In regards to atheism.

[James R]

Atheist are redefining it. Lack of belief in God includes belief that god doesn't exist, so it' s a broader definition. Dictionaries are written by members of the dominant culture.

This is a very good point.

It could well be that many current dictionaries are actually outdated, in effect, especially following the "New Atheist" movement that has sprung up since about 2004. There's a thriving virtual atheist community out there which is gradually working towards a de facto consensus about what atheism is and what it ideally should be.

 

[gmilam]

AND that is exactly what every psycopath and sociopath believe as well and count on.... (rant)...

Wow... you sure do read a lot into a fairly innocent statement.

The momma cat that brings a wounded mouse home to her kittens to let them play with it until it dies is being a good parent by teaching her kids how to survive.

I'm sure the mouse has a different opinion.

 

[spidergoat]

To hold a position on a question such as the existence of God,

That's just it, atheism in the strictest sense isn't a position on the question of the existence of god.

 

[Michael 345]

Updating my post reading I see James R seems to have saved me from making a post in reply to the post from Yazata

Thank you

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheists have actually set out to correct the incorrect assumption that a lot of theists automatically make. Those theists assume that when somebody says "I'm an atheist" it means that the atheist holds a dogmatic position that God does not exist.

Not dogmatic, just your natural position., which is you don't believe in God.

Whereas, as most atheists appreciate, all it really means is that the atheist does not (currently) believe that God exists.

Which is the reason why they do not believe in God.

There is no dogma in holding such a position, especially if one is open to changing one's mind should new evidence come to light

The fact that you hold to the idea that there should be external evidence of God's existence, is evidence of dogma.
It stops you from comprehending what is God.

It is forgivable for a theist encountering an atheist for the first time to blunder into the mistake that "you're an atheist, so you must believe that God doesn't exist". But it is the height of rudeness for the theist to keep insisting on that once the atheist has explained what atheism really means.

It's got nothing to do with belief.
God does not exist as far as you're aware.
Unless He does, and your not saying.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

For the umpteenth time, that is not what atheist means, as explained. It is what it used to mean, but no longer does. To say that atheist means "without God" is to assert that everything supposed to have four legs is a dog.

Because you give the word a meaning that suits modern sensibilities does not mean the actual meaning of the word has changed. "Wicked" still means evil/morally wrong, despite its modern usage, which depicts it as brilliant.

That "lack" and "without" have no inherent implication of the need for the thing to actually exist, an

Without:

1. 
   
   in the absence of.
   "he went to Sweden without her"
   synonyms:unaccompanied by, unescorted by;
   
   in the absence of
   "I don't want to go without you"
   
   
   
   
2. 
   2.
   
   not having the use or benefit of.
   "the first person to make the ascent without oxygen"
   synonyms:lacking, in need of, wanting for, needing, requiring, short of;More
   
   

adverb
archaicliterary

1. 
   1.
   
   outside.
   "the enemy without"
   

conjunction
archaicdialect

1. 
   1.
   
   without it being the case that.
   "he won't be able to go without we know it"

Lack:

1. 
   
   of being without or not having enough of something.
   "there is no lack of entertainment aboard ship"
   synonyms:absence, want, need, deficiency, dearth, insufficiency, shortage, shortfall, scarcity, paucity, unavailability, scarceness, undersupply, deficit, scantiness, sparseness, meagreness, inadequacy, shortness, deprivation, destitution, privation, famine, drought, poverty, non-existence, rareness, infrequency, uncommonness;More
   
   

verb

1. 
   1.
   
   be without or deficient in.
   "the novel lacks imagination"
   synonyms:be without, have need of, be in need of, need, be lacking, require, want, feel the want of, be short of, be deficient in, stand in need of, go without, be bereft of, be deprived of, be low on, be pressed for, not have enough of, be devoid of, have insufficient, cry out for;More

And it is also somewhat meaningless, as JamesR has expressed, to talk about "exist for you" and "exist for me". We are talking about the actual existence of God, not our subjective viewpoint but on the objective reality of it

So what if JamesR has talked about it?
I've talked about it as well.

Do you think it is impossible that a theist can perceive God, and an atheist can't?
According to the meanings.

Second, if you use "lack" as I use it, could you honestly say you believe in something that you didn't know whether it existed or not? If so, some examples, please.

I use lack, the way it is defined.

If that was my position I might agree. But it's not, so I don't.

So you accept God exists?

As far as I am currently aware, I can't say that God does exist.

As far as you are currently aware God does Not exist. Unless He does. Start from the root Sarkus.

I also can't say that God does not exist.

Does God exist as you read this response.
No?
Then just say so.

If you mean do I live my life as though God exists, then the answer is still that I no more live my life as though God does than as though God does not

Typical sitting on the fence nonsense.

Yet this is not true for all those who are "without God". You said yourself that when you forget God you are "without God" and thus it can not be true that all those "without God" follow the same path to "all the other stuff".

The difference is I accept. God, even though I sometimes forget Him. You don't accept God (for whatever reason).
You accept that there should be external evidence of God, as a criteria for accepting Him. IOW you put yourself on the same level as God.

I lack belief that god(s) exist, but I do not hold the belief that god(s) do not exist.

Are you without God?

I wonder if you're going to keep avoiding this question?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thus, boy your own admissions, there exist people who are "without God" yet believe that god(s) do exist.

If I forget God, I am without God, because I don't rely on God, I rely on my senses. At those times I don't believe in God.

At some point, I might hear, read, or discuss something which reminds me that God Is.


The atheist is in a position where for him/her God does not currently exist as far as they are aware. There is no reminding the atheist that God Is, because they cannot comprehend, or perceive God.

Why?

Because God does not currently exist. Hence, from all perspectives the atheist is without God.


The atheist refuses to accept that he/she is without God because it implies that God does exist, but the atheist is unable to comprehend Him, while the theist can.

And now you insult me and all atheists. Nice.

Are you saying you and all atheists do not fool yourselves?

And furthermore you are being yet again inconsistent with a previous argument that agreed that being atheist was not a choice

That God doesn't currently exist for you, hence you believe that evidence that points to God's existence, will actually prove that God exists, is not a choice.


The verse does not mean that you have simply decided that there is currently no God. It means something way deeper. You have said this in your heart. It is a part of the fabric of your current existence.

But atheism is an intellectual position that informs the practical. It is an ontological matter of what we believe or not.

But an atheist is so because he/she is without God. Atheism is the intellectual reasons one gives for being an atheist.

I'm not big on ism's.

Actually, yes. I know a priest who no longer believes in the actual existence of God yet still teaches and preaches because he considers it a worthwhile job to do, and he's actually rather good at it. I think his view is that God is the pinnacle of human constructs, and the concept alone is worth believing in. But technically he is atheist: he lacks belief that god(s) exist.

How does this equate to him living his life as though God exists.?

Actually that's a pointless question as you yourself are currently without God.

You're taking your view as the atheist being "without God" to mean that all those without God are therefore atheist.

Of course they are.

Why would the meaning of being without God change over time? Being without God means just that,. So if you are without God, then you're an atheist. Get over it.

It does not change because you want it to. It is what it is.

You have taken what you see as the one property and focused on that alone. It is thus a caricature.

Nope I have taken the root cause, and now I understand why you are the way you are regarding God.


What? Do you think you are so complicated that we can't figure out the root cause of your spiritual position?


Jan

 

[Michael 345]

"Wicked" still means evil/morally wrong, despite its modern usage, which depicts it as brilliant.

WICKED means BOTH

evil/morally wrong

AND

brilliant

depending on context

And since we don't live in a bygone era we should use the current meanings of all words in their modern context

I note your post are not written in Shakespearean English which to me indicates cherry picking of definetions

 

[DaveC426913]

I note your post are not written in Shakespearean English which to me indicates cherry picking of definetions

 

[Jan Ardena]

WICKED means BOTH

evil/morally wrong

AND

brilliant

depending on context

But it actually means the former.
The latter is at best, informal.

And since we don't live in a bygone era we should use the current meanings of all words in their modern context

A-Theos
without - God.
Sorry mate, there are no modern terms that can mean anything other than without God. It is the actual translation.

I note your post are not written in Shakespearean English which to me indicates cherry picking of definetions

What a crock of nonsense.

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

But it actually means the former.
The latter is at best, informal.

True

But formal or informal is still counted as a meaning

A-Theos
without - God.
Sorry mate, there are no modern terms that can mean anything other than without God. It is the actual translation.

So this is the one word in all of language which is forever unchanging and unchangeable

That should earn it a place in the Guinness Book of Records

Are Mirriam-Webster aware of this words unique property?

Do you know how it aquired such a property?

What a crock of nonsense.

Not even close to Shakespearean English

 

[iceaura]

What? Do you think you are so complicated that we can't figure out the root cause of your spiritual position?

That would be an error, true.
For anyone - right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

But formal or informal is still counted as a meaning

Not to be taken seriously.

So this is the one word in all of language which is forever unchanging and unchangeable

That should earn it a place in the Guinness Book of Records

Are Mirriam-Webster aware of this words unique property?

Do you know how it aquired such a property

I know that it describes every single atheist'position regarding God. It is the only definition that does.
How can you object to that?
Do you believe it actually applies to you, or are you denying it?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That would be an error, true.
For anyone - right?

What do you mean?

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Not to be taken seriously.

Would you consider yourself ' Not to be taken seriously '?

I know that it describes every single atheist'position regarding God. It is the only definition that does.

Does not and never has

How can you object to that?

Because it does not and never has

Do you believe it actually applies to you, or are you denying it?

I have repeatedly requested from you and others clarification of my position and no clarification has come forth

So once more into the breach

I believe in Satan who is a god so I am not without god

Am I

• atheists (not believe in (without) god the white robe version) or
• thesist (believe in (not without) god but the red cloak version) or
• satanists (equal to christians of the white robe version believers) or
• without (lacking god because he is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

Have you any definite answer?

 

[DaveC426913]

A-Theos
without - God.

Oh for cryin' out loud. You sound like a broken record.

Keep repeating it often enough and you might even convince yourself.
Norman coordinate. Norman coordinate.


Insisting someone is without something in no way implies that the something exists. Watch:

I posit something called fnords.
You are without fnords. You are afnordist. That is your loss.
All you have to do is believe in fnords and they will become clear to you.
Hah! I have proven - with unassailable logic - that fnords actually exist!

Shoot, not quite. All I have to do now is repeat this same thing 300 times. Now it's unassailable!

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know why we keep indulging Jan in this illogic. What are we hoping will happen here? It's not like he's ever going to say 'OK, after listening to your feedback at great length, maybe I can admit my logic for the existence of God is not as rock solid as I thought.'

We've shown to any reasonably logical person that the objective existence of God is not defensible. I don't know why we continue to seek Jan's concurrence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Insisting someone is without something in no way implies that the something exists. Watch:

God doesn't exist as far as you're aware.
Am I correct?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Would you consider yourself ' Not to be taken seriously

I don't get the question?
Would you?

Does not and never has

So you believe God exists for every atheist?

I believe in Satan who is a god so I am not without god

Okay.

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

I don't get the question?

Of course you don't

Absolves you of answering

I know that it describes every single atheist'position regarding God. It is the only definition that does.

Does not and never has

So you believe God exists for every atheist?

Immaterial

I believe in Satan who is a god so I am not without god

Okay

AND

keep going you are almost there

Am I

• atheists (not believe in (without) god the white robe version) or
• thesist (believe in (not without) god but the red cloak version) or
• satanists (equal to christians of the white robe version believers) or
• without (lacking god because he is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

Have you any definite answer?

I put the question in large script as you appear to have missed it in smaller script