Atheism

[chatpilot]

My definition of atheist is the standard text book definition. A=Without Theist=God.In other words I don''t believe in any god or gods whether they be personal or impersonal,outside of time and space or inside.I have no need for a god and simply consider that an atheist is simply someone who does not believe nor accept the possibility of a god.

[Godlesspanther]

God can be (and is) defined in ways that necessitate its existence. Such as "god is that which encompasses everything that exists" or "god is what encompasses all the stuff we don't know about" or "god is all the good stuff in the world" etc. The problem for the weak theist who attempts to give god a definition that makes it a rational entity is that 1. we don't have to call it god thus not a unique entity and 2. why should we care? A god that doesn't send us to hevean or hell or answer prayers or do magic tricks or anything else is pointless. Then the more specific the definition of god becomes the more irrational it becomes to believe in such a thing. The more irrational the belief system is the more irrational the behavior becomes. -- [plug in your favorite religious nutcase example here]

[Minimalist]

I’m a polyatheist - there are many gods I don’t believe in.

[chatpilot]

God is nothing more than a man made object of worship.Some people worship imaginary personal beings,others worship money and its acquisition,others worship their children etc.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I have no need for a god and simply consider that an atheist is simply someone who does not believe nor accept the possibility of a god.

A not unheard of view, but by no means a universal definition of atheism.


My own position:


I assert "I do not believe in god(s)"

I do not assert "I believe there are no gods." Although on Dawkins scale of 1 to 7, I'm around a 6.9, I am unable to assert there is no possibility of a god.


I remain unconvinced that god can be reasoned into or out of existence. Imo he can only be proved or disproved. Neither has occurred so far.Until such time,I feel obliged to conceded the possibility of error,but live AS IF THERE ARE NO GODS.

I'm not saying your position is wrong,only that your definition is incorrect as a statement of a universal meaning .It is not my definition of atheism, nor that of any other atheist I know.

Pedantic? ME?

[Retorth]

an atheist is simply someone who does not believe nor accept the possibility of a god.

My own position:


I assert "I do not believe in god(s)"

Are these two not the same? lol

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Are these two not the same? lol

NO.

I accept the possibility.

[Kyuuketsuki]

that the god in question won't come out to play means there is no evidence and that supports nothing (positive or negative) but DOES allow one to assume non-existence until otherwise indicated.

Please describe to me exactly what evidence you would accept, and I'll prove to you beyond doubt every time how that wouldn't prove in any way remotely God's existence. If I'm right with this, you need to retract your statement that this allows you to assume non existence.

Empirical, validatable, the usual evidence I would accept for ANY other claim made:

Post #2: Does God Exist

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Give me one example then Kyu please, like I requested.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Give me one example then Kyu please, like I requested.

Read the fucking post Frodo ... it's entirely obvious what I am saying.

Kyu