Believers, put yourself in my place.

[Silver]

We do have an answer to god's existence.

He does not exist.

As much as we have evolved in the plus two thousand years since the supposed birth of the most notorious fictional character, one would at least expect some sort of evidence to be available for god's existence.

Considering that in a span of those more than two thousand years no evidence has made itself available, it is only logical to assume that god does not exist.

Faith has and always will be the only thing that theists can rely upon, and for atheists to still not make the obvious claim basically means they are relying somewhat on the same faith as the theists.

[robvalue]

Whether "God" exists, and whether characters in story books are real, are two entirely different questions.

The answers are "what the fuck is it?" and "no", respectively.

[Silver]

Does Spiderman exist?

It seems to be that one does not need to differentiate between existence and comic book form to understand that it is the same character despite silly nuances.

[robvalue]

Can you prove he doesn't exist? Have you looked eveywhere? Even on that high shelf where I keep my... never mind.

What, you don't believe in anything? You think nothing is real? That's what you're saying, if you don't believe in Spider-Man. He's right there on the page.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The ability to say "I don't know" is the mark of one of life's students.

[Minimalist]

Does Spiderman exist?

It seems to be that one does not need to differentiate between existence and comic book form to understand that it is the same character despite silly nuances.

Fucking A.

[Silver]

Can you prove he doesn't exist? Have you looked eveywhere? Even on that high shelf where I keep my... never mind.

What, you don't believe in anything? You think nothing is real? That's what you're saying, if you don't believe in Spider-Man. He's right there on the page.

The concept is real. There is already a thread on that, but I have no doubt it was properly destroyed by imbeciles who do not understand how to properly reason.

Concepts exist in reality only so far as our imagination can extend, yet our imaginations cannot create into reality that which we conceive.

Our imaginations are the closest we can become to knowing what it is to be a god, for creation is the veritable essence of being god.

Yet, the theistic perception of god can never exist due to the fact that it will forever remain in the minds of the theists as a concept that can never take real shape in reality.

[Homeless Nutter]

Perhaps, what is wrong too with defining atheism as lack of belief in God is to not define anything at all.

Perhaps what is wrong - is something with your way of thinking? Perhaps you were brainwashed into believing, that everyone has to pretend to know everything, the way religious people do? It's perfectly possible for an honest and intelligent person to admit not knowing sh*t, without making up invisible sky-daddies and such. And it's perfectly possible for such a person to reject - in the absence of evidence - empty claims made by goat-fondling, desert dwelling lunatics and frauds, long time ago. And that's atheism, my boy/girl(?).

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?

What, you mean like - anarchism (rejection of government and laws), vegetarianism (rejection of meat), nihilism (rejection of pretty much everything)?... Do I need to go on or are you ready to admit you're being a dumb-ass?

[Whateverist]

I can at least concede to Chad that I have given the notion of gods, an amorphous category if ever there was one, enough consideration to decide it deserves no further serious consideration. The problem isn't in the idea of 'gods' as such, so long as those are understood to correspond to things our minds are doing. But invariably the definition of the xtian God includes created everything out of nothing using its patented omni-powers while creating an eternal playground for people's afterlife presuming they pass the judgment. Moreover this God inhabits a place called never-never-natural which is even more poorly defined and coherence challenged than the notion of gods.

So yes I don't believe in gods but I'm also inclined to scoff and mock the manner in which they are portrayed. Always politely if at all possible, of course.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I will concede that the terms “atheist” and “atheism” from a strictly entomological perspective can cover both godlessness and god denial. Both are legitimate definitions of the word. Other definitions include being abandoned by the god(s) and the pejorative use ungodliness.

While a contemporary atheist may prefer one of at least four definitions that does not justify the demand that everyone else conform to that preference. I am mocking the mostly polite, but often strident, insistence that only one definition applies. Not only does the word have history, most notably the French Revolution, but the dismissive attitude of the prominent New Atheists betrays their tacit acceptance of a “god denial” connotation.

In an increasingly secular society, I can understand why less strident nonbelievers, like Whateverist and Thump, would gravitate toward the “without god” definition. At the same time, when Robvalue lays claim to that use, when in fact he created a whole host of videos to demonstrate why god belief should be rejected, he is being dishonest. The word has history, a history that includes the anti-clerical purges of French Revolution and activists like Madeline Murphy O’Hair. Own it. Own it the same way you expect Christians to own the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. Own the incredulity that informs your atheism.

Sure I could make all kinds of qualifiers about anti-theists and agnostic atheists, etc. And I could every time try to distinguish between those atheists who are methodogical naturalists versus materialists versus physicalists versus god knows whatever. I’ve actually tried to put that into practice. It’s awkward and time-consuming. It puts a burden on me that most AF members are reluctant to take on in return.

For example, the appellation of Christian covers a wide range of belief – from Roman Catholics to Pentacostals to Swedenborgians. How many times have some of you lumped all Christians in with Evangelicals. Or assumed that God means the special revelation of the Divine in Christianity. I’m okay with that because I can read between the lines. My response, when choosing to participate on such threads, has been to acknowledge this diversity and simply point out when a specific doctrine, like biblical literalism, does not apply to me. Sometimes I offer up the alternative doctrine. It is even right and proper to do so with Christians claiming the name for a narrow set of doctrines.

This is a classic example of “if the shoe fits, wear it”. If the way I am using the word atheist doesn’t apply to you as “denial of god(s)” then say it doesn’t apply to you for x, y, or z. That’s the start of a discussion. Don’t just quibble over semantics. If on the other hand, you insist that only one definition applies, the most benign “without god” one, one that doesn’t accurately reflect your own stance, then you are just avoiding standing up for the type of atheist you truly are.

So no, atheism is not “simply” anything. It’s complicated. Don’t pretend it isn’t just so you can avoid using all the qualifiers and subtle distinctions you demand from believers. And for Pete’s sake don’t play the stupid shell game of atheism is “simply non-belief” to shield yourself from the logical conclusions of the intellectual commitments you personally have made.

Atheists, put yourself in my place.