Quote:This is what has happened with all belief systems as they've diversified. 

We been over this 

Quote: It starts out as one thing, then people want to modify it to fit their alternative belief that incorporates the same thing with a slight twist.  

No some people want to make definitions divorced from the original term  

Quote:Society doesn't have time to try to explain each one, so they all get lumped together under one definition.

 Then society is wrong to do so 

Quote: If not it would require us to discriminate, but that would violate the religious freedom applied to atheism that was granted to them in Dec 2016. 

If the law calls something atheism that is not atheism then the law is flawed 

Quote: Now we're even seeing the atheist churches splitting into what one side feels is more "correct" for them. 

Atheism isn't feels and they can pretend whatever they want their wrong 

Quote:Throw in that it's being monetized and it will happen all the more.  T-shirts, offerings, membership fees.  "Why go to their church when I can make my own and charge a fee?" 

Then they have left Atheism and are a cult 

Quote: They do it, then someone else wants a piece of the pie, so they put their own spin on it.

See above 

Quote:  Same thing that has happened to Christianity.

Too bad their not remotely the same thing 

Quote:  You get late night shysters with their own TV shows making "false claims" but they have religious protections so they can get away with it. 

Yup and that's an issue 

Quote: When you realize that atheists are already making channels and selling merchandise and what not, you'll see it's just going to follow the same path everything else has. 

See above 

Quote: As soon as someone starts saying "they aren't atheists" and it challenges the $$$ coming in, then someone is going to end up getting sued, then you'll see even more protections provided and broader definitions of the law as to protect everybody

See above

(December 12, 2018 at 9:17 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:This is what has happened with all belief systems as they've diversified. 

We been over this 

Quote: It starts out as one thing, then people want to modify it to fit their alternative belief that incorporates the same thing with a slight twist.  

No some people want to make definitions divorced from the original term  

Quote:Society doesn't have time to try to explain each one, so they all get lumped together under one definition.

 Then society is wrong to do so 

Quote: If not it would require us to discriminate, but that would violate the religious freedom applied to atheism that was granted to them in Dec 2016. 

If the law calls something atheism that is not atheism then the law is flawed 

Quote: Now we're even seeing the atheist churches splitting into what one side feels is more "correct" for them. 

Atheism isn't feels and they can pretend whatever they want their wrong 

Quote:Throw in that it's being monetized and it will happen all the more.  T-shirts, offerings, membership fees.  "Why go to their church when I can make my own and charge a fee?" 

Then they have left Atheism and are a cult 

Quote: They do it, then someone else wants a piece of the pie, so they put their own spin on it.

See above 

Quote:  Same thing that has happened to Christianity.

Too bad their not remotely the same thing 

Quote:  You get late night shysters with their own TV shows making "false claims" but they have religious protections so they can get away with it. 

Yup and that's an issue 

Quote: When you realize that atheists are already making channels and selling merchandise and what not, you'll see it's just going to follow the same path everything else has. 

See above 

Quote: As soon as someone starts saying "they aren't atheists" and it challenges the $$$ coming in, then someone is going to end up getting sued, then you'll see even more protections provided and broader definitions of the law as to protect everybody

See above

Cool.  Your version, their version.  So it there really a "wolf god?"

(December 12, 2018 at 9:23 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 12, 2018 at 9:17 am)Amarok Wrote: We been over this 



No some people want to make definitions divorced from the original term  



 Then society is wrong to do so 



If the law calls something atheism that is not atheism then the law is flawed 



Atheism isn't feels and they can pretend whatever they want their wrong 


Then they have left Atheism and are a cult 


See above 




Too bad their not remotely the same thing 




Yup and that's an issue 



See above 



See above

Cool.  Your version, their version.  So it there really a "wolf god?"

Nope the definition 

Nope there isn't

(December 12, 2018 at 9:26 am)Amarok Wrote:

(December 12, 2018 at 9:23 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Cool.  Your version, their version.  So it there really a "wolf god?"

Nope the definition 

Nope there isn't

Cool. I agree. No wolf god running around bothering people.

(December 12, 2018 at 6:21 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: - People say it's a lack of religion, but many atheists say they are religious (This doesn't mean you)

Wrong. They say that atheism is not a religion, not that you can't be atheist and religious. Some Buddhists are atheists, but they are very religious. It's just like anything else, you can be an atheist and practice other things. Buddhist religious practices aren't about their atheism, they are about their metaphysical and physical beliefs aside from atheism. That's not atheism.

(December 11, 2018 at 10:31 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Hey Mark! What happened to sympathizing with theists!
You haven't gone rogue on us, have you?

No problem at all with his "holding Christian values" as he claims and even less problem with agnosticism.  It was the dickishness and inability to understand what is said to him or perhaps he is just a troll.  

I'm not sure I can lengthen the letter count in that descriptor to include "sympathizer and accommodationist of honest and sincere theists".  Dumbass apologist trolls need not apply for any sympathy or accommodation from me.

(December 11, 2018 at 9:18 pm)Agnostico Wrote: Seriously guys ur arguing among urselves. Just look at how many different theories, opinions and definitions everyone has presented.

The only thing all atheists have in common is our lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Why would you expect us all to have the same opinions on all other subjects?

There is no atheist doctrine or dogma.

Quote:People trying to force me to be atheist because i only deal in knowledge... Goodness gracious fallacious.

Wow! So much wrong in only one sentence.

We are not "forcing you to be an atheist". If you currently do not accept the premise that at least one god exists as being true, you are an atheist. It's definitional.

It's impossible to "only deal in knowledge". Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Everyone has beliefs and disbeliefs. A belief is simply accepting a premise or proposition as being true. Even premises or propositions you may claim as knowledge, you also believe them.

Quote:And to think how many blind people are being pushed into atheism like this... Its deceiving to suggest u can't be agnostic without some kind of belief based label attached to it... Its a GIGANTIC fallacy and the more people try to define my position as atheist the more suspicious this all looks.

Atheism is simply not being convinced (accept as true) that a god or gods exist. Are you convinced that a god exists? If you answer "yes", you are a theist. If you are not convinced a god exists, you are an atheist. Whether you have some unjustified problem with that label, don't use it for yourself.

Exactly which fallacies are we guilty of?

Quote:Im being branded a theist without any evidence. Guilty without trial. And in the face of all this barbaric behavior and abuse I still remain civilized.
Im basically giving u guys a chance to explain yourselves to someone who only deals in knowledge.

Again, if you currently do not accept the premise that a god exists as being true, you are an atheist. Atheism is only a single position on a single claim.

The claim is - at least one god exists.

If you accept this as being true, you are a theist.
If you do not, you are an atheist.

That's it. What other baggage do you think belongs to the atheist label?

Quote:Its not a positive start for atheism here.

So, your flawed understanding of the concepts of atheism, belief, and knowledge have lead you to negative misconceptions of atheism.

We are deeply upset

(December 12, 2018 at 8:38 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. Indeed, 2% say they are “absolutely certain” about the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are many people who fit the dictionary definition of “atheist” but do not call themselves atheists. About three times as many Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (9%) as say they are atheists (3%).

Then they aren't atheists they can call themselves whatever they please they simply aren't  

This is what comes of arguing over poorly defined terms.  If I think what gives rise to god belief is an aspect of mind/consciousness, something that is altogether natural, and I say I think there is in fact something to it, then which am I?  I identify as atheist because I don't call that aspect of mind "God" and I certainly don't believe in anything at all supernatural, whatever you choose to call it.  However I do think this aspect of mind can productively be regarded as something of importance.  It is something separate from the narrow I under my direct control, but something larger of which I am part.  Religion, done right (which it rarely is), can help people achieve a balance within this larger thing of which "narrow I" is a part - and it can do this even if what they literally believe is entirely untrue.

(December 12, 2018 at 12:32 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(December 12, 2018 at 8:38 am)Amarok Wrote: Then they aren't atheists they can call themselves whatever they please they simply aren't  

This is what comes of arguing over poorly defined terms.  If I think what gives rise to god belief is an aspect of mind/consciousness, something that is altogether natural, and I say I think there is in fact something to it, then which am I?  I identify as atheist because I don't call that aspect of mind "God" and I certainly don't believe in anything at all supernatural, whatever you choose to call it.  However I do think this aspect of mind can productively be regarded as something of importance.  It is something separate from the narrow I under my direct control, but something larger of which I am part.  Religion, done right (which it rarely is), can help people achieve a balance within this larger thing of which "narrow I" is a part - and it can do this even if what they literally believe is entirely untrue.

Let's reword the definition for theist then.

Theist: one who professes belief in at least one god.

An atheist therefore is one who does not profess belief in any god. If someone considers the universe to be "God", that's them professing a belief in a god, which makes them a theist.

As an atheist, I can accept that such a theist may consider the universe to be "God" or believe in God in a metaphoric way, but I need not share the same attitude myself.

(December 12, 2018 at 12:32 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(December 12, 2018 at 8:38 am)Amarok Wrote: Then they aren't atheists they can call themselves whatever they please they simply aren't  

This is what comes of arguing over poorly defined terms.  If I think what gives rise to god belief is an aspect of mind/consciousness, something that is altogether natural, and I say I think there is in fact something to it, then which am I?  I identify as atheist because I don't call that aspect of mind "God" and I certainly don't believe in anything at all supernatural, whatever you choose to call it.  

Terms are defined through usage, not by fiat. If you are not included in current usage, so be it, but that does not argue that usage is in some sense wrong, much less that those terms are "poorly defined." I don't think your argument against current usage is valid, but I haven't given it enough thought, either. That you are an exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule. As noted elsewhere, the original meaning of the phrase "the exception proves the rule" was that the existence of an exception is a direct reference to the existence of a more general rule. That more general rule is the existence of a broader, more common usage of the terms, which undermines your overall point.