The definetion of atheism

[Cyberman]

Exactly, and very daintily put. I never had the godware installed, nor do I see any reason or non-detrimental benefit for doing so.

[MindForgedManacle]

Atheism to the theism as amoral is to moral. An atheist is 'one who is not a theist' or 'one who does not believe in the existence of a deity'. Seems a rather obvious and uncontentious definition.

[Lemonvariable72]

I don't regard it as a "lack" of anything. Rather, I see it as the failure of theists to demonstrate that their bullshit is true.

That's what I say. If we call it a "lack" of God belief, the theists will see it as "lack of God" and will hound us to "fill that hole in your hearts."

I don't lack God any more than I lack dysentery.

Well its the definetion I use and have seen used time and time agian. Besides if you look at it one way, you do lack dysentery.

---

Atheism to the theism as amoral is to moral. An atheist is 'one who is not a theist' or 'one who does not believe in the existence of a deity'. Seems a rather obvious and uncontentious definition.

Haven't talked to rationial akd or vinny g, have you?

[Whateverist]

I'm also an apatheist. I don't have any belief, and I also don't care if any of the gods available are real.

Yeah me too. I don't know and I don't care. Deciding if any gods are out there hasn't made it to my to-do list. Nothing seems to ride on it other than what the theists claim but they can't back any of that bullshit up. I'm also an ignostic since, first and foremost, since I don't know wtf a 'god' might be and neither do most theists, based on the things I hear them say.

[MindForgedManacle]

Haven't talked to rationial akd or vinny g, have you?

Don't care for AKD (he seems to be jerking off Plantinga), and I don't know if Vinny has much expressed anything other than a suspicion that the definition I'm employing is actually some near-universally agreed upon one.

[Lemonvariable72]

Haven't talked to rationial akd or vinny g, have you?

Don't care for AKD (he seems to be jerking off Plantinga), and I don't know if Vinny has much expressed anything other than a suspicion that the definition I'm employing is actually some near-universally agreed upon one.

Except that Vinnie constantly argues that atheism has a burden of proof, and phrased like this it does not. That said it is easy to present proof the Christian god is make belief.
Also why do they have to jerk off morons like plantinga and wlc? Fuck sakes at least use Cs lewis, he can actually write. Could use John Lennox too, at least he doesn't use straw men.

[rexbeccarox]

Between the morality thread and this one, I'm starting to feel like we're back in 2004. Sheesh, guys!

[Esquilax]

Except that Vinnie constantly argues that atheism has a burden of proof, and phrased like this it does not. That said it is easy to present proof the Christian god is make belief.

That's the thing about Vinnie's argument he never seems to get: even if his definition of atheism does have a burden of proof, it's not what most of us believe. All he's done is define a new category that nobody claims to be a part of, hijacked a word for his own smarmy means, and plugged it all together; nothing in that obligates us to suddenly take up these new "atheistic" beliefs any more than us deciding "christian" means "chicken" will make GC sprout feathers.

In effect, all he's really done is employ a dishonest tactic to try and link what we believe with things that we don't. Meanwhile, the burden of proof for the christian claim remains, and the things we actually believe still have no such burden.

[Brakeman]

I like this definition.

Atheist: Someone who has never been given a preponderance of evidence in a god or has never considered the idea..

[Whateverist]

Between the morality thread and this one, I'm starting to feel like we're back in 2004. Sheesh, guys!

Hey, give me the stick. It's my turn to whack the donkey.

(It has all been said but apparently it is time to say it again, now give me the stick.)