On Defining Atheism: An Essay

[The Valkyrie]

If the phrase 'lacking belief in gods' isn't a good definition of 'atheism', then 'cup made to hold coffee' is a lousy definition of 'coffee cup'.

Boru

Hot liquid storage device.

[Minimalist]

- "Look at the world..."

Ah, I remember the first time I seen this argument. They had a whole DVD dedicated to it. Ruined bananas for me.

Envision one shoved up his ass.  That should help.

[Minimalist]

If the phrase 'lacking belief in gods' isn't a good definition of 'atheism', then 'cup made to hold coffee' is a lousy definition of 'coffee cup'.

Boru

Hot liquid storage device.

But wait...that's how muslims...and republicunts...define women.

[The Valkyrie]

Hot liquid storage device.

But wait...that's how muslims...and republicunts...define women.

Damn.  That's true.

[TheRealJoeFish]

When I saw that the first word was "Pants," I ran away fast

Don't pants please you greatly?

Why wear pants? Creepy pants all the time get some. Maybe parachute, maybe clown care.
Some ants toot,
- Clancy

[Exian]

Ah, looks like Manal (can I call you Manal? More importantly, can Vorlon call you Manal?) is a shit and run poster. Too bad; I wanted to see why he was ok with defining his neighbor by drawing a line around himself, but not ok with the definition of atheism. I'll move on somehow.

[The Valkyrie]

You know, I really hate these types of drive by posters.

They're like the neighbourhood stray crapping on your lawn.

[robvalue]

Please learn how claims work. You don't get to tell us what we mean by words. If you're in the jury at a trial, and the evidence presented is inconclusive, do you believe they are innocent? Do you believe they are guilty? No, you believe neither. You are withholding judgement. That is just like weak atheism. The fact that the position is unassailable is I'm sure very frustrating, but tough.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

[Mudhammam]

So, how should atheism be defined, according to the OP? If the term denotes a belief that gods do not exist, then fine. It is a belief that is justified on the basis of religions failing to produce valid reasons and sound evidences for their claims about gods, first and foremost. They succeed at demonstrating this far better than any of their detractors could hope to do. The concept of god is also ill-defined and inferior to other definitions that need not appeal exclusively to one's credulity. What was the point of that long rant anyway? That atheism as a belief is problematic because it cannot be infallibly justified but faith in Zeus or the "Universal Soul" or Jesus Christ the third person of the sacred Trinity can be?

Yeah, okay.

[robvalue]

The fact is, many atheists are indeed strong atheists (they believe there are no gods). But that doesn't mean you get to say every atheist is a strong atheist.

Indeed, strong atheism has a "burden of proof", so to speak. It requires a justification. Outrageous and badly defined claim versus no evidence is plenty justification. So as Nestor says, this little tantrum goes nowhere.