The Sects of Atheism

[LadyForCamus]

Let’s just get this out of the way and be done with it so we can move on from you squabbling over diction definitions:

[brewer]

My answer was lack of credible evidence for souls and afterlife. Until you (or anyone) can provide some credible evidence souls and afterlife they remain a man made concepts.

 It appears that you're willing to alter peoples responses to fit your agenda and motives.

Lol. Yes my agenda is world domination and it begins in this forum. 😂
Your answer seems like a synonym for “I don’t know” to me and in another topic we can discuss consciousness and how different wiring can make two people interpret objective and non objective reality in different way.

How about just domination. It's clear that you want an argument/debate and are attempting to set up the specific parameters (labels and definitions) to help support your position.

Your answer seems like poor rationalization.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Third point : You can’t have an opinion on souls or afterlife which are god-related topics and then claim the definition of an atheist which is “lack of belief in Gods”.

This is the second time you've insited that the 'God' claim MUST equal a 'Soul' claim. That the two are some how inseparable even after given the information about Bhuddism. (To which I'd throw in Taoists as well)

So, you're making a positive assertion in regards to souls and how they 'Work'..

Care to exand on this point?

[GaryAnderson]

Do a quick google search man, it says : “ disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”

Right. Are ghosts and souls gods?

It is the correct answer in terms of one sect which is Atheists. This sect is allowed to say “I don’t know” to existential god-linked questions and their position/definition doesn’t allow for anything else. Another sect like Agnostic Atheists can philosophize at least because their definition  allows that.

An atheist can literally have any opinion except that some sort of deity really exists. A theist can literally have any opinion except that no sort of deity really exists.

The answers for the existence of souls and afterlife come from religious or god-believing groups and your definition of a dictionary atheist “lack of belief in gods” doesn’t allow you to have an opinion on the matter. Unless you switch to another atheist sect.

[brewer]

Only ONE sect of atheists can’t have an opinion of the souls or afterlife, the sect with aligns with the dictionary definition of an atheist. The other sects can. Like agnostic atheists or the meat machines group.

More assertion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Alot of atheists believe in souls. Atheism is a single line item about belief in a god Gary.

[Angrboda]

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Doesn't say anything about not believing in afterlives, ghosts, reincarnation, or souls; just gods.

Yes I agree with your definition of sects.

Your second point is incorrect because what links you all to each-other is your “lack of belief in Gods” and what links me to an Aztec priest in 500BC is our beliefs in Gods.

Third point : You can’t have an opinion on souls or afterlife which are god-related topics and then claim the definition of an atheist which is “lack of belief in Gods”.

Your third point is wrong. Beliefs about souls and the afterlife are not necessarily god-related. And it is consistent with a lack of belief IN gods to hold opinions about them. It's a lack of belief in [the existence of] gods, not a lack of an opinion about gods [and related matters]. It doesn't entail anything about a person's views about souls and the afterlife.

If this is the whole point of your thread then you've screwed the pooch. You are laboring under some logical and factual errors.

[brewer]

The answers for the existence of souls and afterlife come from religious or god-believing groups and your definition of a dictionary atheist “lack of belief in gods” doesn’t allow you to have an opinion on the matter. Unless you switch to another atheist sect.

Assertion and manipulation/limited view of one definition.

[GaryAnderson]

Lol. Yes my agenda is world domination and it begins in this forum. 😂
Your answer seems like a synonym for “I don’t know” to me and in another topic we can discuss consciousness and how different wiring can make two people interpret objective and non objective reality in different way.

How about just domination. It's clear that you want an argument/debate and are attempting to set up the specific parameters (labels and definitions) to help support your position.

Your answer seems like poor rationalization.

My denomination has the answers to these questions and says that they exist. Our definitions allow us to have this position because we believe and atheists don’t.

At work.

Third point : You can’t have an opinion on souls or afterlife which are god-related topics and then claim the definition of an atheist which is “lack of belief in Gods”.

This is the second time you've insited that the 'God' claim MUST equal a 'Soul' claim. That the two are some how inseparable even after given the information about Bhuddism. (To which I'd throw in Taoists as well)

So, you're making a positive assertion in regards to souls and how they 'Work'..

Care to exand on this point?

Yes as I mentioned above anyone who believes in different Gods or religions has these answers and they’re allowed to have them because they believe and there’s no contradiction on definitions. Atheist definition is “lack of belief in Gods”.

[The Grand Nudger]

If this is the whole point of your thread then you've screwed the pooch.   You are laboring under some logical and factual errors.

A hundred times this.  The only thing left to discover is why that conflation was important to whatever doomed argument gary intended to foist upon us. They're connected to him, and that's important to him..and somehow specifically important to his opinion of atheism in relation to those cherished beliefs.

So spill the beans gary! Gotta be more than "but you guys don't believe in souls!". Because, a, that's wrong in point of fact in mere reality - and b...we're left to wonder why it would matter if we didn't. Give us the money shot?