(October 13, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Keep in mind, the definition is not contingent on whether your claim is rational. It's contingent on whether your claim fits the definition.
I don't know, I have a crazy idea, you know, and I'm just spitballing here, that we should ask people what they think and not shove a dictionary in their face and tell them this is what you should be believing. Maybe you should put the dictionary down and ask self-described "atheists" what they do and don't believe.
And just maybe, I know this sounds crazy, if every self-described atheist rejects that definition of their beliefs, that perhaps the dictionary may have either gotten it wrong or needs to be updated.
In any event, my statement stands that IF that's your definition, I would guess that there are no atheists in the world then.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
