A problem with the word "atheist"

[Fake Messiah]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

[Simon Moon]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

Wrong again. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods

Notice the word "belief" in the defintion?

Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

The "A" prefix means "without". Place it before the word theism, and you get, without belief in a supreme being or beings.

There is no requirement in the atheist position to claim that gods do not exist. Some atheists may claim to know that there are no gods, but all that is necessary to be an atheist is to not believe that gods exist.

As an atheist, I am not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that there are no gods. My position is that theists have not met their burden of proof to support their position that gods do exist.

[Martian Mermaid]

I was just thinking that there may be idiots out there who think that "atheist" means someone who is against god and therefore with the devil. 

Am I just being paranoid?

There are. But so what? They're wrong about atheists and that's not our problem.
Plenty of people are wrong about things.

[Huggy Bear]

Dawkins suggested atheists call themselves "brights". Which, to me, is a stupid idea.

I suggest we use "not dumbfucks".

There's just one problem, you can't say for certain that God doesn't exist so if in fact God does exist the you become the epitome of a "dumbf*ck".

[Fake Messiah]

Dawkins suggested atheists call themselves "brights".  Which, to me, is a stupid idea.

I suggest we use "not dumbfucks".

There's just one problem, you can't say for certain that God doesn't exist so if in fact God does exist the you become the epitome of a "dumbf*ck".

It's more like you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist and since belief in Santa smacks of the same sort of superstitious nonsense you can claim god too as no longer credible.

There is a cumulative case to be made for Santa's non-existence. You reason that if Santa did exist then it would be rational for you to expect a lot of evidence to turn up that in fact never has turned up. If Santa exists then it generates a whole lot of reasonable expectations all of which are unfulfilled, like that he would leave sooty footprints as he made his way from the chimney to your bedside; that someone would have actually seen him careering across the sky behind his reindeer fast enough to visit, and spend a little time with, every child in the world in the space of a single evening; you would expect someone to be able to give you a plausible account of how he could break the laws of physics in this way. And so on.

These kinds of evidential considerations, atheists regard, are much more powerful than any to do with simple lack of evidence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

And you have evidence that any god or gods exist? So far you haven't presented any.

[RoadRunner79]

There's just one problem, you can't say for certain that God doesn't exist so if in fact God does exist the you become the epitome of a "dumbf*ck".

It's more like you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist and since belief in Santa smacks of the same sort of superstitious nonsense you can claim god too as no longer credible.

There is a cumulative case to be made for Santa's non-existence. You reason that if Santa did exist then it would be rational for you to expect a lot of evidence to turn up that in fact never has turned up. If Santa exists then it generates a whole lot of reasonable expectations all of which are unfulfilled, like that he would leave sooty footprints as he made his way from the chimney to your bedside; that someone would have actually seen him careering across the sky behind his reindeer fast enough to visit, and spend a little time with, every child in the world in the space of a single evening; you would expect someone to be able to give you a plausible account of how he could break the laws of physics in this way. And so on.

These kinds of evidential considerations, atheists regard, are much more powerful than any to do with simple lack of evidence.

Unless you are going to make a connection between these arguments and the two subjects.... this seems like a very poor bait and switch attempt.  You can't just make a number of unrelated arguments for one thing, and the supersede them onto another without reason.

[Alexmahone]

It's more like you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist and since belief in Santa smacks of the same sort of superstitious nonsense you can claim god too as no longer credible.

There is a cumulative case to be made for Santa's non-existence. You reason that if Santa did exist then it would be rational for you to expect a lot of evidence to turn up that in fact never has turned up. If Santa exists then it generates a whole lot of reasonable expectations all of which are unfulfilled, like that he would leave sooty footprints as he made his way from the chimney to your bedside; that someone would have actually seen him careering across the sky behind his reindeer fast enough to visit, and spend a little time with, every child in the world in the space of a single evening; you would expect someone to be able to give you a plausible account of how he could break the laws of physics in this way. And so on.

These kinds of evidential considerations, atheists regard, are much more powerful than any to do with simple lack of evidence.

Unless you are going to make a connection between these arguments and the two subjects.... this seems like a very poor bait and switch attempt.  You can't just make a number of unrelated arguments for one thing, and the supersede them onto another without reason.

He's just saying that the evidence for both Santa and god is equally poor.

[Little Rik]

Atheism = no God.
No God is a clear statement that imply evidence.

No evidence turn a statement invalid.
An invalid statement that is repeated again and again as a real truth automatically enter the corral of dogma.  

And you have evidence that any god or gods exist? So far you haven't presented any.

Wrong once again fool.  

Real people, real accident, real hospitals, real doctors, real death, real experiences with God, real coming back from death, real witnesses, real atheists and real people who never thought about it and now are 100% theists.
If that is not evidence then you are a total fool.  

https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/exceptional.html

[Fake Messiah]

Unless you are going to make a connection between these arguments and the two subjects.... this seems like a very poor bait and switch attempt.  You can't just make a number of unrelated arguments for one thing, and the supersede them onto another without reason.

He's just saying that the evidence for both Santa and god is equally poor.

Exactly, Santa is also a being that you can't prove does not exist and yet RR and most of people on this forum (including theists) don't believe in him for the reasons I stated.