(March 9, 2017 at 6:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important.
This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them. This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.
Atheism, by definition, is an absence of belief in a supernatural, intelligent creator. It is, in its essence, a lack of belief. Many agnostic atheists, such as myself, choose to take that further into other, more complex ideas and concepts, but atheism in and of itself is a lack of belief. In fact, as a bit of anecdotal evidence for you if it means anything, most atheists I know in my personal life don't really make any claims about god. They pretty much say that they don't hold a belief in anything like that and call it a day. Plenty of atheists on this site are the same way.
The incessant need need for theists to create atheism into some sort of religion or belief system of its own is, at this point, pretty sad. I mean look at the simple structure of the word... a- meaning without... theism- meaning belief in a personal god and supernatural creator. Let it go. Find another way to argue your position, it's just pathetic at this point.
(March 9, 2017 at 6:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported. That going down this path, and falling back to a position of skepticism requires a retreat.
What are you even saying here? I admit that I claim there to be no god and that part of that claim is an absence of evidence. I also admit that atheism, in and of itself, is simply a lack of belief in a personal god and supernatural creator (however you want to word it is up to you). Where is there a retreat in those two admissions? If I admit that I'm a tennis player and also a racket ball player does that change what it means to be a tennis player? No.
If you want to argue your position, go ahead. But once again, don't do so by trying to change the definition of a word in the English language. That is not going to be a very long or productive conversation, I promise you.
“Love is the only bow on Life’s dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines upon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the mother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher.
It is the air and light of every heart – builder of every home, kindler of every fire on every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the world with melody – for music is the voice of love.
Love is the magician, the enchanter, that changes worthless things to Joy, and makes royal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that wondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are gods.” - Robert. G. Ingersoll
It is the air and light of every heart – builder of every home, kindler of every fire on every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the world with melody – for music is the voice of love.
Love is the magician, the enchanter, that changes worthless things to Joy, and makes royal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that wondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are gods.” - Robert. G. Ingersoll
