The definition of atheism

the problem with the revisionist ‘without a belief in god’ is that it does not distinguish between atheist (belief there is no god), agnostic (don't know), apatheist (don't care) and unformulated theist (may the force be with you), while the current definition does.

---

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

agrees with who?so you are as convinced that your belief is true as the fundy is convinced that {his\her} belief is true (and who also do not admit the "possibility of doubt, change or vacillation" in their belief)?Careful, you could be a Fundamental Atheist (another thread on this topic, now closed)Enjoy.ps welcome to the fray, and nice start (POTM).

---

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

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

I didn't mean to: I was just taking it to the logical conclusion in the case of your "most extrem absolute" end of the spectrum with:"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?"I also note that having a wide spectrum within the definition leads itself to qualiers to denote the levels involved.

---

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

But I don't see atheist viewing this position as shocking, rather just a statement of fact, no different than saying "I'm a catholic" or whatever.And if the speaker doesn't think of it as having shock value then they would not use it for that.I also do not know of a single atheist, apatheist, agnostic that thinks their beliefs make them immoral, but rather that a logical and objective outlook makes them more so, so they would be looking at the first or second definitions and dismissing the synonyms {there have been other threads on this aspect if you want to pursue this line -- maybe an admin can point to one}.And again, if they dismiss the immoral issue as nonsense, then they have no negative connotation themselves and would not see the term as having that for others.If I wanted to go for shock value I would say something more like "I'm a godless heathen who thinks all theists have been brainwashed and that all religions are cults ..."{... theist slowely backs away with look of mounting alarm ...}Start with the concept that everyone thinks their belief is logical and rational and see where that takes you.This message has been edited by RAZD, 07*25*2005 08:33 PM

---

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

a childs first god is his mom.can't you believe in gods before having a concept of them?

---

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

The problem is that I still don't see such a person believing in it's having shock value even to a fundie, as that is assuming a naivet on the part of the fundie that is itself irrational: that this person was not aware of the concept of atheism. No. Just "godless heathen"Which is why I added the rest to make it more "in your face" for shock value. Going for "a godless heathen who sacrifices babies ... etc would have been too much and would (properly ...) be taken for sarcasm.What I find many "fundy Christian" actually think are {atheists} are "any person who does not share my specific belief in god" and that whatever belief is held is irrelevant (Buddhist no different than atheist or Hindi or even other Christian ... they're all going to burn eternally) and no one other belief is more shocking than the others. Because you don't believe in the correct god you don't believe in god, or some such logic(al lapse). No, the atheist sees the extremist fundie as closed minded to all other beliefs, and he considers the fundies to be foolish -- which renders their opinion irrelevant no matter if positive or negative.Perhaps you are projecting a fundie outlook on non-fundies without realizing that there are fundamental differences in the way things are perceived.I used a jigsaw analogy for this before on another board:You have different groups of people at different tables each with may 50% of a jigsaw and a box that didn't match the puzzle, a different box for each group. Different groups had different parts of the same jigsaw puzzle and there was some overlap between different groups."scientists" put the pieces together that fit together and traded information on missing areas with other groups, pieces that did not fit were saved waiting for further information."fundies" put the pieces where they needed to be to fit the picture, if they didn't fit together, then you just needed faith that they were in the right place, and they completely discarded those pieces that did not fit as being to the wrong puzzle.The "scientists" are correct if you want to assemble the pieces and see what the picture is, but the "fundies" are correct if you want to reproduce the picture on the box. In any event, they have fundamentally different perspectives.Enjoyps - The synonym is there because the dictionary was written by christians and not atheists. Check it out.

---

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