Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

quote:

---

But that doesn't deny the fact that you can prove a negative. The problem when it comes to "god," from what I have seen, is that there is no good definition of what "god" is. But all that means is that just as it is difficult to prove the non-existence of something that cannot be defined, it is at least as hard to justify the claim of its existence.

---

You are twisting examples to sure your own point. Math is one of the only hard sciences you can prove anything in, and so it is an exception to the "cant prove a negative."As it pertains to the discussion, you cannot prove the lack of existence of am omnipotent entity. Done. There is no logical, philosophical way to do it. If you choose to argue against this, you're not of a different opinion, you are WRONG.

quote:

---

Atheism is the lack of belief.

​

How can the lack of belief be a "belief"?

---

Because you believe there is no omnipotent entity. By not having a belief in a god of any flavor, you form a belief pertaining to a lack of god.You are arguing silly semantics. An atheist holds to the belief that theistic conclusions are wrong, and therefor holds to the belief that there is no god. The definition does not detail this, but this must follow from the definition.You cannot have an opinion about something and not have a belief about it.ABE: from dictionary.com:

quote:

---

atheism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
—noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

---

Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In its narrowest sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

---

I take "in its narrowest sense" to mean at its most fundamental. Taking the position that there are no deities is a belief.I again state that this a silly conversation about semantics. An atheist knows what he or she believes, or what he or she does not believe in. What is the point of picking straws? Its a worthless point to quibble over in the grand argument.-I believe there is no god.
-I no not believe in god
-I do not believe in theistic conclusions
-I believe only the physical world existsThese are all ideas an atheist may have, and none of them are exclusive, even thought the first two express disbelief and belief about the same topic in equal measures.

You're right. I missed how that related to this conversation.I also understand what you mean. I suppose me being what the video refers to as a "strong" atheist led me to gloss that part over. The point is important to me because i feel that any atheist challenged based on their label is something of a misdirection. You may have an utter lack of belief in any gods, and i may have a belief that no gods exist. If a theist were to challenge either of us based on that, our conversation with him/her would have no impact on our belief or our current religious debate. It is, again, a semantic argument.That the video refers to people that believe there are no gods as "strong" atheists is a telling point. If the word atheist had no connotations that related to believing there is no god(s), then a strong atheist would simply be an atheist that decidedly has no belief, not one with a counter belief. Instead, a strong atheist has a decidedly pronounced rejection of gods. This is part of the word, as evidenced by the conflicting definitions. I agree. But having a belief in lack of gods does not disqualify you from being an atheist. Some would call it strong atheism, as the video, or fundamental atheism, as the source you referenced, or may even list it as the first quality for atheism, as the dictionary reference i posted.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

It proves that a hat can be green.In the conversation at hand, it would show that one can be an atheist and have a specific belief that there is no god, gods, or deities. Yes, i am. If you were to try to convince me i was a white giraffe, i would tell you you are being silly. That wouldnt prevent me from engaging in debate about my anthropomorphic qualities.Im not trying to be radical or abrasive, and i feel like my comments are being received as such. Apologies if they came out like that.My position is simple. I know what i believe. I understand my own philosophy. I believe atheists know what they think, and i believe they are confident and justified in whatever brand of vodka they adhere to. This particular train of conversation began when a theist declared what it meant to be an atheist, and that's the part i find silly.Edited by Damouse, : Speeling is hard.

---

This statement is false.Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.

If people agree with your stated reasoning as to why im wrong, i shan't lose any sleep over it. You're either being willfully obstinate or just misreading what im saying. From message 258, where i said that each atheist is entitled to their own subtleties and (non-exclusively) the label atheist.In message 255, i admitted that i missed the subtlety in the video posted by hooah differentiating between the mentioned flavors of atheism, as posted in that video.There is a difference when you include the modifier out front, yes. When you say the word "atheist" and nothing else, as i assume most people are inclined to do when asked, there is a bit of discrepancy.Only relatively recently in this thread have the modifier words been used with the word atheist. The majority of the usage was just the one word label.Im assuming an atheist to introduce himself as just an atheist solely based on my personal experience and a touch of social etiquette. By no means do i think that a rule.That discrepancy, and the root of this argument, is a semantic difference. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

Ah, well. We're all agnostics anyway. I think were at the point of agreement. Arguing about the name with atheists doesn't really raise my blood pressure, its more when theists tell atheists what the atheist believes that my hackles rise.

This is what i posted, what you quoted, which i am reposting for the sake of clarity. To which you said "Not so." And then moved to say that i am ignoring the neutral.I think you may have misread me, or i misspoke. The way this thread is going, it's likely the latter.It is possible for multiple atheists to hold the following two beliefs to be true at the same time and still be an atheist:
-I BELIEVE there is NO god
-Among my beliefs there lie no beliefs about god.Thats what i said in the comment you quoted. By saying that the two premises are not exclusive to atheism and can both or either be held valid at the same time, i am clearly acknowledging the middle ground.The quotes you posted before that was before i realized my error. Everything after that, including the clarified point above, was along a different line of thought.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

Are you literate? The section quoted is from possible beliefs an atheist may have, you and responded with "wrong." I have this particular belief, and im an atheist. What is "wrong?" You treat every quote as an attack against you. No, i dont. What i posted was a belief of mine; i didn't hold it up to be argued. I dont have to defend it and i dont have to phrase it nicely for you, its a statement of fact about me.A fundy setup? Yet another reason to believe you haven't bothered to read the last page of the thread; i openly state i am atheist. Maybe you should learn to read the whole thread. Dont be an ass.If you could read the whole thread, you'd see that i am an atheist and have every right to talk about the ideas an atheist may have. You have no more right to supposedly tell me what i think than i have to tell you what you think, according to your logic.Secondly, you would be able to see that i was wrong and was summarily informed about the nuances of strong v. weak atheism, a distinction i had not been making previously.This is the reason i debate on these forums in the first place; to increase my own understanding and knowledge about what i believe. That should be the reason everyone should argue, imo. You seem to have made this post just to be snarky, with no contribution to the general conversation at all. You dont even seem to have read the posts following the one you quoted because if you had, you would have seen me admit being wrong and understanding the middle ground.

---

This statement is false.Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.

Because it wasn't relevant to the argument. It was me identifying with the atheists as being on the same side, arguing about semantics; not being on the opposite side, attempting to fill someone else's mouth with my ideas. I think we reached agreement that the issue with introducing yourself as an "atheist" and then arguing about what the means is a semantic argument. How can it not be? The difference in what that means is an argument about what the word means.The alternative is introducing yourself as a "strong" or "weak" atheist to further detail what exactly it is that you believe. At best its an out of context, irrelevant distraction.At worse, its off topic and detrimental to the thread.So again, why does it matter? Its a statement of belief of mine. I fail to see how you cant understand it. You're an ass because you came after me for the sake of drawing blood, after the argument was mostly settled.Its like having negotiations, agreeing on a decision, and then inviting a third party to come and get back into it. It seemed unnecessary after i had already admitted my ignorant comments.

---

This statement is false.Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.