Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[Mr.wizard]

Exactly.

That's exactly what drives me nuts about being "openly" atheist.  Everyone assumes I say god doesn't exist 100%.  No I just want you to define your god then prove to me he exists.  If you can do that using evidence I'll be a believer.  I haven't seen anyone even come close so far.

Actually i did that right here hahaha of course with lots of trickery that is.
I (think)proved the existence of a non-religious god by correlating this god to aliens(hence confirming their existence or the high probability of their existence) and their ability to perform supernatural phenomenon using extreme intelligence and thereby satisfying the definition of a (non-religious)god that is - "A supreme/superior being,capable of performing supernatural feats".
Maybe if i changed the definition to "A supreme/superior being of foreign orgin,capable of performing supernatural feats." i'd have a more stern position(or i could argue that nobody on earth would fit this description because of the unachievable qualities defined in the definition and hence they are of foreign orgin - no other way)but then everyone would say that i "changed" the definition of god to fit into my argument.

Bleh(the truth is),it doesn't even have a definition to begin with bruh so make up your own and convince others its the right one.

If you want a definition for religious gods i think i have one: "A supreme/superior being of foreign or domestic orgin,capable of performing supernatural feats."
I came up with this definition by generally simple observation of religious gods and i have data to support my observation.
(The domestic part because there are a shit load of religions that one of them probably have a dude that happened to be on earth and they consider(ed) him a god - ah religion you ruthless butcher )

No you did not, If your going to claim that aliens are gods you have to prove that they are gods. Also you have not proved Aliens or a supernatural realm where supernatural events are even possible. You can say aliens are gods, you can say the sun is a god, it doesn't matter in regards to the question of whether I believe in a god, because if there is no concrete definition of a god then I have no reason to believe your claim that they are gods, therefore I am still justified in being an atheist.

[Cato]

This confusion about the definition of god is pure obfuscation. People normally don't have any issue understanding what is being asked if someone walks up and says "do you believe in god?". Assumptions about the qualities of god may be slightly different depending who the most prevalent local deity is, but one would have to be extremely ignorant or obtuse to claim no knowledge of what's being asked. When people ask "do you believe in god?" they are not referring to the practices of cargo cults or crocodile worshipers and they damn sure aren't talking about extraterrestrials. 

If someone claims a unique god, let them present their case for scrutiny. Proclaiming god exists because it could be anything (aliens) or everything renders the entire enterprise meaningless. If god can't be distinguished from existing concepts or is confused for the totality of the universe what is actually being argued? I say nothing; it's tortured language masquerading as philosophical inquiry. It's rubbish.

[Holden Caulfield]

This confusion about the definition of god is pure obfuscation. People normally don't have any issue understanding what is being asked if someone walks up and says "do you believe in god?". Assumptions about the qualities of god may be slightly different depending who the most prevalent local deity is, but one would have to be extremely ignorant or obtuse to claim no knowledge of what's being asked. When people ask "do you believe in god?" they are not referring to the practices of cargo cults or crocodile worshipers and they damn sure aren't talking about extraterrestrials. 

If someone claims a unique god, let them present their case for scrutiny. Proclaiming god exists because it could be anything (aliens) or everything renders the entire enterprise meaningless. If god can't be distinguished from existing concepts or is confused for the totality of the universe what is actually being argued? I say nothing; it's tortured language masquerading as philosophical inquiry. It's rubbish.

Well said. I agree 100%.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

@Everyone else, Yeah,well i agree i don't fully or even partially understand these terms.
What i'm saying is this:

There wouldn't be atheism is there wasn't theism.
Theism is itself build on the claim that there is a god and they don't even know what god is - they believe in something which is nothing.
If theism itself is a faulty ism then wouldn't it make atheism also faulty(ah,idk my analogy better explains what i'm trying to convey).

(Analogy)
Theists: cat is a dog.
Atheists: I don't completely agree OR i disagree.(please note:It is a OR not a AND)
Me: lol cat is not a dog,cat is cat.



Now that there are no more theists
So where does atheists stand now?
Now doesn't atheists have the burden of proof?

[Whateverist]

Very few atheists I know claim to know both what a god is supposed to be and that none exist. For many of us the inadequacy of the definition is a big part of not holding any belief in gods.

Perceived animosity toward 'God' is more often just displaced anger toward family and community for having deceived and coerced them in their time of vulnerability. Anyone who 'hates god' is a theist, but plenty of atheists have plenty to complain about the way they were treated by theists in the name of God.

[Cato]

There wouldn't be atheism is there wasn't theism.

No shit, the same way today we don't run around conducting interviews with A-unicornists asking them for evidence for their position.

[Mr.wizard]

@Everyone else, Yeah,well i agree i don't fully or even partially understand these terms.
What i'm saying is this:

There wouldn't be atheism is there wasn't theism.
Theism is itself build on the claim that there is a god and they don't even know what god is - they believe in something which is nothing.
If theism itself is a faulty ism then wouldn't it make atheism also faulty(ah,idk my analogy better explains what i'm trying to convey).

(Analogy)
Theists: cat is a dog.
Atheists: I don't completely agree OR i disagree.(please note:It is a OR not a AND)
Me: lol cat is not a dog,cat is cat.



Now that there are no more theists
So where does atheists stand now?
Now doesn't atheists have the burden of proof?

Bro, this concept is not difficult you are giving me a damn headache.

Theist: A god exists
Atheists: I don't believe you

Atheism is not the claim that a god doesn't exist.

Atheism cannot have a burden of proof because it's not claiming anything!

[Whateverist]

Now that there are no more theists
So where does atheists stand now?

No where. Atheism defines absolutely nothing about a person, let alone a class of persons, aside from one non-belief. You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the idea that atheists as such are making no claim. We simply aren't accepting one particular claim. That isn't, or at least need not be, because we are making a counter claim. There are strong atheists but they are relatively few and I leave it to them justify their position. It isn't mine.

Now doesn't atheists have the burden of proof?

Obviously no. I guess you think because we would cease to exist as such, atheists have a stake in keeping the conflict going? That so makes no sense. I'd be very happy to drop atheist from my list of descriptors. It tells you so little about who I am or what I care about. It wouldn't be missed. And I'm not a special case. This is the reality for most of the atheists I've encountered on this site.

Do you even register who people are or what their actual claims might be here? Or are you so agenda driven that all you can see is what confirms your pre-existing assumptions while attempting to poke holes in anything which doesn't fit?

[Holden Caulfield]

@Everyone else, Yeah,well i agree i don't fully or even partially understand these terms.
What i'm saying is this:

There wouldn't be atheism is there wasn't theism.
Theism is itself build on the claim that there is a god and they don't even know what god is - they believe in something which is nothing.
If theism itself is a faulty ism then wouldn't it make atheism also faulty(ah,idk my analogy better explains what i'm trying to convey).

(Analogy)
Theists: cat is a dog.
Atheists: I don't completely agree OR i disagree.(please note:It is a OR not a AND)
Me: lol cat is not a dog,cat is cat.



Now that there are no more theists
So where does atheists stand now?
Now doesn't atheists have the burden of proof?

This is NONSENSE.  Your trying to build yourself as smarter than everyone ever.  Your not.

I post the actual argument but mr. wizard already did.

Here's a simple analogy for you.
Theist: The world was created by a spaghetti monster.
Atheist:  Show me some proof that what you say is true.
You: I have no idea.

I really don't what you are trying to say at all.  Atheism exists just as general term to distinguish like minded people who don't believe in theism.  Of course atheism only exists because of theism...since if there were no theists we'd ALL be atheists.  We wouldn't need a term then maybe, but it'd be the same meaning as we'd all be atheists.

[Exian]

Hey, pool, do you believe in the existence of ants? Can you imagine ants existing? They're inferior to us humans, so if you can imagine they exist and you agree that they are inferior, then you believe in God (a term I use extremely loosely, so loosely, it's unclear to me what it is I mean). Now that you know ants are God, I'm here to tell you what else you are and what else you believe: You're a devout Christian (a term I've also changed to suit my argument).