I have some questions for the posters here.

[no one]

Frank Apisa, dumber than linguica!

[Kitan Etos]

Well, you know, semantics usually makes for the end result of most forum debates.

[Ravenshire]

If you want to think you KNOW there are no gods...

You're tilting at straw men. Atheism has exactly fuck all to do with knowledge. Anyone who does not believe in gawd(s) is an atheist. That includes you. Agnosticism says exactly fuck all about belief. It's about the knowledge position.

I do not believe in any gawds. That makes me an atheist. I do not claim to know that there are none. There simply isn't enough evidence to support the claim the theists make. That makes me agnostic as well as atheist. This is the reality of atheism. Like most everything else about humans, there's a spectrum.

Welcome to reality, Frank.

---

Not believing in gods is exactly what makes a person, and the only thing that makes a person, an atheist.  Did you want to discuss some position, or air your grievance with accurate language?

---

So I can disregard all earlier comments, then, all seventeen pages, and then, having done that, discard the rest, as you're now reasserting that atheism is something it's not? 

Are you going to ask me what gave me that impression again, or just get on with the bit?

 
Atheists essentially want to assert that the word “atheism” derived from “a” without + theism “a belief in a god” = without a belief in a god.
 
But it did not!
 
In fact, if you check an etymological dictionary, you will see that “atheism” arrived in the English language almost 100 years BEFORE theism. It could not have derived that way.
 
Atheism comes to us from the Greek through the French…and actually means (approximately) "a" without + “theos” a god = without a god…NOT without a “belief” in a god.
 
Check it out…you will see I am correct on this.

Is English, like Latin, a dead language?

[Fake Messiah]

Why not?  I keep seeing this asserted, never explained.

I'm surprised he hasn't come back and tossed religious philosophers at you.

Here's a Kant in your face, ya ninny. Don't make me Aquinas slap you again. I'm gonna Spinoza all over your ass.

Well, in order to see evidence for God's existence you'll need much more than reading phylosophers. You'll also need to recite Italian operas while biking through the French countryside. Wear a silk scarf. Attend art galleries at least three times a week. In other words, don't be a dumb American but be more like a middle-aged Eurotrash fag.

[brewer]

Trying to think of a philosophical position with less real life impact than 'no proof that no gods exist'. There probably are some, just can't think of any at this moment.

Also, I'm not convinced that defending this position (ad nauseum) somehow confirms intelligence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is English, like Latin, a dead language?

Not dead, but it’s certainly coughing up blood at the moment.

Boru

[Frank Apisa]

[pocaracas]

[Nay_Sayer]

lol.

I don't suspect you'll last here much longer.


May FSM guide your travels, Frank.

RAmen

[Frank Apisa]

lol.

I don't suspect you'll last here much longer.


May FSM guide your travels, Frank.

RAmen

Thank you, NS.

I agree...I doubt the atheists here will allow me to stick around for much longer. Better to get some theists to argue with.

It has been fun, though. I stick it out for as long as I can...and hopefully, we can actually get some real discussions going on.