I have some questions for the posters here.

[vulcanlogician]

But to invent a descriptor like "atheist" and then insist that IT applies to all PEOPLE WHO DO NOT "BELIEVE" ANY GODS EXIST...is an absurdity to logic and reason. (Your Vulcan logic should be flashing alarm buttons because of that!)

I have a policy on the internet. Especially since my username attracts comments like these.

Don't say something I said was illogical. Say HOW it is illogical.

ie. show me how some conclusion I have made doesn't follow from my premises.

There is nothing inherently illogical about choosing a certain descriptor. The logic problem, if there is one, must lie in what conclusions underly the selection of a given descriptor. The problem is, this is a semantic debate, and there is no substance to your criticisms.

At the outset of a debate, it is often helpful that each party provides their own definition for terms. They can choose any definition they want. But once you KNOW which definition they are using, you can criticize their ACTUAL POSITION... rather than their choice of words.

For instance, if you think positively declaring gods do not exist is unreasonable, have a debate about its unreasonableness... not about which terms we select for which beliefs.

I mean, I guess you're trolling, right? You're being disingenuous, shit posting and stuff... and if you're a troll, you'll be gone when we're done with you.

But just in case you aren't, I figured I'd offer you into the substantive debate. Because you seem to be getting caught up on words.

Forget what word is used for what. Let's talk about the reasonableness of saying "I do not believe X." When X is something you do not know.

[Deesse23]

Considering that knowledge is a subset of our beliefs, and that the troll claims to have no beliefs, thus he cant have any knowledge at all, as amply demonstrated in the past days.
Case closed.

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s an amateur troll that -only- shit posts. You have to weave some effort in there to achieve longevity. It would take a lot more than this to dethrone af’s troll princes. They have thousands of posts, the best troll threads run hundreds of pages.

Years of persistent annoyance....the ban bar is high, and so we expect a better class of troll round these parts.

[LadyForCamus]

It’s an amateur troll that -only- shit posts.  You have to weave some effort in there to achieve longevity.  It would take a lot more than this to dethrone af’s troll princes.  They have thousands of posts, the best troll threads run hundreds of pages.

Years of persistent annoyance....the ban bar is high, and so we expect a better class of troll round these parts.

Haha, remember CDF? Was that his name? He was a prize.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, we get some real winners from time to time.

[Frank Apisa]

I agree, Vulcan, that we have to be careful with our use of etymology.

However, we can easily call people who do not "believe" gods exist...PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE GODS EXIST. No problem there at all.

But to invent a descriptor like "atheist" and then insist that IT applies to all PEOPLE WHO DO NOT "BELIEVE" ANY GODS EXIST...is an absurdity to logic and reason. (Your Vulcan logic should be flashing alarm buttons because of that!)

I am saying that atheists should stop that bullshit. It is not necessary to try to make this a binary issue between theism and atheism. It is unnecessary, and an insult to many agnostics, to insist that they be deemed atheists.

(By the way, in several atheist sites I have visited for a short while, MANY ATHEISTS in those places DO insist that infants and toddlers and mentally challenged individuals ARE atheist, because they do not "believe" in any gods. They insist we are all born atheists...and that theists must be hoodwinked into becoming theists.

In any case, I doubt any atheist here really wants me to be one of them. Why do you supose so many are insisting that I must be deemed to be one of them?

Because you have claimed to actually be an atheist. Why would you claim to NOT be that which you actually are?

Are you somehow ashamed of yourself?

I have never claimed to be an atheist. Quite the contrary, I have insisted that I am NOT an atheist.

[Angrboda]

Because you have claimed to actually be an atheist. Why would you claim to NOT be that which you actually are?

Are you somehow ashamed of yourself?

I have never claimed to be an atheist. Quite the contrary, I have insisted that I am NOT an atheist.

And he goes back to not knowing how to quote properly. *yawn*

[Frank Apisa]

It is not necessary to try to make this a binary issue between theism and atheism.

There is a difference between believing that God exists and that God does not exist like there's a difference between collecting stamps and not collecting stamps.

Like if you believe in God in Germany you have to give 10% of your paycheck to Church.

And atheists did not invent that difference nor naming people according to their beliefs.

You did a really lousy job with that piece of analogy bullshit.

[Mister Agenda]

You would benefit from a dictionary.

You would benefit from some research. You are making a etymological argument that is totally invalid.

If you would like me to school you on the issue...just ask. I'll be more than happy to help.

How is reference to current usage an etymological argument?

[Frank Apisa]

1) I do not "believe" it. I do not do "believing."

2)  There is absolutely no way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

3)  If you are unable to see that...I really do not care.

If number 1 is true, number 2 must be false, and vv. If 3 is true than the entire premise of this thread you created is false.  

....but all I’m asking is -why- you believe 2, or think 2, or are of the opinion 2, or feel 2.  I don’t care what you call it, I will obviously call it anything up to and including a ham sandwich.  I simply want to hear that no 2 explained.  Is there any explanation for why you hold that position that you are capable of expressing?

It’s manifestly obvious, to my understanding, that you strongly whatever no 2.  Why?

First, I strongly disagree with your analysis that if my #1 is true that my #2 must be false. We can discuss that a length if you want.

As to why #2 is manifestly true (and it is):

"There are no gods" is a negative of such universal scope...it simply cannot be proven...which means that NO HUMAN CAN POSSIBLY KNOW IT IS TRUE. So, my statement "There is absolutely no way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist" is true in and of itself.

Let me share a guess...and if you can be honest, please tell me if my guess was correct:

My guess is that you wanted me to assert that one cannot prove a negative...which, of course is absurd...and I would never assert that. And then you were going to say something along the lines of, "Well, just assert that there is not a live, visible, African giraffe in your desk right hand drawer"...and then prove that negative by opening the drawer.

Of course negatives can be proven...but not negatives with the universality of "There are no gods."

What say you, Nudger?  Was my guess correct?