What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

[lightgigantic]

@Yazata --



It's not just a hurtle that god claims must clear, but one that all existence claims must overcome. This isn't defining a god so much as it is setting standards of evidence for various claims of various sorts.

It sets it for various claims of various sorts.

However not all sorts.

There are various sorts of soft science, legal issues and even medicine that most certainly don't adhere to such a format.

the distinction between accepting which epistemological framework(or how one can know something - for all those out there not familiar with the term) is made solely on the nature of the problem to be investigated.

IOW if you are advocating that this and this only is the means to which one can come to answer, you are dictating the format you expect the answer to come in.

In science they don't call it a bias.
They call it a Type I or II error (depending whether the bias is for or against)

 

[DaveC426913]

Atheism is not a world view

I think that it is.

If atheism is a world view, then everything ever defined that someone doesn't believe is as well. Not believing in Russell's Teapot is a "worldview", as is not believing in ghosts, as is not believing in push gravity, chemtrails, perpetual motion machines, bugblatter beasts and planet X.

The list of things that a person does not believe in is quite literally infinite.

There is no such thing as atheism except in an environment where some people claim there is a God. To a given non-believer, it's just one more thing that's not true. We have all agreed to label these people as atheists - but it is purely for the convenience of the theists. It means nothing to the non-believer.

The non-believer does not define himself as an a-theist any more than he defines himself an aTeapotist, a-ghost-ist, a-push-gravity-ist, a-chemtrailist, a-PPMist, aBugblattist or a-planet-Xist. The list of things he does not define himself as is infinite.

 

[DaveC426913]

Guys, unless the theists have some more compelling arguments they want to put forth at this time, I'm callin' this thread a point for the atheists.

The theists have asked what it means to know God and posit that atheists can't meaningfully refute it without knowing the details.

In a bold yet ultimately fallacious move, the theists have decided that it is up to their opponents to define the terms used in the theist's opening premise. The theists have, in the entire course of this discussion, not actually defined the terms of their own opening premise.

The atheists nonetheless can roll with this, because their stance is that all theist scenarios share the same fundamental flaw (a godlike being with any of a set of powers). Even if we were to accept the opening premise, this still stands. No compelling evidence has come forth.

No atheist need add one more word to this discussion until theists define the terms (to which God do you refer?) of the discussion.

Point goes to atheists.

 

[Yazata]

And if it is real(your god)it will be evident for all, if it is not evident it is irrelivant and most likely a delusion or mental construct having no reality outside your own mind.

You've just defined a hurdle that you believe a proper god must clear.

It's not just a hurtle that god claims must clear, but one that all existence claims must overcome. This isn't defining a god so much as it is setting standards of evidence for various claims of various sorts.

That sounds like one of the ideas that LG was arguing for. Namely the idea that atheist assertions typically are, and typically presuppose, philosophical positions.

Here's the thing:

As soon as atheists stop being totally ignorant and devoid of opinions about the 'God' subject (whatever that word means, which is often unclear) and start making assertions of their own about things like the existence of God, about the intellectual acuity of people who beleve in God, or suggesting that our understanding of the universe, ethics, human flourishing or whatever should be formulated without any reference to God, the now-suddenly-talkative atheists have stepped beyond the 'I hold no views so I have no need to defend them' game and rendered it moot.

Or put another way (in shorter sentences), the only way that 'weak atheists' can successfully hold their ground is by imitating a stone, by keeping their mouths shut and by refusing to inform themselves about theistic belief. As soon as they are informed about the God-question, and as soon at they start to form views of their own about it, they become 'strong atheists'.

That doesn't mean that their views are false or that they are wrong to express them. It just means that the old 'I hold no views that need defending' dodge doesn't work anymore. (Assuming that it ever did.)

Anybody who has views, anybody who says anything informative or interesting, is sticking their neck out, so to speak. They are drawing on the conceptual resources of their language and their culture, they are probably making a host of implicit philosophical assumptions, and they run the risk of being contradicted.

It's the human condition. It's what makes us more interesting than stones.

 

[Grumpy]

Yazata

It seems to me that anyone, whether atheist or theist, who intends the noises they make to mean something, to be words in other words, will have to have some idea in mind of what their words mean.

Yes, but when words as vague as god are bandied about, clarification of the exact meaning intended shouldn't be so hard to get from those who use the word(IE theists). Until everyone knows the meaning no valid discussion is possible. I do not try to define god to others, that would be creating a strawman. I ask those who use the word what exactly they mean, then I will use that definition to base my argument upon.

That meaning might be some sort of definition, or perhaps some way of fixing the reference of a word by ostension (such as fixing the reference of proper names by pointing -- "That's John Jones over there").

But if someone says "That's John over there" while waving vaguely at a crowd of thousands, doesn't it just make common sense for me to ask "Which one?" We could discuss humans in general, but that would mean including both Hitler and Jesus and one would find few things in common between them and we would learn little with any meaning. Of course, atheists have a general idea about what the word god has represented in the past and that representation is all over the map as far as details. Defining the specifics of what you mean by the word collapses that vast meaning into a bitesized bit we can chew on.

I'm not convinced that use of the word 'God' always succeeds in communicating any clear-and-distinct meaning. The various historical uses of the word 'God' have been too various. At times the word seems to communicate a mood more than an idea. At best it's what philosophers sometimes call a family-resemblance concept. Different people have used the word to mean a whole variety of things, but those things tend to bear a family resemblance to each other that arguably justifies use of the same word.

My point exactly, but to take it to an extreme what if I said Ozzy is a Rock God? How much would that have in common with the rest of the things called god? I've actually partially defined what I mean, something the theists here simply refuse to do at all.

My own view is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make positive or negative statements about God, or to say that one believes or doesn't believe in God, unless some additional information is provided about how the word is being employed on that particular occasion.

Well, at least someone here is getting the point. Bravo, sir.

 

[Sarkus]

Or put another way (in shorter sentences), the only way that 'weak atheists' can successfully hold their ground is by imitating a stone, by keeping their mouths shut and by refusing to inform themselves about theistic belief. As soon as they are informed about the God-question, and as soon at they start to form views of their own about it, they become 'strong atheists'.

How so? I am reasonably well informed about the Christian God. I remain a weak atheist.
In what way does the information I have received, and the view that I have formed, turn me into a strong atheist?

Do I believe that the Christian God exists? No.
Do I go so far as to say that the Christian God does not exist? No.
I am thus a weak atheist.

So I'm confused as to your position here.

 

[Yazata]

If atheism is a world view, then everything ever defined that someone doesn't believe is as well. Not believing in Russell's Teapot is a "worldview", as is not believing in ghosts, as is not believing in push gravity, chemtrails, perpetual motion machines, bugblatter beasts and planet X.

A great deal will depend on precisely what it is that somebody believes doesn't exist, or has no ideas about at all, and on what implications the exclusion of that thing would have for other beliefs about the world.

God has historically been a central pillar in worldviews. The existence, nature and activity of God impact how people imagine the ontology of the universe, the direction, goal and meaning of history, how people should behave ethically, the goal of human life, and on and on.

Removing such an important pillar suggests that an atheist worldview is likely to look very different than the worldviews of most theists.

In other words, by expressing their lack of theistic belief, an atheist is simultaneously suggesting a host of more positive implications about the scope and parameters of how their own worldview is likely to fill out, about how their view of a Godless universe will look once the details are filled in.

The list of things that a person does not believe in is quite literally infinite.

Sure, the unknown is an open set.

But it's nevertheless true that not believing in things whose existence we may have no suspicion of and have no way of knowing about is still a big part of what defines the nature of our worldviews at any particular time.

Using the history of science as an example, the ancients held views about biology that didn't include what we know today about biochemistry, physiology, evolution and genomics. They held views about the larger universe weren't built around local heliocentrism, orbital mechanics, or any knowledge of what lies beyond our solar system. So doing the best they could in the circumstances, they advocated vitalistic biology, medical theory that involved balancing 'humors', and cosmologies filled with perfect circles, crystalline spheres and quintescence.

In other words, even the things that we know nothing about and consequently have no belief in one way or the other, can and sometimes do profoundly influence the nature, content and accuracy of the worldviews that omit them.

 

[Grumpy]

Yazata

And if it is real(your god)it will be evident for all, if it is not evident it is irrelivant and most likely a delusion or mental construct having no reality outside your own mind. ”

You've just defined a hurdle that you believe a proper god must clear.

No, I have defined a hurdle ANYTHING must clear to be defined as real as opposed to a mental construct.

That sounds like one of the ideas that LG was arguing for. Namely the idea that atheist assertions typically are, and typically presuppose, philosophical positions.

Yes, when a theist produces one we will base our statements and assertions upon that philosophical position. We are not the ones making god claims, we just do not accept the god claims made by theists. If there were no theistic claims there could not be any atheism.

As soon as atheists stop being totally ignorant and devoid of opinions about the 'God' subject

Who says Atheists are ignorant or have no opinions about god claims? You will usually find that atheists often know more about the various god claims and texts than the practitioners of those religions do. Want to know the price you should ask for your daughter when you sell her? It is because Atheists know how vast the subject is that we ask for precision from those who use the concepts BEFORE we say anything about the subject. Believe me, you do not want to challenge me to a Bible drill, you would lose.

and start making assertions of their own about things like the existence of God, about the intellectual acuity of people who beleve in God, or suggesting that our understanding of the universe, ethics, human flourishing or whatever should be formulated without any reference to God, the now-suddenly-talkative atheists have stepped beyond the 'I hold no views so I have no need to defend them' game and rendered it moot.

We are not saying we have no opinion on these subjects, but that you must define exactly what you mean by god so we can speak about that particular subject. I am not making assertions about any god concept which I do not know the exact meaning of and I have no idea what the word god means to you UNTIL YOU TELL ME. Wiccans speak of the spirit of things, if the meaning of spirit is "essence" it means one thing, if by spirit they mean an internal entity it means something else. It just makes common sense to ask them which one(or any other)they mean. The same goes for those who use the word god. It is not the Atheists view we are discussing here, but the views of the theist. Exactly what is the meaning of "to know god"? Which god? What do you mean by "know"? What is the source of that knowledge? Do you have any evidence to back up a claim of knowledge? Can everyone find this knowledge and does everyone's claimed knowledge agree with everyone else's? You know, these are exactly the kind of questions we ask in science to determine the validity of claims of knowledge. God claims get no special dispensation, nor are they subjected to a higher standard than claims in science.

Or put another way (in shorter sentences), the only way that 'weak atheists' can successfully hold their ground is by imitating a stone, by keeping their mouths shut and by refusing to inform themselves about theistic belief.

Non-sense! Asking for clarification of meaning IS informing oneself about the claims. And the default is that all such claims(on any subject)are false until supported by evidence and logic applied to that evidence. I do not have to disprove your claims or even define them, you have to define your claims and you have to prove them.

As soon as they are informed about the God-question, and as soon at they start to form views of their own about it, they become 'strong atheists'.

Wrong. First there are tens of thousands of god questions, each different from the other, sometime subtlely, sometime profoundly. Each must be considered on it's own merits. Second, I can only say that I have not been convinced by the different god concepts I have known about, those I have yet to be exposed to may or may not be convincing(Spinoza comes closest of all so far)and third, I have no reasoning and no evidence to say all god concepts are false(as a strong Atheist says), though I have provisionally concluded that they likely are false. I actually think strong Atheist's claims are just as in error as all the Theists' claims I have considered so far are, and for the same reason. The positive claims by both are unevidenced and abscence of evidence is never proof of abscence. It's all probability, not certainty.

And Atheism is simply the lack of a religious world view(philosophy), it tells you nothing about whatever world view I hold, it only tells you that it isn't religious in nature.

Grumpy

 

[DaveC426913]

And Atheism is simply the lack of a religious world view(philosophy), it tells you nothing about whatever world view I hold, it only tells you that it isn't religious in nature.

This is true.

It is in the same sense as me not believing in Planet X (an aPlanetXer) tells you nothing about any worldview I hold.

 

[Balerion]

A great deal will depend on precisely what it is that somebody believes doesn't exist, or has no ideas about at all, and on what implications the exclusion of that thing would have for other beliefs about the world.

God has historically been a central pillar in worldviews. The existence, nature and activity of God impact how people imagine the ontology of the universe, the direction, goal and meaning of history, how people should behave ethically, the goal of human life, and on and on.

Removing such an important pillar suggests that an atheist worldview is likely to look very different than the worldviews of most theists.

In other words, by expressing their lack of theistic belief, an atheist is simultaneously suggesting a host of more positive implications about the scope and parameters of how their own worldview is likely to fill out, about how their view of a Godless universe will look once the details are filled in.

I disagree. You're acting as if the theistic worldview is inherent, which it is not. I, for example, have never believed in a higher power. I have never taken that into account in my life, even when, as a child, I would parrot the language of my parents, which often contained references to God. "God woks in mysterious ways" did not have literal meaning to me, but rather meant that some things are out of our control.

So my worldview never included the God model. To then say my atheism defines my worldview is to impose a false dichotomy. I can believe in no gods and yet be superstitious, or believe in a form of mysticism. Sam Harris, one of the so-called "Four Horsemen" of atheism, reviles the term precisely because it is not a worldview unto itself. He points out that we are not compelled to call people who do not believe in astrology "non-astrologists." Consider that there is no term (nor a need for one) for non-racists, despite racism being, as Harris called it, "as intractable a social problem as we've had in this country."

I use the term because it's a useful shorthand for "I don't believe in God," but Harris makes a good argument for how it can be a hindrance, and the insistence by you and others on this site that it is in itself a worldview have gone a long way to proving him right. Perhaps it's time I reconsidered.

 

[Grumpy]

Yazata

God has historically been a central pillar in worldviews. The existence, nature and activity of God impact how people imagine the ontology of the universe, the direction, goal and meaning of history, how people should behave ethically, the goal of human life, and on and on.

And it was always a tenet of cosmological views that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Ancient men were wrong on this one, why is it not possible they were wrong about god(s) as well? Superstition is the handmaiden of ignorance about reality and the ancient men who created those god(s) concept(s) were profoundly ignorant of reality and the Universe, thus they explained the world in superstitious and supernatural terms with miracles and magical events and entities. And before I get grief about the word ignorant let me DEFINE how I MEAN the word. Ignorance is the lack of valid knowledge, not to be confused with stupid-the lack of ability to gain knowledge. Ancient men were not stupid, they were ignorant.

Removing such an important pillar suggests that an atheist worldview is likely to look very different than the worldviews of most theists.

Without a doubt, different. But being different tells you nothing about what that difference is(other than the lack of god belief). Nor does it say anything about the relative value of the different view, though, as a general principle, logic and reason beats dogma and belief.

In other words, by expressing their lack of theistic belief, an atheist is simultaneously suggesting a host of more positive implications about the scope and parameters of how their own worldview is likely to fill out, about how their view of a Godless universe will look once the details are filled in.

More non-sense. My lack of belief in your god concept means I don't believe in your god concept, nothing else. If you would like me to expound on my world view then that is a different conversation, you might even be surprised at how like your own views that is. To recognize the core values and wisdom of Jesus is not contingent on believing all the supernatural claptrap religion has erected around those core values and wisdom. You do know that Jesus was a Socialist, don't you? And the early church was Communist. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." would fit in with what Jesus taught, it also fits within Humanism.

But it's nevertheless true that not believing in things whose existence we may have no suspicion of and have no way of knowing about is still a big part of what defines the nature of our worldviews at any particular time.

It's irrelivant to your world view and plays no part in it.

Using the history of science as an example, the ancients held views about biology that didn't include what we know today about biochemistry, physiology, evolution and genomics. They held views about the larger universe weren't built around local heliocentrism, orbital mechanics, or any knowledge of what lies beyond our solar system. So doing the best they could in the circumstances, they advocated vitalistic biology, medical theory that involved balancing 'humors', and cosmologies filled with perfect circles, crystalline spheres and quintescence.

And due to the lack of Dogma in science, we now know better. But because of Dogma in religion such error remains mired within the concepts. This REALLY doesn't help your case at all.

In other words, even the things that we know nothing about and consequently have no belief in one way or the other, can and sometimes do profoundly influence the nature, content and accuracy of the worldviews that omit them.

What we are ignorant of cannot be an influence on our world view. It is only as we become aware of these things that they can be incorporated into that world view. Finding out the Earth went around the sun rather than vice versa CHANGED our world view(in ways the Catholic Church killed to try to prevent)from a man centered one to one not centered on man, a profound change indeed.

Grumpy

 

[lightgigantic]

This is true.

It is in the same sense as me not believing in Planet X (an aPlanetXer) tells you nothing about any worldview I hold.

that is true - until the moment you start talking about how persons advocating planet X have got it wrong and live your life in such a way as to defy the existence of planet X

IOW there is no way one can contextualize a world view without calling on a world view

 

[lightgigantic]

Guys, unless the theists have some more compelling arguments they want to put forth at this time, I'm callin' this thread a point for the atheists.

The theists have asked what it means to know God and posit that atheists can't meaningfully refute it without knowing the details.

In a bold yet ultimately fallacious move, the theists have decided that it is up to their opponents to define the terms used in the theist's opening premise. The theists have, in the entire course of this discussion, not actually defined the terms of their own opening premise.

We've already seen that this isn't the case - several atheists have posted parameters that they believe the question "what does it mean to know god" entails. They have tried to palm it off by suggesting that these are the parameters of "reality" .... which is of course just another way of saying "the world view of atheism"
:shrug:

The atheists nonetheless can roll with this, because their stance is that all theist scenarios share the same fundamental flaw (a godlike being with any of a set of powers). Even if we were to accept the opening premise, this still stands. No compelling evidence has come forth.

the problem goes further than that - it also entails issues of the relationship god has with the phenomenal world which in turn has ramifications on how one would expect to find and investigate issues of evidence ..... IOW that is the precise issue, the relationship god has with the phenomenal world, that distinguishes atheist from theist approaches to the question.

No atheist need add one more word to this discussion until theists define the terms (to which God do you refer?) of the discussion.

Point goes to atheists.

if atheists are already declared the relationship of the phenomenal world must have with it, they already have a certain type of god in mind I'm afraid (namely one that is diametrically opposed to or contingent upon the phenomenal world ) .

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

If atheism is a world view, then everything ever defined that someone doesn't believe is as well. Not believing in Russell's Teapot is a "worldview", as is not believing in ghosts, as is not believing in push gravity, chemtrails, perpetual motion machines, bugblatter beasts and planet X.

If they go to the extent of establishing the parameters of a world view and how these entities are misaligned with it (to the extent that their world view encompasses being the cause of events that are commonly attributed to these supposedly fictional entities) then , yes, they are well on the way to having a world view.

Especially if the said entity is god (one of whom's many causes are said to be the phenomenal world).

IOW if you are suggesting causes for the phenomenal world, life etc are not divine on account of not accepting the idea that god created them (backed up by a bevy of reasons why existing ideas of god cannot be entertained) then you have a world view explicitly aimed at a godless universe. I don't understand the problem people have with this when it is termed "an atheist world view"

:shrug:

The list of things that a person does not believe in is quite literally infinite.

When you start talking about things one believes can be accepted at the core of reality and existence and which things cannot , the list becomes markedly smaller

There is no such thing as atheism except in an environment where some people claim there is a God. To a given non-believer, it's just one more thing that's not true. We have all agreed to label these people as atheists - but it is purely for the convenience of the theists. It means nothing to the non-believer.

But then you get the added contributions of atheists who are explaining events of reality (in an equally non-evidenced fashion that they attribute exclusively to theists btw) to further contextualize and solidify their stance of a godless universe eg - theism is a mental illness, they are imagining it, abiogenesis explains how life came to exist, there is no need to attribute the big bang as caused by divine sentience and the subsequent mixing of inert matter etc etc

The non-believer does not define himself as an a-theist any more than he defines himself an aTeapotist, a-ghost-ist, a-push-gravity-ist, a-chemtrailist, a-PPMist, aBugblattist or a-planet-Xist. The list of things he does not define himself as is infinite.

that depends entirely on the extent that they invest their life being (thoughts, speech and action) in raising the gauntlet to the challenge of teapotists, ghostists, push-gravity-ist, chemtrailist, PPMist, Bugblattist or a-planet-Xist.

If it was otherwise, the social ramifications of atheism would be incapable of being chronicled in a historical context ...... which also explains why prominent atheists who have given their hat and coats to implementing social ramifications for their ideas (such as Dawkins) reject your ideas of atheism

 

[lightgigantic]

I disagree. You're acting as if the theistic worldview is inherent, which it is not. I, for example, have never believed in a higher power. I have never taken that into account in my life, even when, as a child, I would parrot the language of my parents, which often contained references to God. "God woks in mysterious ways" did not have literal meaning to me, but rather meant that some things are out of our control.

So my worldview never included the God model. To then say my atheism defines my worldview is to impose a false dichotomy. I can believe in no gods and yet be superstitious, or believe in a form of mysticism. Sam Harris, one of the so-called "Four Horsemen" of atheism, reviles the term precisely because it is not a worldview unto itself. He points out that we are not compelled to call people who do not believe in astrology "non-astrologists." Consider that there is no term (nor a need for one) for non-racists, despite racism being, as Harris called it, "as intractable a social problem as we've had in this country."

I use the term because it's a useful shorthand for "I don't believe in God," but Harris makes a good argument for how it can be a hindrance, and the insistence by you and others on this site that it is in itself a worldview have gone a long way to proving him right. Perhaps it's time I reconsidered.

To the extent one's ideas take form in one's mind, words and action, it takes a world view.

IOW you could argue that the moment it becomes in vaguely political, is the moment it becomes a world view. For instance the moment issues of race becomes politicized is the moment it becomes a world view.

Frankly I don't think your move to accepting that you have an atheist world view would radically change your agenda. You never really exemplified the atheism of tables and chairs and simply used the definition to dodge criticism equal to what your world view insists you dish out.

:shrug:

 

[DaveC426913]

that is true - until the moment you start talking about how persons advocating planet X have got it wrong

Impossible to do that - until P.A.P.X. starts telling me all about planet X, and how planet X is part of my world and asking questions like "what does it mean to know Planet X".

It is perfectly acceptable for me to ask for evidence of this Planet X.

and live your life in such a way as to defy the existence of planet X

How does one do this? I listed a half dozen things, as an example of an infinite set. Is it possible "to live one's life in such a way as to defy" an infinite number of things?


I ask again: in the absence of the OP's response: please define this God term. Until then, we are all blowing smoke out our butts. (It's just that the atheists recognize it by asking for it to be defined).

 

[Balerion]

To the extent one's ideas take form in one's mind, words and action, it takes a world view.

IOW you could argue that the moment it becomes in vaguely political, is the moment it becomes a world view. For instance the moment issues of race becomes politicized is the moment it becomes a world view.

Frankly I don't think your move to accepting that you have an atheist world view would radically change your agenda. You never really exemplified the atheism of tables and chairs and simply used the definition to dodge criticism equal to what your world view insists you dish out.

:shrug:

More nonsense.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. :shrug:

And one more, just because I know you like them: :shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

I assume that "to know God" means that one has assimilated the teachings of Christianity to such a degree that they internalize and personalize the fictional character of God, deluding themselves into thinking that they can predict His thoughts.

 

[lightgigantic]

Impossible to do that - until P.A.P.X. starts telling me all about planet X, and how planet X is part of my world and asking questions like "what does it mean to know Planet X".

and then you start giving reasons why you don't accept it and that grants your world view (or at least planet x view) of the situation

It is perfectly acceptable for me to ask for evidence of this Planet X.

sure ... and this inquiry would take the form of seeking evidence in line with other evidences for planets - IOW it wouldn't be acceptable for you to say "I don't see it so there is no evidence" since planets are not normally evidenced by such means, even though the naked eye warrants evidence on a great deal of other things.

How does one do this?

that depends entirely on the manner that you contextualize the claimants reasons for evidencing planet X

I listed a half dozen things, as an example of an infinite set. Is it possible "to live one's life in such a way as to defy" an infinite number of things?

Its the nature of a world view to contextualize a (practically) infinite set of things - such as a world with divine influence and a world without divine influence

I ask again: in the absence of the OP's response: please define this God term. Until then, we are all blowing smoke out our butts. (It's just that the atheists recognize it by asking for it to be defined).

to which I repeat ...

We've already seen that this isn't the case - several atheists have posted parameters that they believe the question "what does it mean to know god" entails. They have tried to palm it off by suggesting that these are the parameters of "reality" .... which is of course just another way of saying "the world view of atheism"

 

[lightgigantic]

More nonsense.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this.

perhaps you could talk about how the world view offered by theism is besieged with philosophical problems without calling upon philosophy or another world view (since you are trying to convince us that atheism is not a philosophy or a world view). You could also go on to use these points as an example how atheism is simply bereft of ideas of theism like an aracist is bereft of ideas of race or an ateapotist is bereft of ideas of teapots

And one more, just because I know you like them

if you do the above we might also have the opportunity to post a few
:m: uke: and :roflmao: