(July 31, 2012 at 2:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: One more time Raph, I have very clearly stated why you contradict yourself. I quoted multiple examples and then given the reasons why. You can't say that I haven't given the clear evidence above of the fact. I can only think that you have some kind of physical disability that prevents you from seeing this. From this point onwards I no longer wish to repeat myself. If you can't see what I'm saying, please consult a trusted person to explain it to you.

If you call yourself an atheist, and your stated reason for that position is that you think a non corporeal entity is not real because you cannot have verifiable, empirical proof of it (this is a literal contradiction if you didn't realise it), then you have a position on god or gods.

You are therefore an atheist for the reason that you state (even though that reason is illogical).

If you had no position you would have no reason. You would not be an atheist.

As soon as you label yourself atheist, you are declaring a position. On a god or gods.

Is a person who hasn't declared a position an atheist? > no. They could either believe or not believe.

---

@ whateverist

You don't need to understand any more about deity than a single fact. Any dictionary can provide you with that.

That you have a position, even if it's one of "i find equally compelling evidence for the Easter Bunny" (a correct statement from ignorance (ignosticism)), then you still have a position on deity. You are reacting to a claim of belief with an opposite claim: lack of belief.

---

Interesting question.

You publically declare that you understand that god cannot be sensed*. I, as a strong believer agree with you that god cannot be sensed. Where does that leave your argument?

*both of us rule out non proven senses

If that is your only given argument for atheism. It isn't an argument. An argument has to be a disagreement over something surely?

Invisible pink unicorns cant be sensed either, where does that leave your god claim?

It is called pulling shit out of your ass. Humans like the idea of a super hero and god claims THROUGHOUT our species history are nothing more than projecting human qualities on the world around them.

Since you love dictionaries look up "anthropomorphism" and "myth".

god/s/deities/ super natural are merely the products of human imagination. Yours and every one claimed in human history.

It is 2012 not 329, we know that the earth is not flat and we know what DNA is. We also know humans have always been capable of believing false things.

"God" is an utterance of ignorance, and is always conveniently what the believer wants their god to be. But is nothing more than their own wishful desires and imagination.

You have as much evidence for your god claim as there is for invisible pink unicorns.

(July 31, 2012 at 7:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: Invisible pink unicorns cant be sensed either, where does that leave your god claim?

In exactly the same place as yours.

Neither of us think that god, along with pink unicorns, can be sensed.

But only one of you realizes the logical implication that should yield, Fr0ds, and it isn't you.

(July 31, 2012 at 2:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: @ whateverist

You don't need to understand any more about deity than a single fact. Any dictionary can provide you with that.

That you have a position, even if it's one of "i find equally compelling evidence for the Easter Bunny" (a correct statement from ignorance (ignosticism)), then you still have a position on deity. You are reacting to a claim of belief with an opposite claim: lack of belief.

Thanks for the tip. From wikipedia I find:

Quote:A deity (i/ˈdiː.ɨti/ or i/ˈdeɪ.ɨti/) is a being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Believers may consider that they can communicate with the deity, who can respond supernaturally to their entreaties, and that the deity's myths are true.

Deities are depicted in a variety of forms, but are also frequently expressed as having human form. Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form. Deities are often thought to be immortal, and are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions comparable but usually superior to those of humans.

Now you're the one who injected the idea that the status of the Christian deity would be on par with the easter bunny. I wouldn't go that far. After all there is a long tradition of people believing in the Christian god whereas the Easter bunny is and always was created on purpose for kicks. Pretty different. No one expects that a chocolate egg laying bunny exists but lots of people report having a meaningful relationship with your Guy.

If your deity or any other deities can communicate with us, I guess I haven't been on any of their call lists to date. I'm open to receiving that call but so far, nothing. I refuse to wait by the phone like a moonstruck teenaged girl. If they call, they call. If they don't, I'll just be getting on about my business. But I sure won't be following any or all of the rituals prescribed for believers in any of the deities. If they can't be bothered to call I'm just going to get on with my life as I find it, deitylessly. (How's that for a word?)

When did Frodo begin channeling Sell? Really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel with these conversations.

(July 29, 2012 at 8:47 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 5:13 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Given this:

Something that someone ascribes supreme importance to, ie consumerism, = religion

You agreed that atheism can be something that someone could ascribe supreme importance to. (see post #72)
You have therefore said that atheism is a religion.

---

Let me remind you what you said again
From post #61 above:

and what Wikipedia says about Atheism:

Therefore, Wikipedia, and I state that: "Some religions" do not "have atheistic views toward other religions". Some religious people are atheist.

---

You didn't say that here:
(repeated on post #53)

And then you went further to define atheism thus:

Rhythm kindly corrected you:

To which you responded with this nonsense:

None of your definitions of atheism above, you will notice, are actually compatible with the atheism you now define.

Which is why I obliged you with the "true" definition™ (along with an expansion to include all atheist definitions of themselves, but you cherry picked that out).

"You have therefore said that atheism is a religion."
If I had said consumerism was a religion, sure. We both came to an understanding it wasn't. You can't agree that consumerism isn't a religion but shares qualities with religion then on the other hand decide you're going to state atheism is a religious stance based on the same definition. Thats shamelessly biased. Either both consumerism and atheism are religious stances or neither are. Which is it?

"Therefore, Wikipedia, and I state that: "Some religions" do not "have atheistic views toward other religions". Some religious people are atheist."
We've been over this. Yes people of one religion can show atheism toward another religion but we would not call a member from either religion an atheist. We would class them by what they do believe, not what they do not.
Someone who has no such beliefs to speak of we would call an Atheist.

(July 29, 2012 at 3:34 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: To be honest I'm just adding this so people don't forget at this point: "Atheism = lack of belief in God." Fr0d0, 2012.

"You didn't say that here:"

(July 26, 2012 at 12:49 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: We [atheists] don't have a unique position on each individual deity. We just have a position on things that haven't been proven to exist, in that unless it is proven to exist we don't have any reason to act like it does.

There is no conflict here. We lack belief in God therefore we do not have a position on any God to speak of. God is not proven to exists. Neither is the supernatural which directly ties in to God, religion and theism in general.

"And then you went further to define atheism thus:

(July 27, 2012 at 3:46 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Atheists don't believe in anything supernatural without proof.

To follow what you claim is the case you'd have to call every single refusal to acknowledge a deity a religious position.

Is it a religious position to not believe in theism as a whole or simply no position for lack of proof?

Based on this I would say Atheism is not a religious position, it is simply a position demanding of concrete evidence regardless of the claim."

Again, no conflict. Atheism does demand proof of any claim made.


"To which you responded with this nonsense:"

(July 28, 2012 at 1:09 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: If you seriously want to use this kind of reasoning then fine. I'm game.
By that same definition Christians are atheists because they don't believe in Allah and Muslims are atheists because they don't believe in Yahweh. The same reasoning can be applied to every single religion in the world.
Well I guess we'd better call everyone an atheist now.
Anyone else get the feeling this is going to get confusing?

Which part of this doesn't ring true? You've made no attempt to explain why this is nonsense. This is very poor debating.


"None of your definitions of atheism above, you will notice, are actually compatible with the atheism you now define.

Which is why I obliged you with the "true" definition™ (along with an expansion to include all atheist definitions of themselves, but you cherry picked that out)."

None of the statements I have typed on this thread has conflicted with each other or your assertion "Atheism = lack of belief in God." and I challenge you to plainly list the contradictions made. I conclude the only conflict here is between your original statement that Atheism is a religious position and your later statement that "Atheism = lack of belief in God." It is a contradiction you have so far failed even to attempt to explain in any depth what so ever despite having numerous opportunities presented.

I am sick of this evasive nonsense. Copy and paste the explanations, that were not immediately shown to be false, of my supposed "contradictions" and put them into a list for everyone to see if you want this debate to continue.
Do so or show everyone that you lied about explaining any actual contradictions and have been avoiding that admission through four long pages of bullshit.
Your choice.

(July 31, 2012 at 11:52 am)whateverist Wrote: Now you're the one who injected the idea that the status of the Christian deity would be on par with the easter bunny. I wouldn't go that far.

I would.

(July 31, 2012 at 11:52 am)whateverist Wrote: After all there is a long tradition of people believing in the Christian god whereas the Easter bunny is and always was created on purpose for kicks. Pretty different. No one expects that a chocolate egg laying bunny exists but lots of people report having a meaningful relationship with your Guy.

Precisely. Way to go preacher!

(July 31, 2012 at 11:52 am)whateverist Wrote: If your deity or any other deities can communicate with us, I guess I haven't been on any of their call lists to date. I'm open to receiving that call but so far, nothing. I refuse to wait by the phone like a moonstruck teenaged girl. If they call, they call. If they don't, I'll just be getting on about my business. But I sure won't be following any or all of the rituals prescribed for believers in any of the deities. If they can't be bothered to call I'm just going to get on with my life as I find it, deitylessly. (How's that for a word?)

Nice word

The call to you is constantly open. You don't have to wait for it, you just have to understand how to hear it.

---

@ Raphael: You made a complete balls up of that. Care to compose something at least readable? I'll respond when you do

(July 31, 2012 at 1:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ Raphael: You made a complete balls up of that. Care to compose something at least readable? I'll respond when you do

I'm not going to organize something you failed to the first time you wrote it.
Either list the contradictions and the explanations of why they're contradictions, retreat or continue to insult the intellect of all who read your hastily written and poorly conceived deflections.
Your choice.

Will I be needing spiritual ears to hear this constant call. Where did you buy yours? Platitude.

(July 31, 2012 at 1:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Will I be needing spiritual ears to hear this constant call. Where did you buy yours? Platitude.

Between you and me I think someones just following him around with a dog whistle to drive him nuts.