The main reason I'm an atheist

[LadyForCamus]

---

Are you currently employed?

---

This moron keeps throwing emoticon-laced idiotic crackpot pseudo-science drivel back at REAL scientists, who have tried to get some REAL concepts through his drug addled gray-matter, and then can't even spell his childish playground final taunt correctly.  (Italian.  It's spelled "capisce".) Seriously folks, how much more of this crap are we going to put up with?  Ban this brain-dead egotistical troll and his childish insults, already!

I honestly don't know how he gets from one minute to the next without running head-on into oncoming traffic or throwing himself over a steep drop off. Maybe you're right though; maybe he is just a dirty troll.

[robvalue]

We could replace him with a word salad / emoji algorithm and no one would notice. Not even him He's a troll.

I had a thought about the definitions of atheism. It's generally put forward as:

1) A lack of belief in God

Or

2) The belief that there is no God

I realised this is dumb. Firstly because the second definition is just plain wrong; that is a subset of atheism. But I know a lot of people misuse language so much that they have to dictify it.

Secondly, the first definition already includes the second. Anyone who has a belief there is no God automatically lacks belief there is a God. This isn't an either / or. The first definition is all atheists; the second is strong atheists.

To make these definitions more worthwhile, for people who insist on splitting them, the first one should be:

1) A lack of beliefs about God

In other words, no beliefs. No belief there is a god, no belief there isn't. Then 1 would be weak atheism, and 2 strong atheism. As it is, it's rather stupid. It would be like defining a cool-car to be a car with 8 or 9 wheels, OR a car with 8 wheels.

[Little Rik]

We could replace him with a word salad / emoji algorithm and no one would notice. Not even him He's a troll.

I had a thought about the definitions of atheism. It's generally put forward as:

1) A lack of belief in God

Or

2) The belief that there is no God

I realised this is dumb. Firstly because the second definition is just plain wrong; that is a subset of atheism. But I know a lot of people misuse language so much that they have to dictify it.

Secondly, the first definition already includes the second. Anyone who has a belief there is no God automatically lacks belief there is a God. This isn't an either / or. The first definition is all atheists; the second is strong atheists.

To make these definitions more worthwhile, for people who insist on splitting them, the first one should be:

1) A lack of beliefs about God

In other words, no beliefs. No belief there is a god, no belief there isn't. Then 1 would be weak atheism, and 2 strong atheism. As it is, it's rather stupid. It would be like defining a cool-car to be a car with 8 or 9 wheels, OR a car with 8 wheels.

Correct Rob.  
A lot of people misuse language as you say.

The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god
Right?

So let us stick to the original meaning.
All the rest is incorrect.  

Right?  

[Little Rik]

---

Are you currently employed?

---

This moron keeps throwing emoticon-laced idiotic crackpot pseudo-science drivel back at REAL scientists, who have tried to get some REAL concepts through his drug addled gray-matter, and then can't even spell his childish playground final taunt correctly.  (Italian.  It's spelled "capisce".) Seriously folks, how much more of this crap are we going to put up with?  Ban this brain-dead egotistical troll and his childish insults, already!

Well, well.  

One day you say you put me on the ignore list.  

The next day you eagerly read my post.  

You are very funny fuzzy.  

But let us see who are the REAL scientists.
Real = reality.
So a real scientist got to understand the REAL REALITY.
The problem with the physical reality is that it is not the REAL REALITY because it miss
the consciousness factor which is the opposite side of the same sheet so that can not be the REAL REALITY.
Sorry fuzzy but you fail once again.  

Oh, fuzzy.
One more failing.  
Capisce is a correct term but you say so when you deal with someone that you do not know or someone
that require respect.
When you deal with someone that you know, a friend or similar then you say CAPISCI.
But when you deal with a slow learner then in Italy they use the slang CAPISH.
Capish fuzzy?  

[Little Rik]

This moron keeps throwing emoticon-laced idiotic crackpot pseudo-science drivel back at REAL scientists, who have tried to get some REAL concepts through his drug addled gray-matter, and then can't even spell his childish playground final taunt correctly.  (Italian.  It's spelled "capisce".) Seriously folks, how much more of this crap are we going to put up with?  Ban this brain-dead egotistical troll and his childish insults, already!

I honestly don't know how he gets from one minute to the next without running head-on into oncoming traffic or throwing himself over a steep drop off.  Maybe you're right though; maybe he is just a dirty troll.

Gee dear.  

You must have read in my mind, right?  

How did you know that i don't like that man next to you?  

[LadyForCamus]

This moron keeps throwing emoticon-laced idiotic crackpot pseudo-science drivel back at REAL scientists, who have tried to get some REAL concepts through his drug addled gray-matter, and then can't even spell his childish playground final taunt correctly.  (Italian.  It's spelled "capisce".) Seriously folks, how much more of this crap are we going to put up with?  Ban this brain-dead egotistical troll and his childish insults, already!

Well, well.  

One day you say you put me on the ignore list.  

The next day you eagerly read my post.  

You are very funny fuzzy.  

But let us see who are the REAL scientists.
Real = reality.
So a real scientist got to understand the REAL REALITY.
The problem with the physical reality is that it is not the REAL REALITY because it miss
the consciousness factor which is the opposite side of the same sheet so that can not be the REAL REALITY.
Sorry fuzzy but you fail once again.  

Oh, fuzzy.
One more failing.  
Capisce is a correct term but you say so when you deal with someone that you do not know or someone
that require respect.
When you deal with someone that you know, a friend or similar then you say CAPISCI.
But when you deal with a slow learner then in Italy they use the slang CAPISH.
Capish fuzzy?  

You need to quit banging your head on the desk, Ricky! I'm starting to develop a picture of how you ended up like this, lol.

[robvalue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_f50j2ivXI

[LadyForCamus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_f50j2ivXI

LOL! Yep...basically that. Let's all do it at the same time. The collective head-bang heard round the world...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_f50j2ivXI

Bwahahaha! 

I like the eyelid twitching before your eyes roll back and you start to tip over.

Well played, sir! Well played.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

We could replace him with a word salad / emoji algorithm and no one would notice. Not even him He's a troll.

I honestly don't think he's a troll. He's just a nutter, as you Brits would say.



On the other hand, Rik actually makes some coherent points, in this last exchange.

Atheism/atheist comes from the Greek atheos, "no gods", or "godless". I think that's a perfect way to define us.

If you think a god-story is really a true god, then you are a believer, though not necessarily a servant of that god (as my Christian family liked to say, "even Satan believes in God"), meaning you are not godless.

We who do not accept any of the god-stories as real are simply godless. We have none. We need none.

Beyond that, you get into the subdivisions of the godless, such as Secular Humanists, strong vs. weak disbelief, et cetera.