Is atheism a belief?

[vulcanlogician]

Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me.  If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).   That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant.  Next.

I think what Bucky is trying to point out is that God has a "definition problem." At some points, he's the tribal god of the Israelites. That's what he is... because that's what the Bible says he is. He has so definite a form that you better be careful not to make a graven image of him.

At other times he is some "timeless," "eternal," or "spiritual" being. And people say "God is love" and things like that. That's what he is... because that's what the Bible says he is.

Believers and apologists slide back and forth between definitions as convenience dictates. It's rather frustrating (can't you understand?) to be on the other side of the debate and have to answer to such ad hoc nonsense.

Now, as someone who appreciates the philosophical side of things, I'm not necessarily troubled when something isn't easily defined. Many things evade a precise definition. But by the same token, it would be awesome if believers owned up to that rather than saying things like "go read a dictionary."

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me.  If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).   That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant.  Next.

I think what Bucky is trying to point out is that God has a "definition problem." At some points, he's the tribal god of the Israelites. That's what he is... because that's what the Bible says he is. He has so definite a form that you better be careful not to make a graven image of him.

At other times he is some "timeless," "ephemeral," or "spiritual" being. And people say "God is love" and things like that. That's what he is... because that's what the Bible says he is.

Believers and apologists slide back and forth between definitions as convenience dictates. It's rather frustrating (can't you understand?) to be on the other side of the debate and answer have to answer to such ad hoc nonsense.

Now, as someone who appreciates the philosophical side of things, I'm not necessarily troubled when something isn't easily defined. Many things evade a precise definition. But by the same token, it would be awesome if believers owned up to that rather than saying things like "go read a dictionary."
Some people think that God specifically favors America... after all, he favored the Israelites.

Something can exist in multiple forms with attributes that explain each.

Water - Solid, Liquid, Gas
Man - Father, Son, Uncle, Grandfather, Husband, and so on.

In discussion, usually it's best to assume something in dialogue for the sake of the argument.  That way it doesn't become a distraction from the true matter at hand. It also makes it easier when dealing with complex issues.  Truth is, none of us has all the answers for anything, and a little give and take is the best chance for winning the race.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.  I always appreciate you calm and reasonable approach to people.  I wish I shared the quality of that attribute in you, because I'm more likely to want to whack someone over the head with a frying pan.  Well played.

---

Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me.  If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).   That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant.  Next.

I think what Bucky is trying to point out is that God has a "definition problem." At some points, he's the tribal god of the Israelites. That's what he is... because that's what the Bible says he is. He has so definite a form that you better be careful not to make a graven image of him.

At other times he is some "timeless," "ephemeral," or "spiritual" being. And people say "God is love" and things like that. That's what he is... because that's what the Bible says he is.

Believers and apologists slide back and forth between definitions as convenience dictates. It's rather frustrating (can't you understand?) to be on the other side of the debate and answer have to answer to such ad hoc nonsense.

Now, as someone who appreciates the philosophical side of things, I'm not necessarily troubled when something isn't easily defined. Many things evade a precise definition. But by the same token, it would be awesome if believers owned up to that rather than saying things like "go read a dictionary."
Some people think that God specifically favors America... after all, he favored the Israelites.

Something can exist in multiple forms with attributes that explain each.

Water - Solid, Liquid, Gas
Man - Father, Son, Uncle, Grandfather, Husband, and so on.

In discussion, usually it's best to assume something in dialogue for the sake of the argument.  That way it doesn't become a distraction from the true matter at hand. It also makes it easier when dealing with complex issues.  Truth is, none of us has all the answers for anything, and a little give and take is the best chance for winning the race.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.  I always appreciate you calm and reasonable approach to people.  I wish I shared the quality of that attribute in you, because I'm more likely to want to whack someone over the head with a frying pan.  Well played.

[Angrboda]

Nope. 
Maybe some do. All do not. 

1. You don't get to tell other people what they are thinking, nor do you get to project on others how you think that are thinking. 

There is no "god". There are hundreds or thousands of gods. The fact that you converse with the term "God" proves your position is biased with respect to YOUR god, is biased. 
There is no difference among ALL god claims. I don't have to even agree to talk about YOUR god. I don't care about your god. Your god is not even coherently defined. 

2. IF, in fact you are equating THAT position with the position of someone of "faith" it's a pretty damning comparison. 
There can't *be* any evidence for something, until the *thing* is defined. It is not defined.

1. Incorrect.  Validation of one thing does not automatically validate or invalidate the existence of something else.  If you subjectively attribute a name or title to someone, it doesn't mean another subject can't maintain that same name or title.  Additionally, saying something isn't coherently defined isn't even of the ballpark of being correct.  We have dictionaries, encyclopedias that define things, including "God" or "gods."  So if you find those definitions incoherent, then it's a personal malfunction of your ability to comprehend something.  Heck, I can comprehend who "Zeus" is supposed to be, even though I don't assert any special meaning to him that dictates my own life.

2. It is defined.  See 1.  Do we need to start referencing said literature for definitions?  Maybe then we can have a definition YOU can understand.

In all that, you did get one thing right.  "You don't get to tell other people what they are thinking."  He can't read your mind  and you can't read his.  The rest of that statement is subjective based on authority.  It's not automatically assumed, but it can be presumed.  If the person asks you to, then based on that, you can attempt to tell them what they are thinking, even though your answer may be incorrect.

This from the moron who thinks the word atheist isn't well defined. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Max, but then, that's to be expected.

[Belacqua]

Believers and apologists slide back and forth between definitions as convenience dictates.

This is of course true.

But it's a problem with the believers who do this. It isn't a problem with definitions. 

Clear thinking is available for believers who work on it.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Believers and apologists slide back and forth between definitions as convenience dictates.

This is of course true.

But it's a problem with the believers who do this. It isn't a problem with definitions. 

Clear thinking is available for believers who work on it.

Tis exactly why it can be annoying.  People making comments like this, that do the opposite of what it's supposed to.  I can't count the times where someone who claims to be an atheist plays the ol' definition switcheroo, but I would be telling a lie if I didn't say religious people did it as well at times.  It's a "people" thing.  Someone wants to win an argument so they spout nonsense.

[Bucky Ball]

1. Incorrect.  Validation of one thing does not automatically validate or invalidate the existence of something else.  If you subjectively attribute a name or title to someone, it doesn't mean another subject can't maintain that same name or title.  Additionally, saying something isn't coherently defined isn't even of the ballpark of being correct.  We have dictionaries, encyclopedias that define things, including "God" or "gods."  So if you find those definitions incoherent, then it's a personal malfunction of your ability to comprehend something.  Heck, I can comprehend who "Zeus" is supposed to be, even though I don't assert any special meaning to him that dictates my own life.

2. It is defined.  See 1.  Do we need to start referencing said literature for definitions?  Maybe then we can have a definition YOU can understand.

In all that, you did get one thing right.  "You don't get to tell other people what they are thinking."  He can't read your mind  and you can't read his.  The rest of that statement is subjective based on authority.  It's not automatically assumed, but it can be presumed.  If the person asks you to, then based on that, you can attempt to tell them what they are thinking, even though your answer may be incorrect.

This from the moron who thinks the word atheist isn't well defined.  You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Max, but then, that's to be expected.

OMG ... this guy needs meds ... 

No dear, I never said that ... it's the word "god" that is not defined. 

Get back to your prayers, Bozo, (but thanks for making a fool of yourself).

[Belacqua]

Tis exactly why it can be annoying.  People making comments like this, that do the opposite of what it's supposed to.  I can't count the times where someone who claims to be an atheist plays the ol' definition switcheroo, but I would be telling a lie if I didn't say religious people did it as well at times.  It's a "people" thing.  Someone wants to win an argument so they spout nonsense.

Yep, that's for sure. 

As you say, it's a human thing. The desire to win overcomes reason. 

To tell you the truth, forums like this one have lowered my opinion of humanity in general. It's so important to recognize and value clear thinking, just because it is so very rare.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

This from the moron who thinks the word atheist isn't well defined.  You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Max, but then, that's to be expected.

OMG ... this guy needs meds ... 

No dear, I never said that ... it's the word "god" that is not defined. 

Get back to your prayers, Bozo, (but thanks for making a fool of yourself).

Already addressed this.  What part are you confused about?

Fool to who?  The ignorant?  Fair enough.  I'll take it by your definition.  Here's one for you.  Enjoy.

Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Anything else?

[Bucky Ball]

Yes .... refute the CHEMISTRY, fool. Thanks for your Babble verse ... that all you got ? Spouting random Babble verses ?

So ... still no chemistry addressed. Such incompetent idiots in this thread.
Speaking of chemistry, Szostak published this week another advance in understanding how RNA may have evolved.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13318

Very interesting.
Of course none of the wackos here can even understand one word of it.

---

YOU, troll,  have no coherent definition of a god. There is no coherent definition, and that is why Igtheism is a thing. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Christians claim they have a "timeless" "eternal" deity ... yet ascribe to it all sorts of temporal acts. THAT is incoherent. 
EVERY quality or property of their god(s) requires time. YOU have no coherent definition of any god. 

BTW, it's "not IN the ballpark", not "of the ballpark". You're in WAY over your head.

---

Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me.  If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).   That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant.  Next.

Nope. I'm asking YOU. You would be a troll no matter what you say. 
What are you doing here ? 
You have no converts, and no one respects your rantings. 


Explain to us how a timeless changeless god can *do* anything. Doing things is a process ... step one to step two .... takes time. 
Yeah, you can't. The Christian god is incoherent, and those FAR smarter than you have tried to reconcile the problem, and failed.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Yes .... refute the CHEMISTRY, fool. Thanks for your Babble verse ... that all you got ? Spouting random Babble verses ?

So ... still no chemistry addressed. Such incompetent idiots in this thread.
Speaking of chemistry, Szostak published this week another advance in understanding how RNA may have evolved.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13318

Very interesting.
Of course none of the wackos here can even understand one word of it.

---

Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me.  If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).   That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant.  Next.

Nope. I'm asking YOU. You would be a troll no matter what you say. 
What are you doing here ? 
You have no converts, and no one respects your rantings. 


Explain to us how a timeless changeless god can *do* anything. Doing things is a process ... step one to step two .... takes time. 
Yeah, you can't. The Christian god is incoherent, and those FAR smarter than you have tried to reconcile the problem, and failed.

As I said, I agree with the chemist, and only you in part.  The chemist is also a scientist, and has portrayed himself scientifically.  You on the other hand... 

No reason to refute someone I already agreed with, so kudos to the scientist. 

It's assumed you won't accept scriptures.  Doesn't bother me if you don't, because it's obviously your choice.  But if you have trouble understanding something, or want to apply things to me, then I guess we can assume a FFA instead rather than trying to find ground that we can agree on.

Atheists, atheism, and the like don't bother me as-is.  A kind atheist is just as valuable to me as anybody else, and hopefully they feel the same way about me.  On the other hand, nutjob wackos who think they are always right and pretend everybody else is inferior.  Well, those peeps I take exception to.

The Christian God is incoherent to you.   There's nothing for me to reconcile, and for you to assume there is, well that's your problem, not mine.  Next.