Perhaps, what is wrong too with defining atheism as lack of belief in God is to not define anything at all. For all -ism holds on to some affirmation and not merely describing some lack-ness. This is the first time that a term with -ism is defined with lacking. Are there any other definition which have defined the way new definition of atheism is defined?

(November 20, 2016 at 11:27 pm)theologian Wrote: Perhaps, what is wrong too with defining atheism as lack of belief in God is to not define anything at all. For all -ism holds on to some affirmation and not merely describing some lack-ness. This is the first time that a term with -ism is defined with lacking. Are there any other definition which have defined the way new definition of atheism is defined?

Etymology isn't really my forte, but doesn't the "a-" mean "without"?

(November 20, 2016 at 11:27 pm)theologian Wrote: Perhaps, what is wrong too with defining atheism as lack of belief in God is to not define anything at all. For all -ism holds on to some affirmation and not merely describing some lack-ness. This is the first time that a term with -ism is defined with lacking. Are there any other definition which have defined the way new definition of atheism is defined?

Do you believe in throggs?

Simply because something is undefined does not necessitate that thing's existence.

Jesus Christ. That is the definition of an atheist. A persons who lacks belief in gods, or believes there is not gods. Show me a definition anywhere, ever, that says otherwise. A cabbage lacks belief, if you want to put it that way, but is not a person. So a cabbage is not an atheist. I don't know how much simpler it can be.

By default atheism is being undecided. I don't know why people like Chad insist you have to declare any statement to be true or false. You can simply say you're not sure yet. It's the sensible thing to do when you feel you don't have enough evidence to decide.

”I'm not sure what to say about that. I'll wait until I learn more about it."

"YOU MUST DECIDE NOW! PICK AN OPTION!"

Why it makes some people so uncomfortable that people could be undecided, I don't know.

My position is technically ignosticism rather than atheism. I reject the question as meaningless until it's clarified. You may as well ask me if I believe in dudbdkskndjdkdjdnd.

(November 19, 2016 at 3:12 am)robvalue Wrote: Okay, that sounds fun!

Your name is, after all, in orange.

(November 18, 2016 at 5:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Some of you will recoil in horror, but some of you will be able to imagine that you are looking at your religion from the outside. If you can do that I ask you to consider what your religion would look like without the assumption of divinity. For example, the Greek gods. Few, if any, people still worship the Olympian gods, so it's "safe" to discuss them and their rather naughty habits. You would, however, get a few million people seriously upset if you question Mary's virginity. 

For those of you who can make the leap, please keep in mind that your gods are equivalent to the Olympians in my mind. I'm not out to destroy your belief or turn your churches into brothels (even if it would be great idea), I just don't believe your god or gods are any more special than the panoply of discarded gods that came before and after yours. 

/probablewasteoftime

Every religion that is not my own is a religion I look at from the outside. I imagine I probably wouldn't feel any differently about Catholicism as I do about Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, etc etc if I was something other than Catholic. I don't feel a need to keep putting those people down, or calling them stupid, or mocking something that is so close to their hearts.

You do understand that they come here looking for us.  We don't go looking for them.  If you had a guest who walked into your house and started shitting on your carpet how long would it take you to get pissed at them?

They never bring evidence. They just bring the customary bullshit which they use to con themselves into believing in nonsense.

robvalue Wrote:By default atheism is being undecided. I don't know why people like Chad insist you have to declare any statement to be true or false. You can simply say you're not sure yet. It's the sensible thing to do when you feel you don't have enough evidence to decide.

”I'm not sure what to say about that. I'll wait until I learn more about it."

"YOU MUST DECIDE NOW! PICK AN OPTION!"

Why it makes some people so uncomfortable that people could be undecided, I don't know.

My position is technically ignosticism rather than atheism. I reject the question as meaningless until it's clarified. You may as well ask me if I believe in dudbdkskndjdkdjdnd.

Well said, robvalue. 

IMO, it seems like our field of vision is still way too limited to make any definitive/conclusive statements about reality.  Why must we restrict our thinking and choices to any particular modes of thought that currently exist? 

IMO, perhaps the particular space of reality that we occupy is like a mathematical function: it has certain inputs that can produce valid outputs, provided that the inputs are within the prescribed rules of the domain of the function.  However, what happens when we encounter an input that does not obey the laws of our domain, yet, nevertheless, it produces an output that can be observed in our reality? Do we confine ourselves to our current modes of thought and force ourselves to make a choice; or, do we suspend any conclusions and choices until we have had a chance to explore the possibilities, preferably with an inquisitive mind that is open to modifying our thought patterns in order to fit with the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit with pre-existing and possibly erroneous thought patterns?

Exactly. Some people have to have answers to everything. Maybe it's an evolutionary trait, I don't know. Anything we are missing answers to, or the answers we do have are too complicated, they just fill with the local mythology.

I understand the need for comfort. I'm cuddling a teddy bear right now, I hide in bed and hold him close. I do lots of things for comfort. So I can see the appeal, but I can't kid myself into believing nonsense.

(November 21, 2016 at 1:02 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 18, 2016 at 5:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Every religion that is not my own is a religion I look at from the outside. I imagine I probably wouldn't feel any differently about Catholicism as I do about Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, etc etc if I was something other than Catholic. I don't feel a need to keep putting those people down, or calling them stupid, or mocking something that is so close to their hearts.

You do understand that they come here looking for us.  We don't go looking for them.  If you had a guest who walked into your house and started shitting on your carpet how long would it take you to get pissed at them?

They never bring evidence. They just bring the customary bullshit which they use to con themselves into believing in nonsense.

I wasn't referring to the forum specifically, just making a general statement.

(November 21, 2016 at 12:00 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:27 pm)theologian Wrote: Perhaps, what is wrong too with defining atheism as lack of belief in God is to not define anything at all. For all -ism holds on to some affirmation and not merely describing some lack-ness. This is the first time that a term with -ism is defined with lacking. Are there any other definition which have defined the way new definition of atheism is defined?

Do you believe in throggs?

Simply because something is undefined does not necessitate that thing's existence.

And if you don't believe in them because you don't really know what it is but suspect it is something silly, does that mean you positively believe throggs do not exist?  I suspect like us you prefer to leave open the possibility of your being mistaken even as your initial triage leads you to deny belief in them.