Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Norfolk And Chance]

You have a belief, that God doesn't exist. You've said this many times.

NO you ignorant TWAT because I'm not even arguing there is no god. No, I have a lack of belief in any deity. I reject theistic claims about "god" because they present no evidence, since they assert the deity itself cannot or will not prove its own existence to mankind demonstrably so there would be no more debate. I think the term "god" meaningless in almost every context because there is no valid coherent definition or ontology put forward. Its a nonsensical concept. Theists are all each presenting their own different gods claims with arbitrary criteria and faulty reasoning. I can easily reject them all because while it's not logically possible all theists are right, it is possible that they are all wrong.

It says nothing for whether something is true or false. It is an irrelevent detail about your psychology. The answer is either yes, no or I don't know.

Right, but we're currently talking about people's standards of evidence and the justification for accepting other's claims within an epistemic dispute. We've yet to brush upon their ascribed truth values because you *refuse* to fucking acknowledge at one rebuttal that I've offered so far. I reject your claims because you refuse to employ scientific methodologies that obtain empirical and measurable evidence subject to reasoning. You haven't presented a valid-working theory for god, merely an assertion that barely qualifies as a hypothesis. Therefore, because you fail to meet your burden of proof I remain in the default position of disbelief. Sorry you cannot accept that.

It has nothing to do with gaps. Either life and the Universe had an intelligent causation or it was the result of chance. So, the idea of God does have explanatory power. And it is not a God of the gaps when it is a better explanation for the phenomenon.

Ugh, this is pathetic and almost painful to read. Asserting god has explanatory power does not make it so. Try again next time. And next time APPLY yourself.

Apparently you have no idea what constitutes historical evidence...

I'm getting tired of reading your bullshit lucent. Since you refuse to acknowledge what I've said I'm going to disregard the inane drivel that you've just spouted out and repeat myself until it sinks in that amazingly dense cranium of yours.

We have no historical evidence of Jesus. Even with good theological scholarship we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. We have no contemporaries of the life of Jesus, at all. All you have is people who are reporting heresy. That's why when you ask your *educated* Christian friends they will remind you that you have to take the writings on Jesus' life and divinity on faith, because all you have is blind hope he was/is real.

You take quite a lot of faith, actually.

You make a lot of erroneous assumptions actually. I take nothing on faith.

Well, that's the difference betwen you and I. I believe that you're worthy of respect, and even love. I believe in treating you the way I would want to be treated. I believe that even if we disagree that you have an essential dignity that I can't ignore. So, I guess you can chop that up to different values; you don't value me, I value you. More than that, God values you, which is why I am here.

Now you're starting to piss me off. I don't care what you think of me, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Truth is you know nothing about me in real-life, at all. You're addressing me rather than your own 'argument' and failing to meet the obligation of your own damn burden of proof for your god claims and that is making this (dare I say it) "debate" even more tedious than it was before.

No it isn't. If someone called you and told you that a bomb was going to go off in your house in two minutes, would you sit there and wait it out? No, you would leave that house even though it hadn't been sufficiently proven as true.

That's asinine. Containers, vessels, objects filled with explosives, incendiary materials, smoke, gases, or other destructive substances, designed to explode via various means EXIST you pollock. Their effects are measured and the damage they cause is well understood. Even if the devices didn't exist in reality, a bomb threat is not even remotely comparable to a supernatural universe-creating god. Unlike bombs, god has not been demonstrated to exist.

Totally false.

Sorry but you're wrong. Try again without the appeal to common belief fallacy next time.

It claims that God doesn't exist. So you have no evidence that atheism is true?

You have no fucking clue what 'atheism' means. I no longer care.

Prove there's a god, or go away.

Theowaffler = OWNED.

---

Debate the facts then:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

These are not facts, these are definitions. Definitions can be wrong, they can be unclear, facts can't.

Personally speaking, the definitions above WOULD correctly define ME, as I completely reject god.

However, no two atheists are the same, and in many cases the definitions above would not be correct. As non belief in god is not technically the same as stating "there is no god"