Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[lucent]

NO you ignorant TWAT because I'm not even arguing there is no god. No, I have a lack of belief in any deity. I reject theistic claims about "god" because they present no evidence, since they assert the deity itself cannot or will not prove its own existence to mankind demonstrably so there would be no more debate. I think the term "god" meaningless in almost every context because there is no valid coherent definition or ontology put forward. Its a nonsensical concept. Theists are all each presenting their own different gods claims with arbitrary criteria and faulty reasoning. I can easily reject them all because while it's not logically possible all theists are right, it is possible that they are all wrong.

You're in denial about the definition of atheism, and you have redefined it to avoid having to justify your position. If you could be intellectually honest about it, maybe we could have a conversation. It is not a default position. To say atheism is a lack of belief is like saying you lack a preference for a kind of ice cream when someone asks you what flavor you want. It's irrelevant to the question. To say it is a lack of belief means it is neither true or false, but if theism is true, atheism is false. If atheism is true, theism is false. Therefore it's a position. I'll repeat for the crowd..you're debating the facts, not me:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"
(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"
(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.
(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"
(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Right, but we're currently talking about people's standards of evidence and the justification for accepting other's claims within an epistemic dispute. We've yet to brush upon their ascribed truth values because you *refuse* to fucking acknowledge at one rebuttal that I've offered so far. I reject your claims because you refuse to employ scientific methodologies that obtain empirical and measurable evidence subject to reasoning. You haven't presented a valid-working theory for god, merely an assertion that barely qualifies as a hypothesis. Therefore, because you fail to meet your burden of proof I remain in the default position of disbelief. Sorry you cannot accept that.

Even if all of my arguments failed, it still wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist, and you wouldn't have any justification for your disbelief.

Ugh, this is pathetic and almost painful to read. Asserting god has explanatory power does not make it so. Try again next time. And next time APPLY yours

Asserting that it doesn't does not disprove it either, and so far that is all you have done. God is better explanation for the DNA code, because naturalistic processes cannot account for it. It is also a better explanation for the fine tuning we observe in physical laws.

We have no historical evidence of Jesus. Even with good theological scholarship we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. We have no contemporaries of the life of Jesus, at all. All you have is people who are reporting heresy. That's why when you ask your *educated* Christian friends they will remind you that you have to take the writings on Jesus' life and divinity on faith, because all you have is blind hope he was/is real.

Since you're not going to respond to my comments, I'll point you to other sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZhUrKiRGrQ

You make a lot of erroneous assumptions actually. I take nothing on faith.

Have you personally investigated everything everyone has ever told you and confirmed everything? No? Then you have faith.

Now you're starting to piss me off. I don't care what you think of me, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Truth is you know nothing about me in real-life, at all. You're addressing me rather than your own 'argument' and failing to meet the obligation of your own damn burden of proof for your god claims and that it making this (dare I say it) "debate" even more tedious than it was before.

Sounds like you need to go to anger management. You said you could treat me however you wanted because of what I believe, which shows quite a bit about you, and serves to dilleniate the differences between my values and your values.

That's asinine. Containers, vessels, objects filled with explosives, incendiary materials, smoke, gases, or other destructive substances, designed to explode via various means EXIST you pollock. Their effects are measured and the damage they cause is well understood. Even if the devices didn't exist in reality, a bomb threat is not even remotely comparable to a supernatural universe-creating god. Unlike bombs, god has not been demonstrated to exist.

This was your claim: Disbelief in a claim until it has met its burden of proof with sufficient evidence IS the default position.

My example demonstrates it to be false. Your weak refutation doesn't speak to this at all.

You have no fucking clue what 'atheism' means. I no longer care.

It's quite the other way around according to the authorities I listed above.