The definition of atheism

Absolutely (no pun intended) OK I will agree that it really isn't possible to determine the degree of conviction from such an incomplete statement, only that some conviction is present and further clarification is needed if it is even relevent or necessary to know it. In most cases it probably isn't.

Let's let {A}=IIPU(bbhh)
then:We cannot disprove the IIPU(bbh)Unicornions thank you

sounds more like an apatheist to me - don't know and don't care?

Umm ... what negative connotation? (Negative to whom? Atheists?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Still trying ...Note the post by PaulK: Message 61As noted before, I also do not believe that invisible pink unicorns exist (on earth, at this time) ... but recognize that this choice is made willingly and is based on belief.I also qualify my belief based on the limited amount of knowledge available.The logical rational answer to "Let's let {A}=IIPU(bbhh) ..." is still "(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not" -- the agnostic answer.And this logical rational answer still does not prevent us from believing either that "(1) YES {A} exists!" or "(2) NO {A} does NOT exist!"but we've been over this before eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So you would agree that {confident and absolutely certain} would be an extreme position based on {faith\belief} in the absolute truth of no-god?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Sorry for getting back to you so late, but I've been busy, and I've also been over this with others. I will just add a few comments: I've seen similar dismissals of arguments from fundy posters... Dismiss it all you want. But that doesn't refute the argument any more than dismissing the evidence for evolution does.The second point of the thread linked was to raise the issue of concepts at odds with core beliefs, and whether those arguments will be dismissed as irrelevant or considered (the other half of the thread title ...). This is an easy point to demonstrate when dealing with people of admitted firm beliefs, but it is equally applicable to all.We all have core beliefs and they do influence how we view evidence. Fair enough, as long as the judge allows the evidence to be admitted ... (well, it's your analogy, but I think you can get my drift eh?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The center of the argument is that you can't be invisible and pink, it's a logical contradiction, so if your formula asserts it is possible, it is wrong.

then you just voided the preconditions, and it is not really an {A} case at all.but there are also lots of things that are invisible to us, and yet they are colors to other organisms: they just need to be pink to each other.looks like the center of your argument is hollow. ... or is it invisible? ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You may claim to be an agnostic, but you really believe in your formula.

False again.I am a Deist, not an agnostic.That doesn't prevent me from saying that the most logical position is agnostic, but that I recognize my belief as just that.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You don't seriously label newborn babies as atheists, do you? I agree with your first statement in the quote but I think to tack a label on someone requires first a statement of belief from that individual. Your thinking, it would seem to me, would make an atheist of an ape. What say you?

You are quoting me out of context. The point under discussion was inferring the degree of confidence placed in a belief, based only on the use of the term "belief" without further qualification.

Well I was trying to be a little controversial - but I think my point holds. Knowing what we do about the psyche of newborns I think it is a fair assumption that they do not know of the concept "God". As such they are godless, which by definition makes them atheist.Atheism is a purely negative definition, defined by what it isn't, just like invertebrates are defined by missing a spine.Its true that some atheists do know of the concept god, and of these some do not profess any belief or disbelief in the existense of any gods, while others believe that no gods exists. It is the latter I think that Catholic Scientist OP is about, but I would think it wrong only to include these in the definition of atheists, since thise would necesitate a whole new definition of all the othe godless people./Soren

I agree with Kongstad.
IMO a newborn baby is most defininitely an atheist since it is utterly lacking any belief in god.
Those beliefs can only come later after the baby is exposed to the views of others.