If I were an Atheist

[Dystopia]

I'm very familiar with the distinction. What I'm arguing in this thread is the distinction does more harm than good.

That's personal, people prefer different claims, just like some theists simply believe and others claim to genuinely know and feel god's presence

First it redefines atheism in such a way you might as well drop the A. Theism means God the A in atheism mean not or without God. Weak atheists share more in common with a theist than an atheist who actually claims not or without God. A theist doesn't deny God exists either does the weak atheist! There is no point in debating the existence of God between a weak atheist and a theist since the weak atheist doesn't deny (even as a mere opinion) that God exists. Whats to argue? Lastly if the atheists who subscribe to the A in atheist can't convince weak atheists God doesn't exist then there case must be pathetic.

You're right, why do I need a word to say I don't believe in gods - Am I an aunicornist as well

Oh, and I forgot that part when you appointed yourself emperor of AF and decided that atheists have no right to redefine atheists - What a tragedy! After all, the people who share the label are the worst to define it, right, right!? We should let Christians define atheism then, we'd get some pretty answers

If I bother to show two or more sources that use the word creator to define theism are you going to say okay I stand corrected or are you going to insist you're correct as you customarily do?

Believing in god doesn't equate believing in a creator. I had a professor who believed there were two deities - The creator, who created everything and god who ran everything. With one example, your case has been disproved

Yes it does mean a lot more to me. It means that humans are special and provides a philosophical basis for thinking so. It provides a basis of equality among people and a reason to provide sanctions against those who would enslave or abuse people. It is also the basis in the USA for the belief human beings are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights among these is the belief that all humans are created equal and a litany of other rights that are granted not by the government but by a Creator. That the government is in power to protect those rights.

Humans are not special. The rest is a bunch of bullshit that can easily be supported trough valid scientific legal theories that mostly come from natural law, natural rights and secular humanism. Theology isn't the basis of law, rights, duties and freedoms - It's rationality.

There is simply not enough evidence to support the positive claim but it is definitely possible.

Everything is possible, but not as likely possible

Its your fellow atheists who are in a fog...take it up with them.

Your god doesn't exist... Mwaaaahahahahahahhh

[Angrboda]

Theism does not mean gawd, but the belief in one (or more). If you want to continue making up your own definitions for words, there's absolutely no sense in conversing with you since we won't be using the same language.

Actually, he may have some support for his usage.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

---

theism, n.1
Pronunciation: /ˈθiːɪz(ə)m/
Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix. Compare French théisme (Voltaire).

a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.
b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n.
c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n.
d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

---

[Ravenshire]

Theism does not mean gawd, but the belief in one (or more). If you want to continue making up your own definitions for words, there's absolutely no sense in conversing with you since we won't be using the same language.

Actually, he may have some support for his usage.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

---

theism, n.1
Pronunciation: /ˈθiːɪz(ə)m/
Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix. Compare French théisme (Voltaire).

a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.
b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n.
c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n.
d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

---

Nope. Every single one of those definitions begins with the words "belief in." Theism is about belief. That last is simply belief in a specific gawd.

[Angrboda]

Nope. Every single one of those definitions begins with the words "belief in." Theism is about belief. That last is simply belief in a specific gawd.

I think we were addressing different points. My apologies for the confusion, that was my bad.

[The Valkyrie]

If I were still a theist I would call out fellow theists for their claims and demand that they provide evidence for their statements.

I'd tell them that the following aren't evidence for their gods:

1. Personal experiences.
2. Appeals to authority
3. Appeals to ignorance
4. Their "holy" books

I would demand that they stop attacks, insults and attempts to marginalise atheists (and believers of other religions/variations of their own religions.

I would tell them to stop vandalising atheist billboards and signs.

I would insist they stop threatening atheists with hell and passive aggressive nonsense like "I'll pray for you".

I would tell them to stop prosletysing to atheists because all that achieves is to annoy and drive them away from the message they're trying to spread.

Of, course, I do this as an atheist, too. But the message never seems to sink in.

[Angrboda]

How would I approach the debate were I an atheist?

1. Drop the ‘I’m a weak-atheist’ strategy.

I’d go further and criticize those who refer to themselves as weak atheists. If atheists can’t convince others who call themselves atheists that God doesn’t exist just as an opinion and not as a fact, how can they possibly convince someone who believes in the existence of God that God doesn’t exist?

And in doing so, I'd say you're confused about the nature of modern atheism. Yes, there are some who deny the existence of God, and for them to do so is perfectly fine — it's a big tent. However many come to atheism as a position of skepticism — that being to withhold assent until reason and evidence compel belief. It is skepticism of a narrow sort, concerned only with claims about the existence of gods. In this it is no different than, say, skepticism about the matter of universal origins; one is able to withhold belief from specific claims and theories without necessarily being obliged to form a contrary opinion. As I recall, you had great difficulty accepting that as well. Ultimately, it is up to the individual atheist to determine whether they hold to a position of skepticism or one of outright denial; as such, atheism isn't a movement of robot drones all marching to the beat of the same drum. There is no shame in simply adopting an attitude of skepticism; it is a time honored position.

2. Drop linking belief in Santa to belief in God argument.

It’s a silly argument on the face of it. If belief in God were akin to belief in Santa Claus (or fairies, invisible pink elephants and so on) then why doesn’t 80% of the population believe in Santa Claus?

For whatever reason, the argument seems to have gotten under your skin. It's an analogy, and whether that analogy is weak or strong, effective or ineffective, apt or not, is something that only an individual atheist can decide dependent on context and such. Using it at every opportunity might be unwise, but for a variety of reasons, none of which imply that it is a fundamentally useless argument as you seem to imply here. That someone might use such an argument from analogy is neither good or bad in the absolute; there are certainly times when its use is warranted or effective. (Heaven forbid an atheist might make an ineffective argument! What would the movement think!?) A little now and again does no harm.

3. Drop the bashing, marginalizing and demonizing of believers.

I know such tactics make a big splash with fellow atheists but it does nothing for those sitting on the fence and are interested in an actual debate between atheists and theists. It makes atheists look petty, smug and arrogant and that they can’t make a factual argument from the evidence.

Yes, I'm sure you would welcome an end to the abuse and ridicule, however I would suggest to you that some of the time atheists bash, marginalize, or demonize believers it is because the believer has done, said, or believed something that is worthy of bashing, marginalizing or demonizing. Much like the Santa Claus analogy above, you seem to live in a one-size-fits-all world, but situations may suggest if not compel one to such behavior in the name of moral decency. Seldom is it done as an act put on to entertain one's peers. Again, it is the individual judgement of the particular atheist who should decide when such measures are warranted, not some dictate of the Atheist Reich.


In general, you seem to be advocating that all atheists abandon their individuality in favor of some kind of unified front for the movement. Not only would this be rather inauthentic, I think that what the movement would lose is inestimably more valuable than what it might gain.

[Whateverist]

I guess he feels a need to coach us into positions which will make it easier for him to paint us all with one brush.

[robvalue]

It's fun learning about what I believe from strangers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Being a bit argumentative, I started poking the theists that wandered through with a stick.

If you'll take a little uninvited advice, upgrade the stick to a cudgel, and crack 'em on the head as they strut by, all proud of themselves.

Let's face it, with many of them, you ain't gonna be hurtin' anything.

eta: except their ego.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, it is the individual judgement of the particular atheist who should decide when such measures are warranted, not some dictate of the Atheist Reich.

We still get armbands though....right?