ATHEISM Explained

Oh but don't forget this new term I've come up with in vain to secure my argument! Antitheism!

 

Soul - less

You secure your arguement well
Antitheism.

Just as valid as atheism
Or theism

for if theism is valid, or atheism
so is antiatheism

Just like anticommunist

Occam

 

Hicky

Truth. Agnosticism is not time dependent.
And only the ignorant say something cannot be known.
Those that say there cannot be a god..
Lie.
For we all well know a being beyond our understanding can exist.

Agnostics dont say that such exists. but simply that it could.
But those that proclaim KNOWING...cannot accept ignorance.

Accepting ignorance is a rational thing.
Yet very few humans are rational.

Occam

 

I have made a very grave error here by debating agnostics.

There is no way to win nor compromise with an agnostic. I don't KNOW that, but I believe it based on the extreme sophistry used by agnostics.

I will end by saying this:

I do not believe in the claims of theism, therefore, by definition, I am atheist.

I do not believe you have to "know" everything about the universe in order to make an informed decision, a reasonable assessment to live by.

I do believe that theism is an extraordinary claim by bringing in an unproven foreign concept (god, supernaturalism) into the overall picture of nature.

I will continue to be atheist on the subject of gods until evidence of such is brought forth to make theism overall more reasonable than my atheism. Until then, I will remain atheist.

As far as agnosticism goes, it deals with knowledge not belief.
To say that I am agnostic about "God" is to say to that I am agnostic about fairies, trolls, or Santa Claus.

If one wants to consider that as agnostic, then so be it...I am agnostic (in that field), but since this involves a plethora of absurd thinking, and the agnostics will find some sophistry to use to say "We can't be certain there is no Easter Bunny", I fail to call myself agnostic.

I hope this helps you guys further understand where I am coming from.

- LIBERTINE

 

Okay then ...

Look, call yourself whatever you want Libertine, we're not asking you to do otherwise. But don't mislead people by "clearing up" the definition of atheism by inputting YOUR idea of what atheism is.

Edit: Sophistry, huh? Well, whatever you want to believe ... I'd hardly call Wikipedia, Mirriam-Webster, and etymology studies "sophistry." But I guess that's in the eye of the beheld.

 

First of all, I'll do what I want.


Secondly, it's not MY definition. I've misled NO ONE.

From my dictionary of ETYMOLOGY:
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see thea.)

and another: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-[size=-1]1[/size] + theos, god; see dhs-

and as far as Wikipedia (which I use as well sometimes) and Webster's are concerned, yet another: FROM ATHEISTS.ORG http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html#what.it.is

I hope this "clears it up" for ya.


Thirdly, I don't take commands.

Got it? Good.

And as for your "negation" :
"a" = without
"theism" = god-belief
therefore:
"atheism" = without god-belief.

in the passive sense declares "absence" - apparently what I was referring to​

in the active sense declares "opposition"- maybe what you were referring to​

Antitheism (sometimes hyphenated) has had a range of applications. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833.

"new term"? Ha ha ha... You're about 172 years behind the times, pal.

 

This forum should be called "ATHEISM Explained through the eyes of Libertine". it would really help to keep the confusion down to a minimum.

 

I take it you didn't read the definitions I just gave nor the link? Afraid?

 

well, not the links, I'm just going by everything else you said earlier, but if those links make a difference, I appologize.

what do you mean by afraid?

 

Are you afraid to check the links? And also to admit those definitions are not "mine"? I didn't "invent" them as you, Soulless and Hikaru have so proudly and falsely claimed of me, therefore attacking my character.

 

Libertine

It's not about winning, it's about accepting that as of this time,
humanity cannot make statements of fact regarding a universe
we have little knowledge of.
That universe may include a god. [occams definition]

How do you KNOW it does not if you have never left this planet?

Occam

PS.Agnostics use NO sophistry, We simply admit that we do not know.
How simple do you NEED it?
Or do you suggest there is NO state called "dont know"
Insufficient data.

 

I was speaking of the debate.
I said NOTHING of "knowledge", only that agnosticism is about "knowledge" (and lack thereof)
I am referring to "atheism" (lack of belief in gods).

And I don't believe you have to "know" everything in order to make a reasonable assessment of the facts at hand and live by them.

Here's a few bad examples, but nevertheless:

2+2=4 : There is demonstrable evidence for this.
A sun exists. There is demonstrable evidence for this.

Santa Claus MAY exist.
The Easter Bunny MAY exist.
God MAY exist.

BUT, THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE.

Thus, the reasonable conclusion is to remain as if it doesn't exist. ATHEISM.

 

Libertine

Occam does not live by agnosticism , any more than he lives by his
position on human paranormal activity. Or his position on social democracy.
Please do not include 'living by a code ' into agnosticism.
It is not a religion.

If you want to make the statement .
There is no god.
And call it fact.
Then you must logically observe all of reality to show that a god does not exist. For you cannot show that one does not exist with logic only.
Because occam can show that one can.

You have not done that, and no human has.
Thus you cannot say a god , is not. You can believe it..
But please.
Dont be so silly as to call it fact.
You might start to sound religious if you do.

Absolutes are for the simple minded.


Occam

 

I merely said that I don't believe in gods because of lack of evidence.
I don't believe you have to be omnipotent in order to make a reasonable assessment.
And to live that way is to be open to the existence of such unproven entities as fairies, Easter Bunny, and anything else my mind can conjure up for you.

That is ridiculous. And it would actually be absurd to attempt to LIVE that way. Although, some people try their damnedest, don't they?

 

Libertine

Occam has no evidence either.
What has that to do with WHAT IS.?
Nothing.

You are saying that because YOU have no evidence.
A thing does not exist.?

LOL, what a funny person

Occam

 

Libertine

Not at all.. A 'god' is actually quite logical, while fairies and unicorns are not.
You seem to presume that a god cannot exist.
While the makings of a god exist in our very race.

Please. How is a billion years of technology any different than being a god.?
Such a race/being could pull a god gambit on us and WE WOULD BELIEVE IT.

Occam

 

I understand this, Occam.

But, where is the evidence of a "god"?

I can give you evidence for Santa Claus (and pretty good evidence to), but I highly doubt you'd believe it PROVED Santa really existed.

Where is the demonstrable evidence of a "god" whereby one could make a reasonable and rational assessment that it is even PROBABLE that a "god" exists?

 

Libertine

And occam understands your position as well.

Your sig is 'think for yourself'
And occam does.
Functionally, being an agnostic is the same as being an everyday person.
Just like an athiest.
Between agnosticism and athiesm is but a smal gap in definition.

RELIGION is the fucker occam wants to see dead.
And agnosticism is a 'soft' alternative for the gullible.
An easier step than athiesm.

Occam

Some may stand and say religion did some good.
Yeh
And functionally, so did the national socialist party.

 

Amen! Occam... *pardon the pun*

 

Libertine,


It is inspiring to read your posts, no relpy necessary, whatever value that has to you, however I disagree with your expressed need to conclude about an issue that, from my awareness, does not require conclusion; are we not still collecting evidence or do have enough evidence to conclude ? One of the key 'names of the game' in science is to 'rock the boat'. I would be grateful to hear about your feelings and 'logical' assessment of the following posts:


http://mysite.verizon.net/natdat2/


http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102848


Peace,

David




.