Angry atheists rant thread.

[onewheeldave]

But it's not a different argument. You claimed in your argument "an atheist who believes God doesn't exist...is making a positive claim (God doesn't exist),..."

 

That's cos they are.

 

 

 

 

So show me how an atheist "who believes God doesn't exist" is making a positive claim that a god doesn't or cannot exist.

 

By believing it.

[onewheeldave]

Then you really ought to be clearer about what you mean. By saying that you don't align yourself with the first definition, it seems to suggest that you align yourself with the second (belief that there is no God/s)

 

 

No it doesn't. My saying I don't aline myself to the first definition is perfectly comaptible with; aligning my self to neither of the 2; or; aligning myself to both.

 

 

 

So which definition were you claiming is the narrower one?

I wasn't. It depends on whuch meaning of 'narrow' we're using- yours or mine?

[Drone]

What is happening here is atheists don't want to rule god out so I would say their indenial of god or an atheist indenial but an all new meaning to the word

[onewheeldave]

Yes, and if I ever decide to express an opinion I'll let you know before hand but until I do I can assure you I'll be sticking strictly to facts. The fact that you don't accept this doesn't change the fact that it's a fact!

 

That is a fact but, it's also a fact, that the fact that I don't accept this as fact is just as much a fact as that one.

There you go with that same old fallacy again.

That'd make an excellent song title

 

 

Which, as has been explained numerous times by other posters, is just a subset of 'lacks a belief in god' which means it covers 'believes god does not exist' in the the first category.

I know, what's your point?

 

The 'proof' as you put it lies in understanding the etymology of the word. So, whether you accept it or not a fact is still a fact.

 

The proof doesn't lie in the etymology of the word- I've explained that to you already. I've never said a fact isn't a fact, it wouldn't make sense.

At last, something we agree on.

However I don't think I've ever come across a poster who posts so much opinion and yet hasn't looked into this theory or that theory, doesn't watch links that people supply or posts videos that go back years that have been debated ad nauseum for months on end but who seems to think they are something special and argue against points being made by other posters when they do nothing of the sort. This simply shows you up to be doing nothing more than attempting to destroy the strawman atheist that exists nowhere other than in your head.

There's really nobody as dangerous as somebody who is so self opinionated and yet it's based on nothing but his own, quite often, completely discredited ideology that nobody else accepts other than himself.

 

Wow- that's a nice bit of writing

I simply don't believe that you know;

1/As many people as you claim to know that routinely use the second definition.

2/That the odd person you may know who uses the second definition doesn't understand how it differs from, and is connected to, the first definition and probably uses it because it's quicker to say and/or they actually mean the first definition anyway.

 

1/ I've not even mentioned how many I know- not sure how you can disbelieve a number you don't even know

2/ No- you're mistaken, they do know that 'belief that god doesn't exist' and 'lack of belief in god' are totally different beliefs

[RootsBooster]

I wasn't. It depends on whuch meaning of 'narrow' we're using- yours or mine?

You clearly were, look...

.....<talking about atheism to mean without belief>....

 

Most importantly I don't know a single atheist who describes themselves by the 2nd definition, not one. Most atheists here, if not all, have gone to great lengths to align themselves with the 1st definition.

 

So why does the 2nd definition of atheist persist in the public conciousness if the atheists themselves don't accept it? It can only be because the theists want it that way, and have used the word in that way.

 

So my question to you is why have theists used the word that way?

.....<your response>.....

 

If you guys got out a bit more, you'd encounter many more atheists who don't fit into the narow category acknowledged by the 'sceptical' variety of atheist.

 

now if you can't even explain which definition you were calling "narrow", then...

[RootsBooster]

 

By believing it.

 

To make a "claim" about your belief(s) would mean you know (or think you know) it to be true. That would suggest gnosticism.

 

There are some things that I believe are true but I don't know are true, my belief about these isn't a claim.

[Drone]

To make a "claim" about your belief(s) would mean you know (or think you know) it to be true. That would suggest gnosticism.

 

There are some things that I believe are true but I don't know are true, my belief about these isn't a claim.

What are you roots, ya an atheist ?? Or a gnostic or a gnostic atheist ?

[RootsBooster]

What are you roots, ya an atheist ?? Or a gnostic or a gnostic atheist ?

 

I'm an agnostic apathiest athiest. Do you understand what those terms mean?

[Drone]

I'm an agnostic apathiest athiest. Do you understand what those terms mean?

Go on give an explaination incase someone doesn't know

[harvey19]

I'm an agnostic apathiest athiest. Do you understand what those terms mean?

 

Believer or non believer ?

Much simpler and clear.