My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

[Jan Ardena]

^^^
Not as harsh as you are.
What you say to & about atheists while refusing to listen & heed what they say about themselves. I doubt you could get away with this with any other group of people. <>

I don't see atheists as a distinct group of people. The only difference between an atheist, and a theist, is that one does not believe in God. Other than that we're just people.

Here are a few random snippets of atheist thoughts, in this thread.

So you acknowledge that it didn't really happen as described in the book? It's not literal truth? Congratulations, you have taken the first step.

I've never understood this connection - and I've read it over and over through the years. It's quite possible for god to exist and be an asshole.

So you accept that the bible is just stories written by humans? Good, you're well on the road to accepting that it's all just made up.

I'm a third-generation atheist, so I had no trouble with my family attempting to fill my head with fairytales.

And by now I understand that you simply cannot get a religious person to understand logic and science. They're morons, so the best you can do is to treat them like morons.

The whole concept it's based on is loathsome and unacceptable to a moral being.

I can't imagine Jesus would have liked most of his self-professed followers. So it's just as well he's imaginary himself.

Your comment about farmers reminds me of people whose lives I saved thanking their imaginary fiend instead of me.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You've skipped over several of my posts in your reply to me. I hope you'll address some of the substantive points I made there in time.

I've responded to what I think is relevant.

I sometimes wish I didn't have to walk you through each little step in an argument. I wish you'd connect some dots yourself. It would save us a lot of time. Consider, for example, the possibility of dissolving the salt and sugar in water, then tasting it. Then your current objections disappear. But you could have come up with that yourself.

Salt water will still have an effect on the mouth and throat, that can be used to decide. You can never be sure.

Only in the same way that no scientific fact is every conclusively proven. The point is that where there's a preponderance of evidence, then accepting the thing as a provisionally useful working model of reality is a reasonable thing to do.

''Accepting'' (or not) being the operative word.
We choose what we accept.

Don't you care whether what you believe is true or not? Forget other people. Wouldn't you like to have a rational basis for your own beliefs? Or is it more about comfort for you?

I don't look at it like that.
You do. That's the point. You look at this from an atheist perspective, which is why God does not exist for you.
''Atheist'' = a person who does not believe in God. Right?

I've proposed a simple definition above. Do you take issue with it?

Theism = somebody who believes in God/gods? No.

In other words, you're saying that God is just like us, only more powerful in lots of ways? Able to create and mould and break the laws of nature at a whim, for example, just like we can (?), only moreso?

More like, we are like God.

I know. But the fact remains, nevertheless.

Where is the evidence?

I have no desire to discuss it with you, for reasons I have expressed to you before.

Then don't band it about as though it is some kind of explanation.

And yet here we are stuck in an endless, pointless discussion in which you try to define "atheism" to atheists. Why don't you move on?

''Atheism'' = a person who does not believe in God/gods. You agree right?
Where have I contradicted that, or said it isn't so?

Like what? As far as I can see, all you do is repeat your mantra about atheists being "without God", that "for them, God does not exist", and so on. Believe me, you've made that point, for what it's worth. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and it doesn't capture the most common atheist position (which has been explained you many times), but it couldn't be clearer what your position is on this.

It is the atheist position. Please show where I am mistaken.
For the atheist, there is no God. Is that right or wrong?

You don't have to accept anything as factual, but you should be able to at least admit the likelihood that all the atheists aren't deliberately telling you lies about what they believe.

I don't think that all the atheists are telling lies. I just don't think some are being honest, or do not give a lot of thought to the reasons why they are atheist. But I'm not saying they should, because it's not everything you want others to know, or realize about you. Saying that, I think we are all like that, to some degree or other, atheist, and theist alike. I think what irritates you is the idea that I dare to think, you have not thought your position through.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and you offer very little on what a theist is, from your perspective. It's like it's your own private secret and you're not telling.

I've told you countless times what ''theist'' means from my perspective. A theist is a person that believes in God. I miss out ''gods'' because if one believes in God, then one accepts God's creation which includes gods. There's nothing more to say, just like there is nothing more to say about atheist. It is what it is.

What would be an objective measure of the existence of God? If such a measure existed, we'd all agree on whether or not God exists, wouldn't we? (Apart from the inevitable hold-out deniers on either side of the fence.)

What would be the objective measure of ''taste'', or any essential thing?
How do we know we have taste, sight, hearing, and touch? We certainly do not need to be told that's what we have.
We don't need outside evidence to reassure ourselves. It just is, and we take it for granted.

You don't possess enough information to allow you to judge the matter. So, instead you choose to prejudge it, so as to suit yourself.

On the contrary, I have the information that you give, and I have you account of God.

I have. It is in one of the posts from this thread you haven't replied to, for example. But we also discussed it at some length in the "Brain in a Vat" thread. I don't think much of your professed ability to "just know" things.

How do you think we come to know things?

Attitudes are due to atheists getting frustrated by your repetitive posting and your insistence that "atheist approval of what is atheism is not necessary".

Why should it be? You don't need my approval to tell me that theism is nothing more than a gut feeling.

Yes you have, and I have set out exactly where and how you've done that at length in my previous posts.

You may well have done, but it is not correct. Like I said, ''God exists'' is implied in everything to do with atheist, modern and ancient. I suspect the atheist community is trying somehow to make it that it isn't so. But you can't escape it. You can try and play it down, but it will always be there.

The definition you have of atheists is not the definition atheists have of themselves. Don't you understand yet? What is this block you have?

So an ''atheist'' is NOT a person who doesn't believe in God/gods?

We're stuck with the word itself, for historical reasons. But you're right: in the past, it often did imply rejection or denial, mainly because very few people seriously contemplated the possibility that God doesn't actually exist. Then the scientific revolution happened. Fast forward 300 years and here we are. The label is the same; the thing itself has evolved (somewhat).

It has evolved intellectually, but so has everything. The more information we acquire, the more the intellect evolves. But the core essential reasoning, does not change. It still applies. Atheists are still without God.

jan.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Its not a matter of god , although the numerous times that " god " is referred to is beyond calculation .

To me , god is about ancient history . God is about the ancient past .

Inotherwords , god , is the experience of an advanced being . Of which the people of that time , had no possiblity of understanding from a technological understanding.

god now is an advanced being of which I can understand from advanced investigation into technology . And philosophy .

^^^
Those are not gods.

<>

True

 

[Sarkus]

It's not me that holds up the thread.

He says while holding up the thread.

It is a fact that God does NOT exist, as far as an atheist is aware. Please point out why this is not the case if you do not agree.

This has been explained to you countless times, Jan, over the past God knows how many years.... It is not a fact that God does not exist, as far as an atheist is aware. Yes, some may argue that they are aware that God does not exist, but the majority of atheists here are of the agnostic variety. For them it is NOT a fact that God does NOT exist, any more than it is a fact that God DOES exist. The agnostic atheist does not ultimately know whether God exists or not. It is true that they are not aware that God does exist, but this is not the same as being aware that God does not exist.
That nuance seems to continue to elude you.

Saying that you do not believe God does not exist, or there is no evidence to support God's existence, is at the very least, the reason why God does not exist.

See above. You continue to argue your own view of atheism rather than listening to what the atheist actually tells you.

We both agree (I think) that an atheist is a person who does not believe in God. That IS the actual position.

No, the actual position is that they do not have the belief that a god exists. That is the primary position of the atheist. "Believing in" God is a secondary belief that theists have, that atheists clearly won't have - unless you are of the opinion that one can "believe in" something while you don't have the belief that the something exists.
You can try claiming that the atheist position is one of not "believing in" God but you would again be guilty of not listening to what the person is actually telling you.

Everything else boils down to the reasons for holding the atheist (above) position.

Everything always boils down to the reasons, Jan.

I don't do that. I listen to what somebody like yourself would say about the reasons why you are atheist, and look at it in relation to the position of ''atheist'' (a person who does not believe in God/gods). I find some of it superficial, so I state it.

And there you are again misrepresenting the atheist position. What a surprise. And you do it while claiming to listen to what the person is actually saying. Oh, the irony.

I'm not arguing against anything.

Then why are you here? To agree with the atheist position? To agree with their reasoning for the position they hold?

I know what an atheist is, and as such there is no argument there.

You think you know, and by hook or by crook you will argue that understanding despite what anyone actually says.

What I bring to the fore, is the superficiality of the reasons you give. IOW I think there are glaring holes in the reasoning of atheists such as yourself, and seek to explore that.

And you do it by arguing against your version/understanding of what an atheist is, irrespective of what others actually inform you.

Obviously you're not comfortable with it, but there is no disrespect of you the person, or of what you say about your position.

The disrespect you show is in your language, your tone, your manner, Jan. And it's simply not true that I am "not comfortable" with you trying to pick holes in my position. It is for people to pick holes in it that I put it forth as I do. But to date you have not even come close to penetrating it, no matter what you may convince yourself of. So rather than be "not comfortable", it actually used to make me more comfortable in my position. Until I realised that you actually had very little to offer by way of coherent and consistent argument.

I use dictionary definitions purely as a reference, and for mutual understanding. I could just as easily not use them, but then we will get snowed under, discussing what terms mean.

That's not what you do, Jan. You rattle off cherry-picked definitions as if they decide the person's position just because they self-label themselves with those terms. Rather than listen to what they say you stick to the dictionary, and you do so with no thought of discussion, no thought of trying to reach a mutual understanding at all.

Where do I argue against what a person say's about themselves? I argue with what they regard as 'atheism'.

That's the point, Jan, you don't argue about the position the person holds. You argue a definition that you have cherry-picked.
This thread, for example, is about how people have arrived at their atheism. For that, Jan, you need to listen to what they say. If your entire point is that what the person regards as atheism isn't strictly "atheism" as it was understood originally, then great, but go take it to the linguistics forum. These people have self-identified as atheists, and this thread is about their path to the position they have reached. So tell them they're not atheists. Tell them they're not strictly the label they self-identify with. But then, for Pete's sake, discuss what they say about their position, not mire the thread in this semantic bullcrap that you spread liberally throughout this site.

If were to discuss what it means to be human, and I disagree with your point of view, does it mean I'm arguing about what you say about yourself? This is a discussion forum, that means we come here to discuss what's on the table. If you put a point or argument forward, then it is up for discussion. At least that's the way I see it.

But you're not discussing what the person is saying about their path to atheism. You're simply shouting definitions at them, ignoring how they are using the labels, and sticking obstinately to what the dictionary says. You are simply not discussing, Jan.

I think it is good that we understand the label itself. This way we can move forward. The alternative is the almost incessant goal-post shifting.

You're not understanding it though, Jan. You're rattling off cherry-picked definitions and not listening to what the person who uses the label is actually saying. You're trying to define the person by your understanding of the label they use rather than by how they define themself.

But there are contradictions.

Then have that discussion, rather than go on and on with this semantic crap you're trying to pull.

How do you know there is no evidence for God?

Personally I don't know, but I'm not aware of any.

What makes you think you need evidence of the type you deem satisfactory, to comprehend God?

I don't think that. I can comprehend many things without there needing to be evidence of their actual existence. I can comprehend many fictional characters from books, for example.

You may counter with; ''maybe God doesn't exist, and you've been wrong all along''. Sure, but that's from an atheist perspective.

No, that would be from the perspective of any person who is capable of thinking critically, who is able to ponder hypotheticals. All you're effectively saying by "that's from an atheist perspective" is that you are blind to the possibility. You may say "but I know God exists: that is the theist perspective" but that is just a matter of conviction.

What else could you say? Especially as there is no God, as far as you're aware.

Again with the misrepresentation. Just for once, Jan, try listening and comprehending.

I don't mind what they say or think about theism, it their prerogative. Just don't try to censor what I say about atheism.

Noone censors what you say, Jan, but people will react to what you say, even if that is the continued misrepresentation of their position despite years of them explaining it to you. They will also react to the manner and tone of what you say.

I assume they know what ''theist'' actually means, like I know what ''atheist'' actually means.

You'll have to ask them

No they don't. They say what they like, how they like. They assume what they like, how they like. Fine!
Just don't cry into your beer when I use the same line.

So two wrongs make a right? Pathetic, Jan. Grow up!

My position is ''theist'' (a person that believes in God). As long as that is not violated, I'm okay.

How do you think one could violate your position?

It should be the same with atheists. As long as their position of not believing in God, remains intact. There should be no controversy.

Why should one's position remaining intact be of relevance? If arguments are raised that causes one to reconsider their position, and alter it, then so be it. If all one intends to do is dogmatically cling to their position then they really aren't here for discussion.

Report it to who? JamesR?

I have no idea who the reported posts end up with. If the report is valid, why should it matter who?

I think an underlying issue here, is that I don't need to try and score points.

Yet you try to with almost every response. If you have no need, and yet that it is how it comes across, perhaps you should rethink your approach.

I think you have that the wrong way round Sakus.

No, I really don't, Jan. But think what you will; I have said my piece, and will fade back again for now.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I don't see atheists as a distinct group of people. The only difference between an atheist, and a theist, is that one does not believe in God. Other than that we're just people.

Here are a few random snippets of atheist thoughts, in this thread.



jan.

Ridiculous.
Atheists are a group of people & theists are another group. Homosexuals & heterosexuals are 2 groups of people. People of Spanish ancestry & people of Irish ancestry are 2 groups of people. Poor people, middle class, upper class & very rich are 4 groups of people. Logical thinkers & irrational thinkers are 2 groups of people. Male & female are 2 groups & children & adults are 2 groups. All these & 100s, if not 1000s, more are distinct groups of people. No matter how you see it.

It might be true that the only difference between some theists & some atheists is belief in god(s) or no belief in god(s). There are many more differences between most theists & most atheists, mainly resulting from belief in gods. That belief affects their lives & makes their thoughts & actions very different from those of no god belief.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Here are a few random snippets of atheist thoughts, in this thread :

So you acknowledge that it didn't really happen as described in the book? It's not literal truth? Congratulations, you have taken the first step.
I've never understood this connection - and I've read it over and over through the years. It's quite possible for god to exist and be an asshole.
So you accept that the bible is just stories written by humans? Good, you're well on the road to accepting that it's all just made up.
I'm a third-generation atheist, so I had no trouble with my family attempting to fill my head with fairytales.
And by now I understand that you simply cannot get a religious person to understand logic and science. They're morons, so the best you can do is to treat them like morons.
The whole concept it's based on is loathsome and unacceptable to a moral being.
I can't imagine Jesus would have liked most of his self-professed followers. So it's just as well he's imaginary himself.
Your comment about farmers reminds me of people whose lives I saved thanking their imaginary fiend instead of me.


jan.

^^^
Is there supposed to be a point to that?

<>

 

[Yazata]

Yazata, Have you tried starting your own threads on philosophy of religion etc.?

Occasionally.

Unfortunately, it is quite common for religious discussions here to degenerate into debates about the existence of gods.

That wasn't my complaint. I have nothing against discussing the existence of gods. Not only is it fun, it can serve as an occasion for raising no end of interesting (and important) issues. It's like peering through an intellectual kaleidoscope.

What do we mean when we say 'God' or 'a god'? (Or alternatively, how have the words historically been used?) What are we saying when we say that something 'exists'? Are there different kinds of existence? (Do fictional characters exist?) Do assertions about different kinds of existence have truth values that are grounded in different ways? What is religious knowledge? How does one acquire it? What is the role of evidence in all this? What kind of evidence would constitute evidence of 'holiness'?

Dinosaur had another interesting take on the issue in the OP this thread when he asked how real life atheists came to be atheists. How do people come to the positions they currently hold? (How important is reasoning in that process? Or is it more a matter of upbringing and emotional experiences?) But then the thread went off in an entirely different direction, focusing obsessively on Jan. Poor Dinosaur and his excellent question were forgotten.

Maybe it's because the issue can't be resolved that people find it attractive.

It certainly speaks to people's deepest hopes and values, since gods typically personify those things. (Personifying concepts, another issue.) Metaphysically, it addresses what is most fundamental and real. (That edges up against science's turf and may share some of the same motivations with science.) And I believe that it was Paul Tillich that defined 'God' as 'object of ultimate concern'. The attraction that the God issue has for people would seem to flow directly from that.

But I agree with you that there are plenty of other things worth discussing about belief, religion, philosophy and so on. I guess for many it's just easier to stall the discussion of God before it really gets started.

My complaint is that many discussions about religion start well (Dinosaur's initial question in this thread asking atheists how they became atheist for example) but too often they become nothing more than posts by Jan Ardena and posts replying to Jan Ardena. It rarely has anything to do with the original topic of the thread (which is ignored and soon forgotten) but revolve obsessively about what Jan thinks about atheism. Then it goes on for page after page after page after page after page after page page after page after page after page after page, never saying anything new, in thread after thread, just repeating the same points over and over.

I am not asking for Jan to be banned. No, no, no. I like Jan and Jan's participation. I'm just asking the people on this board that I respect to stop trying to have the last word with Jan. (Jan won't let you. It's never gonna happen. Jan's never going to agree with you. Ever.) Maybe even occasionally try to make some points regarding the ostensible subject of the thread you are posting in that don't have anything to do with Jan or Jan's views.

 

[DaveC426913]

[ DUPE ]

 

[Yazata]

[To Jan]You seem to prefer the abstract construct of "atheist" you have made for yourself, and are disturbed when an actual atheist appears in front of you to challenge your ideas of what atheists think and believe.

I think that Jan is trying to shape the battlefield, so to speak. He/she (we don't even know that) wants to define 'atheist' in such a way that Jan thinks it's easier to defeat.

Atheists often do precisely the same thing, turning theism into a caricature and then knocking down the straw-man that they created. So theism turns into the worst aspects of a certain kind of Protestant Biblical literalism. That's why we see so many atheists quoting Bible verses as proof texts, insisting that all verses must be read literally and that the whole Bible stands or falls as a unit. (NO "picking and choosing".) You haven't lived until you have a discussion board full of atheists ignorantly lecturing you on what "true Christianity" is.

I think that what Jan does here on Sciforums is turn atheists' own modes of argument against them. That's why atheists seem to find it so frustrating.

There are no deities, as far as I am aware. But it is possible that deities exist, nonetheless. Therefore, it would be silly for me to make the claim that there are no deities. Maybe there are some and I'm just not aware of them.

With me, it depends on what 'deities' means. If it refers to the personifications found in religious mythology, then I'm quite comfortable saying that I believe that they don't exist. But I wouldn't say that with 100% confidence, with 100% certainty. I just assign an exceedingly low probability to the idea that the ultimate principle of reality, the creative source of the entire universe, cares whether a tribe of Hebrews worships him, whether they keep the sabbath holy, or whether they mutilate their genitals. I might be wrong about that atheism, that belief in the non-existence of gods conceived in this way, but I'm reasonably confident that I'm not.

If 'deity' is understood more metaphysically to refer to the universe's first-cause, the source of its observed order, or its fundamental ground, then I don't have a clue what the answers are. I'm far more of an agnostic with regard to the big metaphysical questions, that often seem to show up in discussions of natural theology. I'm definitely not prepared to say that nothing explains or underlies these things, but I don't think that I'm in any position to opine about what it is. (Even if I'm reasonably confident that Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva have nothing to do with it.)

I don't actually believe that deities don't exist.

I believe that the traditional mythological ones don't exist.

But I don't actually believe they do exist, either. Put it this way: based on what I know, I estimate the probability of the existence of any deities to be small, but not zero.

I agree with that. I guess that where we differ is that I'm willing to form beliefs on the basis of informally assessed likelihoods, in the absence of absolute certainty. (I'm doubtful whether human beings are really justified in being 100% certain about anything, including logical proofs.)

 

[C C]

My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

Like a watching a pot come to boil. So gradual there's just a generalized development to reflect on rather than key incidents or turning points in memory. Plus...

Even though in practice or some outward observations I might be construed as equivalent to an atheist as much as agnostic, apatheist, ignostic, non-religious, etc -- I share sentiments similar to Sam Harris about it. Why espouse an identity that revolves around the very item one supposedly lacks, rejects, is politically against, etc (whatever level or species of "atheism" pertains to the applicable individual). Why have "theism" be defining you via sporting a label that contains "theism" as the principle word-unit?

Even if there's a practical reason like publicly wanting to indicate that one's life does indeed revolve around being negatively conscious of, passionately opposed to, or apathetically / un-emotively expressing absence of belief in an Abrahamic deity[*] (and its consequences), then surely there's some other term that could be concocted that doesn't genuflect to theism as part of its very etymological properties.

There might be the objection of "but then _X_ wouldn't know what I mean", but that's easily remedied by simply resolving his / her puzzlement. In addition there would be the glee(?) of refusing to accommodate _X_'s demand that one conform to a standard label, which would include "Other atheists also want you to call yourself either that or a non-theist. Just admit that your choice of identity has relation to belief in God, even if it is lack of such or/and oppositional agenda."

- - - -

[*] Technically it can embrace all gods, but in the West its focus is usually on the Semitic variety.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Perhaps one reason you're struggling so much to understand the atheist point of view is that you conflate knowledge and belief.

Although you believe that God exists, you do not know that God exists. That is, in fact, unknowable. However, I am aware that you nevertheless claim to know. You claim to have knowledge which you do not, in fact, have. Your rationalisation for that knowledge claim is that you think you have a kind of magical God-sensing ability that lets you just know stuff about God. Needless to say, I place no stock in your ability to just know stuff.

As an atheist, I admit I do not know whether God exists, because it is unknowable. Therefore I do not claim to know that God does not exist.

The issue of belief is logically separate from the issue of knowledge but you make the mistake of thinking your belief gives you knowledge.

As an atheist, knowing that I cannot know for certain whether God exists, I weigh up the available evidence and arguments and conclude that I cannot commit to believing in God's existence. This is not the quite the same thing as believing that God does not exist.

I take no issue with your belief in God, other than that I do not think it has good justification. I do take issue with your assumption that your belief somehow equates to actual knowledge.

Salt water will still have an effect on the mouth and throat, that can be used to decide. You can never be sure.

Again, you're not thinking widely enough. Taste is more complex than being able to distinguish salt from sugar. We could easily set up objective tests to see whether a person could distinguish between many types of flavours, even with foods with very similar or identical textures etc.

We're not looking for certainty, by the way. High confidence in the objective reality is quite sufficient.

''Accepting'' (or not) being the operative word.
We choose what we accept.

Yes, if the process is an intellectual one it is a conscious choice to accept or reject something. So what?

Don't you care whether what you believe is true or not? Forget other people. Wouldn't you like to have a rational basis for your own beliefs? Or is it more about comfort for you?

I don't look at it like that.
You do. That's the point.

Yes. That was my point.

How do you look at it?

''Atheist'' = a person who does not believe in God. Right?

Theists believe in God/gods. Atheists don't. So we're in agreement on that, at least.

''Atheism'' = a person who does not believe in God/gods. You agree right?
Where have I contradicted that, or said it isn't so?

You haven't contradicted that. The problem is what you're trying to add to that: ideas that God exists and that atheists reject or deny that this God that exists, and on so. You don't know where to stop.

It is the atheist position. Please show where I am mistaken.

Already done, multiple times. And not just me. You're getting a consistent message from lots of atheists, yet you're not listening to it.

For the atheist, there is no God. Is that right or wrong?

Wrong. Atheists don't believe there is a God. But that's not the same thing as asserting that it is fact that there is no God.

See above if this is still unclear to you. A belief claim is not a knowledge claim for atheists, whereas it apparently is a knowledge claim for you.

I don't think that all the atheists are telling lies. I just don't think some are being honest, or do not give a lot of thought to the reasons why they are atheist.

There's a considerable amount of evidence in this thread alone that shows that there are plenty of atheists who have thought long and hard about that.

Maybe if you stopped trying to redefine atheism to suit yourself, you'd be able to pay attention to the intended topic of this thread.

I think what irritates you is the idea that I dare to think, you have not thought your position through.

What an arrogant man you are, Jan. What irritates me about you is precisely the opposite - that you so often assume without thinking. You make bald claims about all kinds of things and don't even think it necessary to attempt to defend them. Your assumption is simply that your views are correct, and that you don't even need to try to justify them - even in a public discussion on a discussion forum in which you are choosing to participate.

I've told you countless times what ''theist'' means from my perspective. A theist is a person that believes in God.

That's an empty truism you're offering there. It tells us nothing about your "perspective". It's just owning a label, nothing more.

There's nothing more to say, just like there is nothing more to say about atheist. It is what it is.

For a man who claims to be thinking his position through, you have remarkably little substance to offer, apparently.

What would be the objective measure of ''taste'', or any essential thing?
How do we know we have taste, sight, hearing, and touch? We certainly do not need to be told that's what we have.
We don't need outside evidence to reassure ourselves. It just is, and we take it for granted.

In a way, we do need to be told that's what we have. "Sight" and "taste" are labels that describe complex sequences of events and experiences. Without labels, it's difficult to differentiate one thing from another when we communicate with one another.

As for objective measures, there are many for "taste". We can observe the taste buds on the tongue. We can observe patterns of activity in the brain associated with the taste experience. We can conduct many empirical tests of the nature and limits of "taste".

How do you think we come to know things?

I think we gather information through our senses. We then collate, cross-reference and interrogate that information with our brains. And, if the thing happens to be true, then we can know it, provided we believe it is true and that belief is appropriately justified.

You don't need my approval to tell me that theism is nothing more than a gut feeling.

I have not claimed that theism is nothing more than a gut feeling. My claim is your grounds for believing in God boil down mostly to gut feeling, when all is said and done. If you'd like to suggest other reasons why you believe in God, I would be interested to hear them.

Like I said, ''God exists'' is implied in everything to do with atheist, modern and ancient.

No. What is implied, in modern atheism anyway, is that there's this concept out there that people refer to as "God", and some people (theists) opine that the concept refers to a real, extant being, and atheists do not assent to the same opinion.

It has evolved intellectually, but so has everything. The more information we acquire, the more the intellect evolves. But the core essential reasoning, does not change. It still applies. Atheists are still without God.

We've already talked about the whole "without God" thing. To repeat: if "without God" means no more than atheist don't believe that God exists, then atheists are indeed "without God". On the other hand, if, as you seem to want to imply, "without God" means that God exists and atheists deny or reject him, then atheists are not "without God" in that sense - and this is what we have largely been arguing about.

Your repeated assertion of and insistence on definitions of "atheist" that import the assumption that God exists in reality (as opposed to being merely a fantasy or concept) is basis of the argument we have been having here. You're not pulling the wool over my eyes. I'm calling out your attempts to get God in under the radar, and explaining why I reject your definitions.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

This isn't complicated, if you're a believer in any religion, it's highly likely that you had no choice. Your beliefs that you've convinced yourself are true, are the result of where and when you were born. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't make what I just told you not accurate.

<>

 

[DaveC426913]

We've already talked about the whole "without God" thing. To repeat: if "without God" means no more than atheist don't believe that God exists, then atheists are indeed "without God". On the other hand, if, as you seem to want to imply, "without God" means that God exists and atheists deny or reject him, then atheists are not "without God" in that sense - and this is what we have largely been arguing about.

And let's not forget, when the term atheist was first coined, it was under the same assumption (i.e. belief as opposed to knowledge) that God existed.
The label itself highlights the predisposition of those who invented it. It "poisons the well".

To assert that the term atheist somehow embodies some truth about the world is absurd.

Similar to arguing that, say, the term Big Bang must define, for all time, what actually happened at the start of the universe.

The term does not define the thing.

How many times must we explain this?

 

[Jan Ardena]

He says while holding up the thread.

How am I holding up the thread, anymore than you JamesR, are?

This has been explained to you countless times, Jan, over the past God knows how many years.... It is not a fact that God does not exist, as far as an atheist is aware.

God either exists, or God doesn't exist, Sarkus.

That nuance seems to continue to elude you.

It doesn't elude me, it's just nonsensical.

See above. You continue to argue your own view of atheism rather than listening to what the atheist actually tells you.

It's not a ''view'' of atheism.
Either God (or gods) exists, or not.

No, the actual position is that they do not have the belief that a god exists.

Okay, I accept this semantical difference. But how does it differ from not believing in God, aside from the natural implication that God exists, regardless of what you believe?

"Believing in" God is a secondary belief that theists have, that atheists clearly won't have -

What is the primary belief?

And there you are again misrepresenting the atheist position. What a surprise. And you do it while claiming to listen to what the person is actually saying. Oh, the irony.

Why is it a misrepresentation?

Then why are you here? To agree with the atheist position? To agree with their reasoning for the position they hold?

Because I like discussing certain topics. Why are you here?

You think you know, and by hook or by crook you will argue that understanding despite what anyone actually says.

What's not to know Sarkus?
Atheists do not believe in God, regardless of any implication of God's existence. If you did believe in God, you wouldn't be atheist.
Plus you would not need evidence in order to justify your belief.

And you do it by arguing against your version/understanding of what an atheist is, irrespective of what others actually inform you.

My version?...

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists. Wiki.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/ataglance/glance.shtml

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/atheism.html

Atheism (or non-theism, which is broadly synonymous) is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods or, more strongly, the belief that there is no such thing as God or gods. It may involve the outright rejection of any kind of theism (which can be generally defined as the belief in one or more gods); or it may be the rejection of belief in a specific god or gods (e.g. the Christian God);
http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/what.html

...I really don't think so.

You think you know, and by hook or by crook you will argue that understanding despite what anyone actually says.

Explain why I need to take into account what someone says, in order to understand the simplicity of what atheism is (it is simply not theism)?

The disrespect you show is in your language, your tone, your manner, Jan. And it's simply not true that I am "not comfortable" with you trying to pick holes in my position. It is for people to pick holes in it that I put it forth as I do. But to date you have not even come close to penetrating it, no matter what you may convince yourself of. So rather than be "not comfortable", it actually used to make me more comfortable in my position. Until I realised that you actually had very little to offer by way of coherent and consistent argument.

That disrespect, and tone, is nothing new on these forums, when it comes to bashing religion, or theism. I don't see you objecting to any of that. So why the concern about such attitudes (not that it is my attitude) now?

That's not what you do, Jan. You rattle off cherry-picked definitions as if they decide the person's position just because they self-label themselves with those terms.

Then don't refer to yourself as 'atheist' if you don't like being described as one. The very essence of atheism, not theism, means God exists, but you reject, or deny. You can't get away from it. To add to that, you display rejection, and denial, when you discuss these topics. The problem is, you also reject and deny that.

For that, Jan, you need to listen to what they say.

I was replying to StrangerInAStrangeLands concern about the word 'atheism'.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

...

So tell them they're not atheists. Tell them they're not strictly the label they self-identify with. But then, for Pete's sake, discuss what they say about their position, not mire the thread in this semantic bullcrap that you spread liberally throughout this site.

I'm not objecting to their world view. We all have a choice in what we accept.
As I said, I define words so that we have a mutual understanding of we mean when we use them. It's not my fault that they contradict what you say, and believe about yourself.
There's only so much you can reject, or deny, before the cracks start showing. And believe me, they are.

But you're not discussing what the person is saying about their path to atheism.

One's ''path'' is personal. The term ''atheism'', isn't.
Note, that I don't get personal (unlike some)'

You're simply shouting definitions at them, ignoring how they are using the labels, and sticking obstinately to what the dictionary says. You are simply not discussing, Jan.

Like I said, I use definitions as referrence, so that we have a mutual understanding of the terms. Obviously such a practice is not acceptable, specifically in this subject matter, because some folk do not like the result. But they mean what they mean, or at least, that is what the general populace means when they use them. I do not stick obstanantly to what the dictionary says. I can identify with what the dictionary says, because I see it in atheist writings, debates, comments, etc... It's all over most things you say.

Then have that discussion, rather than go on and on with this semantic crap you're trying to pull.

We are having this discussion. Another case of rejection and denial.
If I wish to use definitions to further my point, so what?

I don't think that. I can comprehend many things without there needing to be evidence of their actual existence. I can comprehend many fictional characters from books, for example.

So you don't think there is a lack of evidence for God?

No, that would be from the perspective of any person who is capable of thinking critically, who is able to ponder hypotheticals. All you're effectively saying by "that's from an atheist perspective" is that you are blind to the possibility. You may say "but I know God exists: that is the theist perspective" but that is just a matter of conviction.

No. I mean it is from an atheist perspective. The perception of a blind person (a person without sight), is different from that of a person with sight. No matter how close they appear to be, they are different.
A theist believes in God, and atheist doesn't (for whatever reason). If I say 'I know God exists' it is based on my belief. I may say 'I know my wife loves me', but that is based on my belief in my wife. Over time I have come to know her. It would be arrogant of me to think she loves me, without first coming to the platform of belief.

Again with the misrepresentation. Just for once, Jan, try listening and comprehending.

I'm saying that there is no God for you to believe in, as far as you're aware. Either God is, or God isn't.
All grey areas are intellectual, which is not practical. I may have lot's of grey areas in my own personal belief, but as a theist, my position is that I believe in God. You are atheist, and as far as I can tell, all those definitions I put forward apply to you, and other atheists I have encountered, despite your personal testimony.

Noone censors what you say, Jan, but people will react to what you say, even if that is the continued misrepresentation of their position despite years of them explaining it to you. They will also react to the manner and tone of what you say.

Firstly, I am not misrepresenting anyones position, and I have purposely defined words so as not to do just that. Secondly, if they are capable of giving the manner and tone in the way you think I am, which they are. They should learn to take it.

Theists on here are generally respectful to atheists, but I find atheists aren't. They don't listen to theists, other than to counter what they say. The problem is atheists don't like to receive what they give out. They think they have a right to ridicule and mock, but the theist doesn't. Was it Dawkins who publicly proclaimed that it's okay to ridicule religious people (which obviously includes theists)?

I have no idea who the reported posts end up with. If the report is valid, why should it matter who?

My point is, with moderators like JamesR, Bells, and Kittemaru (hope I've spelled it correctly), I don't feel as though my side would be fairly represented. So I don't bother. I've learned to deal with it another way.

Yet you try to with almost every response. If you have no need, and yet that it is how it comes across, perhaps you should rethink your approach.

You mean I should just accept what you say as true, and I shouldn't bother to look up what terms mean. Just look the other way?
Sorry, but that's not who I am.

jan.

 

[James R]

God either exists, or God doesn't exist, Sarkus.

Yes, but nobody know which it is. And, like I said, careful "weak atheists" therefore do not make the claim that God does not exist.

The notion that knowledge does not automatically follow from belief is not "nonsensical"; it is correct.

What is the primary belief?

Belief that God is real. Belief in God, in the sense of trusting God and putting faith in God, comes after one accepts that God is real.

Then don't refer to yourself as 'atheist' if you don't like being described as one. The very essence of atheism, not theism, means God exists, but you reject, or deny. You can't get away from it.

I carefully explained why you are wrong in my previous post, above, and why I reject your insistence on the bizarre position that the reality of God is the "essence of atheism". Simple common sense should tell you that if somebody doesn't believe in God, they're probably not assuming that God is real.

As I said, I define words so that we have a mutual understanding of we mean when we use them. It's not my fault that they contradict what you say, and believe about yourself.

What you are doing is putting up a barrier that prevents any meaningful discussion between yourself and atheists, because no (modern) atheist will agree to your definition of the term "atheist" as meaning somebody who accepts that God is real yet denies or rejects God.

If you don't even understand who you're talking to, advancing the discussion is going to be very difficult indeed for you.

Like I said, I use definitions as referrence, so that we have a mutual understanding of the terms.

The atheists here have come to understand that you are working with an incorrect definition of "atheism" as it is commonly understood by atheists today. So, I guess we've reach the point where there's mutual understanding that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to atheism. Beyond that, we're not making a lot of progress.

A theist believes in God, and atheist doesn't (for whatever reason). If I say 'I know God exists' it is based on my belief.

But knowledge cannot follow from belief alone, as I explained above. Knowledge requires that the belief is both true and justified.

I may say 'I know my wife loves me', but that is based on my belief in my wife. Over time I have come to know her. It would be arrogant of me to think she loves me, without first coming to the platform of belief.

It would be arrogant of you to claim without justification that she loves you, based only on your own inner gut feeling. Instead (I hope) you base your conclusion on evidence, which could be used to justify your belief objectively.

I'm saying that there is no God for you to believe in, as far as you're aware. Either God is, or God isn't.
All grey areas are intellectual, which is not practical.

Either God is, or isn't. But it does not follow that you can know, in practice, which of those two options is right. In fact, the best you can do is to proclaim a belief one way or the other.

Firstly, I am not misrepresenting anyones position...

Yes you are, consistently. It is not the position of atheists that God exists. That's your position. No atheist says "I believe that God exists, but I reject him." Not in the modern era. That's no longer what atheism means, even if it did sometimes mean that in the past.

Theists on here are generally respectful to atheists, but I find atheists aren't.

Do you think you're being respectful to atheists in telling them that, regardless of what they think and say about their position, their actual position is what you say it is and not what they say it is?

The problem is atheists don't like to receive what they give out. They think they have a right to ridicule and mock, but the theist doesn't.

Are you saying it is your intention to ridicule and mock atheists, then?

Was it Dawkins who publicly proclaimed that it's okay to ridicule religious people (which obviously includes theists)?

Possibly. If so, I disagree with him on this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perhaps one reason you're struggling so much to understand the atheist point of view is that you conflate knowledge and belief.

There are many atheists point of views, as there are theist ones. I've no need to understand each and every point of view, to know what atheism is.

Although you believe that God exists, you do not know that God exists. That is, in fact, unknowable.

I'm not concerned with existence. You are.
I believe in God.

However, I am aware that you nevertheless claim to know. You claim to have knowledge which you do not, in fact, have.

I've made no such claim. It doesn't work like that.

Your rationalisation for that knowledge claim is that you think you have a kind of magical God-sensing ability that lets you just know stuff about God. Needless to say, I place no stock in your ability to just know stuff.

Is this how you thought you were theist?

As an atheist, I admit I do not know whether God exists, because it is unknowable. Therefore I do not claim to know that God does not exist.

But God does not currently exist, as far as you can tell, which I suspect is the reason why you are an atheist. Note that I didn't say you assert that God doesn't exist, but God doesn't actually exist, as far as you're aware.

The issue of belief is logically separate from the issue of knowledge but you make the mistake of thinking your belief gives you knowledge.

You're the one who is making that mistake. I've implied no such thing.
I am a theist, a person who believes in God. That's all there is to it.

As an atheist, knowing that I cannot know for certain whether God exists, I weigh up the available evidence and arguments and conclude that I cannot commit to believing in God's existence. This is not the quite the same thing as believing that God does not exist.

As an atheist, you are without God. That means you cannot really know anything about God. No evidence will suffice, simply because you are without God. You cannot commit to believing God exists, because, God doesn't exist as far as you're aware, and as such you are what is termed ''atheist''. If you don't believe that God doesn't exist, then explain what it is you believe. Or are you going to say you have no belief, that you simply allow the evidence to dictate what you believe? If that is the case, then you should believe that God doesn't exist, because for you there is no evidence that God currently exists.

I take no issue with your belief in God, other than that I do not think it has good justification. I do take issue with your assumption that your belief somehow equates to actual knowledge.

Where have I equated belief with knowledge?

Yes, if the process is an intellectual one it is a conscious choice to accept or reject something. So what?

So we can choose what we accept as evidence of something. Not very reliable.

How do you look at it?

From the perspective of a theist.

You haven't contradicted that. The problem is what you're trying to add to that: ideas that God exists and that atheists reject or deny that this God that exists, and on so. You don't know where to stop.

You don't think my belief in God has good justification. Right?
I think you purposely reject/deny God.
We both believe things about the others position. Just deal with it. I don't cry into my beer about what you think about my position. Why should you?

Already done, multiple times. And not just me. You're getting a consistent message from lots of atheists, yet you're not listening to it.

It's more of a case that they're not listening to me.
What does an atheist approval have to do with defining atheism? Especially when it is not simply coming from my own mind. kFor the atheists on here, you included, unless I have misread their posts, God does NOT exist, regardless of their agnostic leanings. The alternative is that they believe that God exists, but do not believe in God. But I have not encountered that as yet.

Wrong.

So God exists for the atheist?

Atheists don't believe there is a God. But that's not the same thing as asserting that it is fact that there is no God.

One doesn't have to assert there is no God, for the situation of 'no God' to be apparent in their lives. You seem to be of the opinion that it only counts if you asser it.

''No your honour, I do not accept the charge of tax evasion, because I haven't asserted that I evaded tax''.

A belief claim is not a knowledge claim for atheists, whereas it apparently is a knowledge claim for you.

Atheist perspective.

What an arrogant man you are, Jan.

Arrogance: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

Because I think you haven't thought your position through, which you clearly haven't, you call me arrogant? I think you're arrogant for giving yourself that amount of importance.

What irritates me about you is precisely the opposite - that you so often assume without thinking. You make bald claims about all kinds of things and don't even think it necessary to attempt to defend them.

Go on. Get it off your chest James.

Your assumption is simply that your views are correct, and that you don't even need to try to justify them - even in a public discussion on a discussion forum in which you are choosing to participate.

What haven't I justified, in this thread?

That's an empty truism you're offering there. It tells us nothing about your "perspective". It's just owning a label, nothing more.

That is my perspective. You just can't get your head around it.
Remember, our perspectives, on this matter, are entirely opposite. You do not understand what belief in God means from my perspective, only from your own.
Do you accept that?

My claim is your grounds for believing in God boil down mostly to gut feeling, when all is said and done.

Why would you say something like that?

If you'd like to suggest other reasons why you believe in God, I would be interested to hear them.

I've told you quite a few times, but you don't want to accept it. Belief in God is natural to human beings, as is not believing in God. We have the capacity to accept either position.

No. What is implied, in modern atheism anyway, is that there's this concept out there that people refer to as "God", and some people (theists) opine that the concept refers to a real, extant being, and atheists do not assent to the same opinion.

That's simply your way of looking at it. The reality is, and has always been, there is God, and there are folk who choose not to accept God. That is what atheism means, when you break it down, both modern and ancient. And I don't need an atheist approval to comprehend that.

On the other hand, if, as you seem to want to imply, "without God" means that God exists and atheists deny or reject him, then atheists are not "without God" in that sense - and this is what we have largely been arguing about.

I don't have to imply it. That's my point.

Without

in the absence of.
not having the use or benefit of.
outside.
with the absence,
omission,
or avoidance of;
not with;
with no or none of;
lacking:
free from;
excluding:...

I understand that you don't want to come across as someone who rejects God, but everything lends itself that notion. I don't have to cherry-pick, it is in everything to do with ''atheist'', ''atheism'', and even atheists like yourself. Your problem is that you think our perspectives are the same, so what applies to you, applies to me, regarding God.

Your repeated assertion of and insistence on definitions of "atheist" that import the assumption that God exists in reality (as opposed to being merely a fantasy or concept) is basis of the argument we have been having here. You're not pulling the wool over my eyes. I'm calling out your attempts to get God in under the radar, and explaining why I reject your definitions.

There is nothing wrong with my definition of ''atheist''. You said so yourself. You just mistakenly believe that I am implying God exists. The reality is, I don't need to.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, but nobody know which it is. And, like I said, careful "weak atheists" therefore do not make the claim that God does not exist.

Have I ever said that ''God (actually) exists''?

Belief that God is real. Belief in God, in the sense of trusting God and putting faith in God, comes after one accepts that God is real.

An atheist perspective. I might have known.

I carefully explained why you are wrong in my previous post, above, and why I reject your insistence on the bizarre position that the reality of God is the "essence of atheism". Simple common sense should tell you that if somebody doesn't believe in God, they're probably not assuming that God is real.

I didn't say you assume God exists, or assert that God exists. It doesn't matter what you assume or assert. The fact is that God does not currently exist, as far as you're aware. Either that or God does exist as far as you're aware. But that would contradict not only you're label, but what you say about your position. Namely that there is no evidence for God's existence, meaning currently God does not exist (even though you haven't asserted it).

What you are doing is putting up a barrier that prevents any meaningful discussion between yourself and atheists, because no (modern) atheist will agree to your definition of the term "atheist" as meaning somebody who accepts that God is real yet denies or rejects God.

It's not my definition James. It is what it is.
I merely bring it to the fore.

If you don't even understand who you're talking to, advancing the discussion is going to be very difficult indeed for you.

I assume that I'm talking to intelligent people, with the ability of objectivety.

The atheists here have come to understand that you are working with an incorrect definition of "atheism" as it is commonly understood by atheists today.

How is it that the definition atheist prefer to use today, is so different from what the word, and all the terms associated with the term ''atheist''? Should I not look at any definitions of the word? Should I consult an atheist before looking at these definitions, so they can school me in how to look at them?

But knowledge cannot follow from belief alone, as I explained above. Knowledge requires that the belief is both true and justified.

You're talking about acquiring knowledge, of going from the state of ignorance. Theism isn't like that. Theism is natural. Just as atheism is natural. I don't have to have knowledge of my senses. They just are. It is only when your senses begin to fade, or you lose some, that we become a little more concerned about what they are.
The problem is, you don't understand what God is. You think it is something else, or something other than everything else. You comprehend God, as a separate entity.

It would be arrogant of you to claim without justification that she loves you, based only on your own inner gut feeling. Instead (I hope) you base your conclusion on evidence, which could be used to justify your belief objectively.

No. I don't base it on evidence. That would be silly.
Either she loves me, or she doesn't. What could you regard as evidence that your wife loves you?

Either God is, or isn't. But it does not follow that you can know, in practice, which of those two options is right. In fact, the best you can do is to proclaim a belief one way or the other.

This is your perspective, not mine.
Try and understand that.

No atheist says "I believe that God exists, but I reject him." Not in the modern era. That's no longer what atheism means, even if it did sometimes mean that in the past.

I've never said atheist believe that God exits, but reject him.
I also understand that the atheist does not believe in God, and the forerunner excuse is that there is no evidence that convinces them of God's existence, what to speak of believing in God. It's a lot deeper than that. Maybe we'll talk about it one day, when we can get past this.

Do you think you're being respectful to atheists in telling them that, regardless of what they think and say about their position, their actual position is what you say it is and not what they say it is?

I simply define ''atheism'' James.
I don't need personal testimonies of atheists, to define ''atheism''.
I accept yours and Sarkus's account, but I don't agree with it.
What is disrespectful about that?

Possibly. If so, I disagree with him on this.

Nevertheless, it shifts mindsets, especially over time. People find themselves saying things, and agreeing with things, they may not have entertained before. But it's alright now. I have witnessed that.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

You're talking about acquiring knowledge, of going from the state of ignorance. Theism isn't like that. Theism is natural. Just as atheism is natural. I don't have to have knowledge of my senses. They just are. It is only when your senses begin to fade, or you lose some, that we become a little more concerned about what they are.

You also need knowledge of your senses to discuss their properties, errors, ranges, "blind spots", and so forth. Without such knowledge, your claims of perception are likely to be wrong - especially your claims regarding other people's perceptions.

It's not my definition James. It is what it is.
I merely bring it to the fore

It is a strawman. Such rhetorical tricks mark either innocent incapability of reason, or dishonesty.

I don't need personal testimonies of atheists, to define ''atheism''.

Your definition is obviously in error, and your defense of it reveals a fundamental dishonesty in your approach - a self awareness of deception.

How is it that the definition atheist prefer to use today, is so different from what the word, and all the terms associated with the term ''atheist''?

It isn't.

Should I consult an atheist before looking at these definitions, so they can school me in how to look at them?

That would be a first step toward honest engagement. Why have you refused to do that?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You also need knowledge of your senses to discuss their properties, errors, ranges, "blind spots", and so forth. Without such knowledge, your claims of perception are likely to be wrong - especially your claims regarding other people's perceptions.

What is the "you" that has knowledge enough to monitor the influx of knowledge coming in. Is it another sense?

It is a strawman. Such rhetorical tricks mark either innocent incapability of reason, or dishonesty.

They're not tricks. Everything is laid out already. I don't need to add anything, or create anything. It is what it is.

Your definition is obviously in error, and your defense of it reveals a fundamental dishonesty in your approach - a self awareness of deception.

What exactly is my definition?
I mean, what exactly have I changed, from the many different, sourced definitions, I posted?

That would be a first step toward honest engagement. Why have you refused to do that?

Because I don't think I need atheist approval, to define 'atheism'.

Here is a definition from the American Atheists site.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

1. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god

This is obvious, as theism is not the Affirmative belief that there is God.

2 It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

This is now stating that THERE IS NO GOD, only the statement of there being a God. This is sneaking the assertion that there is no God, through the back door.
Probably to avoid explaining the implications that tag along with such a statement.

My definitions basically state that atheists either disbelieve, lack belief in, or assert that there is no, God.

3 Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

A belief system is so called, because of what it is, not what you want., or don't want it to be.

If a bad person wants to describe them self as good, it does nothing to aleviate the fact that they are a bad person (if they do bad things)

So, I do hear how atheists define themselves, but their definition does not match up to the reality of what they say in discussion or debate.

I believe they are trying to carve out a definition that explains how they would like to be defined, but it's not real.

Obviously gay people can be as light-hearted and carefree, or not, as people who are not gay. But it doesn't mean they have the quality of being lighthearted and carefree. They added a new meaning to the word, to give themselves a better image.

I think atheists are in the process of doing the same thing. But as a gay person cannot escape the description of homo-sexual, a person who does not believe in God cannot escape the term atheist, and all its implications.

Jan.