice.
What you choose to do is to deny the reason why you lack belief in God, which is because you are without God.
Somewhat of a chicken and egg, Jan, given that being without God is part and parcel of the lack of belief. You can assert that one is the cause of the other, but given that there are those who are without God who actually do believe in God, your assertion holds no water. Care to try again?
In doing so you convince yourself that there has to be evidence of God in order for you to accept. This in and of itself proves that the original meaning of the word applies directly to you, or any atheist.
It does apply to us. But it also applies to some non-atheists (modern usage). That's what you can't seem to get your head around, and so you simply blank it out.
God is as obvious to me, as no God is for you.
There being no God is not obvious to me. The existence or otherwise of God is unknown to me, and being unknown the answer can not be obvious.
Your perception is perfect for you.
Ah, so now we're back to God being wholly subjective. Okay.
For you there is no God. You may say that there may be no God at all, but you cannot go beyond that. Everything you utter or write can only be from that perspective.
Go beyond it to where?
However I am quite capable of exploring other people's perspective. From yours, for example, that starts with the
a priori assumption that God exists, then everything we see is positive evidence of that assumption, that God exists. And if God did not exist then nor would we.
How am I doing?
You're not deficient. As a human being you have the capacity to realise God.
And you have the capacity to realise that God perhaps does not exist.
Anthony Flew, as you know, championed the atheist cause for many years, citing the same or similar arguments as yourself. Challenging the theist to provide evidence, or proof of God's existence. Only to come to the realisation of God, late in his life.
Yes, bring out the case of one atheist who turned to God while he was in his dotage and which was based on personal incredulity at the possibility of ever explaining the origin of life.
Is that all you have? Do you think that there aren't devoutly religious people who have subsequently rejected their belief in the existence of God?
Please, don't insult people's intelligence by raising Flew as anything special.
I'm not insulting atheists.
You are, whether you think you are or not.
They are without God. They may lack belief in the God, or gods theists believe in. But they cannot lack a belief in something that does not exist, and for them God does not exist.
Nonsense - there are infinite things that don't exist that you lack belief in. I'm staggered that you would even consider raising such an argument. Ah, well.
