Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Norfolk And Chance]

To be fair, you'll go to heaven if you top yourself, so what's stopping you? Get it done man, get it done.

[Epimethean]

The level of stupid you have posted above plumbs new depths, Lucent.

[Norfolk And Chance]

The question is "does God exist?", not "which God is He?". The new atheists wish to redefine the definition of atheism to make atheism the default position and not have to justify their position. That is the difference in argumentation.

Well that is complete bullshit for a start. Not all atheists think that way - I'm as hardcore atheist as they come and I ague that atheism isn't the default position but nothingness is. Only when you add theism, does atheism become anything at all.

[LastPoet]

What's most telling about you is that you approved of this post which said I should go kill myself:

"Tape a bag of porridge to your face, suffocate yourself, and rid humanity of your poisonous and perverted 'understanding' of the endeavour we are currently taking to comprehend the cosmos for all I care:" - Welsh Cake, using classic atheist argumentation

Haha, you were waiting to launch a strawman didn't you? You are equating welsh cake's opinion to mine and all the other atheists. Good for you, but you seriously lack reading comprehension. I'm not as harsh as Welsh cake, but what I do wish is that you with those idiot beliefs, dishonesty and downright lies, dont procreate. Not because of you, but because of the poor children that would have you as a father.

I'm still waiting for your proof that your sky-daddy exists, that classic diversion maneuvre won't get you anywhere.

[lucent]

What's most telling about you is that you approved of this post which said I should go kill myself:

"Tape a bag of porridge to your face, suffocate yourself, and rid humanity of your poisonous and perverted 'understanding' of the endeavour we are currently taking to comprehend the cosmos for all I care:" - Welsh Cake, using classic atheist argumentation

Haha, you were waiting to launch a strawman didn't you? You are equating welsh cake's opinion to mine and all the other atheists. Good for you, but you seriously lack reading comprehension. I'm not as harsh as Welsh cake, but what I do wish is that you with those idiot beliefs, dishonesty and downright lies, dont procreate. Not because of you, but because of the poor children that would have you as a father.

I'm still waiting for your proof that your sky-daddy exists, that classic diversion maneuvre won't get you anywhere.

You approved of his post, therefore you approve of the content of the post. I am not applying this to all atheists, I am applying it to you:

"Kudos given by (1): LastPoet"

Now, not only have you unapologetically approved of someone advising me to kill myself, on top of that you also try to heap more insult upon me by also saying I shouldn't have children. I think that this indicates whom, between the two of us, is less qualified to be a parent.

---

The question is "does God exist?", not "which God is He?". The new atheists wish to redefine the definition of atheism to make atheism the default position and not have to justify their position. That is the difference in argumentation.

Well that is complete bullshit for a start. Not all atheists think that way - I'm as hardcore atheist as they come and I ague that atheism isn't the default position but nothingness is. Only when you add theism, does atheism become anything at all.

So you're a nihilist?

[The Grand Nudger]

The question is "does God exist?", not "which God is He?". The new atheists wish to redefine the definition of atheism to make atheism the default position and not have to justify their position. That is the difference in argumentation.

"I had never given your objection any thought. Now that I find myself in the position of looking like an absolute moron I'm going to attempt to steer the discussion back to my list of prepared points that I believe to be unassailable, as always."

You cannot be both an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic has no reason to believe God exists, that is true. He also has no reason to disbelieve Gods existence. An atheist is saying he does have a reason, therefore you are no longer agnostic on the existence of God, and are just plainly an atheist.

Correction, no one has any reason to believe in god. Because bad reasons are exactly the same as no reasons at all with regards to truth claims. An atheist is not only saying that he has reasons, but is exhibiting a thing called reason. You're exhibiting a thing called wishful thinking.

The grand assumption of science is uniformity in nature. Science cannot be done unless it is assumed that what happened in the past will happen again in the future. There is no way to account for uniformity in nature in a secular worldview without a vicious circularity. Uniformity in nature is best explained by God.

Nothing in the entirety of human experience is "best explained by god". God isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for not having an explanation.

I have faith that God is who He says He is. If it is all just same grand illusion to mess with us, then there is nothing I can do about it. The only logical move is to have faith that God is truthful. There aren't any contradictions in the bible, just things easily misunderstood by people without spiritual discernment.

The only logical move then, allows for any faith whatsoever. Making your thinly veiled wager full of shit, again. "Spiritual discernment" must mean the ability to keep a straight face whilst spouting complete bullshit. There are no contradictions in Dracula either, and? You see, even if your claim as to the bibles lack of contradiction were true it means exactly nothing.

The only way you could be certain about anything is if you were omnipotent, or you received revelation from an omnipotent being. If you can admit that revelation from an omnipotent being is a logical pathway to certainty, then you will understand why I am certain about the knowledge I have. You have no actual basis in your worldview for knowing anything for certain. You cannot account for the laws of logic, which must be absolute, immaterial and unchanging. This makes no sense in a materialist worldview, because we live in a material universe which is constantly changing. It is best accounted for in a Christian worldview.

"You cannot account for, you cannot account for!" The "christian worldview" is one of ignorance, which accounts for nothing save it's own ignorance (by reference to it's source).

You're talking about a Universal negative. I can say we're all in a giant egg inside a cosmic chicken and the reason the Universe is so dark is because we haven't hatched yet. I could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all your memories are false. You couldn't disprove that either. You can invent any story you like, but this has no parity with claims made by Christianity. It makes many predictions and descriptions; it is a worldview, which means it is falsifiable.

A worldview that has been falsified, repeatedly.

The point is, from the millions of Gods, there are only a few candidates that make creation claims, which we can then match to the evidence.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mythology that doesn't have a creation story, which is where most mythologies tend to attempt to draw their authority from in the first place (yours included). With regards to your creation story, we have matched it to the evidence, it doesn't fit. You would very much like for it to fit, and thats why you've left the rez and found charlatans willing to lie through their teeth in order to prop up a tired fairy tale. Well, have fun with that, forcing yourself to ignore reality can't be easy.

All it does is stifle debate, and is a form of bullying. Thoughtful people don't use it, or need it.

As is repeating worthless arguments over and over again, or attempting to dominate the topic or terms of a discussion, or evading the responses of others by swiftly moving on to the next talking point your holy man provided you with. "Thoughful people" don't advocate ignorance, as you have made a habit of doing. I don't have any confidence that you would have even the slightest inkling of what "thoughtful people" might do. You aren't such a person.

There is no doubt that atheism is primarily anti-christian. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. None of the other Gods have any authority, but to Jesus every knee will bow. Everyone who rejects God is rejecting the authority of Jesus Christ.

Correction, christ is a fairy tale. My knee isn't bowed, because I reject the "authority" of fairy tales. What you mean to say here is "Everyone should bow to my beliefs". Well, thanks but no thanks, your beliefs are far too petty and irrelevant for me. But feel free to bow to whatever you like with your own knees.

You won't go to hell for rejecting the God that you don't know. You will go to hell for rejecting the God that you do know, and are suppressing the truth about.

Good, because I don't know anything about any god in reality, the only thing I know anything about are fairy tales. So I guess I'm safe on that count. You might want to crack open a book and get an idea as to which group of people does any sort of "suppressing" between the religious and the reasonable.

You know that God exists, and you know who He is. You're rejecting Him now.

Believe that she, like I, know what you would like to claim about god. That's what we're rejecting. Your myth, your fairy tale, your interpretation. In short, everything that you've posted thusfar is repugnant if only for it's abject stupidity (and many times for other reasons as well). It's your bullshit that's being rejected, and unless you're willing to demonstrate that god appointed you his official mouthpiece (and provided you with the secrets of the cosmos), you should probably stop making him sound like a douche and take credit for the god you've created as a mirror of your own horrid personality.

You do, and you are suppressing the truth.

You don't, and you are suppressing the truth.

There is no evidence for macro evolution. Feel free to provide any at any time.

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

Garbage as expected, I didn't see any evidence for your own claims here, just canned response that has been annihilated (just like your narrative) every time it's been offered up.

What's most telling about you is that you approved of this post which said I should go kill myself:

"Tape a bag of porridge to your face, suffocate yourself, and rid humanity of your poisonous and perverted 'understanding' of the endeavour we are currently taking to comprehend the cosmos for all I care:" - Welsh Cake, using classic atheist argumentation

I'd rather you educated yourself beyond the bounds of your fairy tale. If you can't do that then maybe we are better off without you and yours muddying the waters. Still, I'd rather you go live in a cave where you can't cause damage to other's minds, rather than offing yourself(take the rest of the religious with you, if you go, please).

[lucent]

"I had never given your objection any thought. Now that I find myself in the position of looking like an absolute moron I'm going to attempt to steer the discussion back to my list of prepared points that I believe to be unassailable, as always."

The question of whether there is a God, and who that God is are separate questions. To answer the later you must presume the former. The attempt to conflate them is not a valid objection.

Correction, no one has any reason to believe in god. Because bad reasons are exactly the same as no reasons at all with regards to truth claims. An atheist is not only saying that he has reasons, but is exhibiting a thing called reason. You're exhibiting a thing called wishful thinking.

An atheist cannot even account for his own reason without circularity. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

Nothing in the entirety of human experience is "best explained by god". God isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for not having an explanation.

God is an explanation for the existence of the Universe, life, the fine tuning of physical laws, design, morality, uniformity in nature, the laws of logic, and many other things.

The only logical move then, allows for any faith whatsoever. Making your thinly veiled wager full of shit, again. "Spiritual discernment" must mean the ability to keep a straight face whilst spouting complete bullshit. There are no contradictions in Dracula either, and? You see, even if your claim as to the bibles lack of contradiction were true it means exactly nothing.

It isn't a wager, it is just meaningless to consider if God is causing us to believe an illusion. There would be no way to tell the difference. I never said a lack of contradictions proves anything, except for the fact that it is internally consistant. I didn't raise the objection.

"You cannot account for, you cannot account for!" The "christian worldview" is one of ignorance, which accounts for nothing save it's own ignorance (by reference to it's source).

This is the argumentitive form of "i know you are but what i am". How do you account for the laws of logic?

A worldview that has been falsified, repeatedly.

Feel free to present evidence that macroevolution is true, at any time.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mythology that doesn't have a creation story, which is where most mythologies tend to attempt to draw their authority from in the first place (yours included). With regards to your creation story, we have matched it to the evidence, it doesn't fit. You would very much like for it to fit, and thats why you've left the rez and found charlatans willing to lie through their teeth in order to prop up a tired fairy tale. Well, have fun with that, forcing yourself to ignore reality can't be easy.

You have matched it to the evidence you have presupposed is true because someone else told you it is. Again, feel free to present evidence that macroevolution is true, at any time.

As is repeating worthless arguments over and over again, or attempting to dominate the topic or terms of a discussion, or evading the responses of others by swiftly moving on to the next talking point your holy man provided you with. "Thoughful people" don't advocate ignorance, as you have made a habit of doing. I don't have any confidence that you would have even the slightest inkling of what "thoughtful people" might do. You aren't such a person.

Thoughtful people don't construct a page long diatribe in an attempt to diminish another person. Thoughtful people attempt to engage instead of ridicule. Your position is a brick wall of blanket denial.

Correction, christ is a fairy tale. My knee isn't bowed, because I reject the "authority" of fairy tales. What you mean to say here is "Everyone should bow to my beliefs". Well, thanks but no thanks, your beliefs are far too petty and irrelevant for me. But feel free to bow to whatever you like with your own knees.

Good, because I don't know anything about any god in reality, the only thing I know anything about are fairy tales. So I guess I'm safe on that count. You might want to crack open a book and get an idea as to which group of people does any sort of "suppressing" between the religious and the reasonable.

Believe that she, like I, know what you would like to claim about god. That's what we're rejecting. Your myth, your fairy tale, your interpretation. In short, everything that you've posted thusfar is repugnant if only for it's abject stupidity (and many times for other reasons as well). It's your bullshit that's being rejected, and unless you're willing to demonstrate that god appointed you his official mouthpiece (and provided you with the secrets of the cosmos), you should probably stop making him sound like a douche and take credit for the god you've created as a mirror of your own horrid personality.

You don't have any excuse for your unbelief. You know there is a God, and you know who He is.

Garbage as expected, I didn't see any evidence for your own claims here, just canned response that has been annihilated (just like your narrative) every time it's been offered up.

You made the statement that Christianity had been disproven by the evidence. So let's see the evidence for macroevolution.

I'd rather you educated yourself beyond the bounds of your fairy tale. If you can't do that then maybe we are better off without you and yours muddying the waters. Still, I'd rather you go live in a cave where you can't cause damage to other's minds, rather than offing yourself(take the rest of the religious with you, if you go, please).

I'd rather you understood that Jesus loves you, and that you if place your trust in Him, and ask forgiveness for your sins, He will give you eternal life.

[Epimethean]

Put the troll back under the bridge. He's gone rabid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't matter if the jesus you've imagined loves me Lucent, the jesus you've imagined doesn't deserve my love, nor does the god he represents. I get to decide who gets the fuzzy end of my emotions. Not you, not your silly myth, me. I wish that you would stop insinuating that I should bow to the wishes of an imaginary stalker.

Your religion was garbage before we even knew DNA was, and I don't have to refer to evolution to back this up. Geology, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, comparative mythology, and logic are all enough even without evolution. Case in point, there is no place in any field where evidence for your god can be found, and each field is full of evidence to the contrary. I don't have to give you any evidence for anything at all (as if this evidence hadn't already been given to you in numerous threads, Mr. Ad Naus). Everything we know about the world could be entirely incorrect and that doesn't make your myth true, which is exactly what I mentioned to you in the first place. The reason you don't offer any evidence is because you have none to offer. If you did, you would've done so by now. All you have are claims of conspiracy. Stop making attempts to shift the burden that you have accepted for yourself and make your own case. Good luck with that, sincerely.

Surprise surprise, I'm not a thoughtful person. I'm not so concerned with the moral high ground that I need to invoke it at every opportunity when speaking to you. Maybe if you'd stop advocating for a life denying faith with a foundation in scapegoating and human sacrifice I'd treat you with a little more respect. Perhaps if you weren't spouting off ignorant bullshit with bouts of flat out deceit I wouldn't have occasion to mention that you're an under-educated liar. You can deal with any of the objections presented to you at any point. You're the only one holding yourself back by attempting to avoid them and change the subject to criticism of another's position. Well, I'm on to you, and I call bullshit. Every post I've seen you let fall from your head thusfar is a diatribe masquerading as "reason" or "evidence". You treat these forums and your arguments as an opportunity to preach at people. Well, again, bullshit, and bullshit for getting butthurt when things don't go your way. Bullshit for even implying that anyone has to be "thoughtful" in their responses to you. I can respond to your posts in gibberish and those posts would be exactly as valid as your own arguments. If you want people to take you seriously, then you need to engage people in a discussion seriously. You're a bad apologist, and I don't have any respect for the good ones.

[lucent]

Doesn't matter if the jesus you've imagined loves me Lucent

God is love, and that matters. If you don't love God, you reject love itself.

, the jesus you've imagined doesn't deserve my love, nor does the god he represents.

If you love your life, or anything in your life, then God does deserve your love. Because it all came from Him.

I get to decide who gets the fuzzy end of my emotions. Not you, not your silly myth, me.

Your self-willed life is your most prized possession, but you might want to ask yourself what it is worth? Where is it leading except to the grave? You enjoy being king, but what do you rule? You can't extend your life even one moment, and you are at the mercy of all that is around you. Don't you see that you're not in charge, at all?

I wish that you would stop insinuating that I should bow to the wishes of an imaginary stalker.

I'm not insinuating it, I am telling you that you were created to be in relationship with God.

Your religion was garbage before we even knew DNA was, and I don't have to refer to evolution to back this up. Geology, archealogy, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, comparitive mythology, and logic are all enough even without evolution.

So in other words, you don't have any evidence for macroevolution.

Case in point, there is no place in any field where evidence for your god can be found, and each field is full of evidence to the contrary. I don't have to give you any evidence for anything at all (as if this evidence hadn't already been given to you in numerous threads, Mr. Ad Naus).

What are you looking for, footprints? What evidence would you expect to find for Gods existence?

Everything we know about the world could be entirely incorrect and that doesn't make your myth true, which is exactly what I mentioned to you in the first place. The reason you don't offer any evidence is because you have none to offer. If you did, you would've done so by now. All you have are claims of conspiracy. Stop making attempts to shift the burden that you have accepted for yourself and make your own case. Good luck with that, sincerely.

You can prove it to yourself. Give up your stubborn pride and place your trust in God, and ask Him for forgiveness of sins.

Surprise surprise, I'm not a thoughtful person. I'm not so concerned with the moral high ground that I need to invoke it at every opportunity when speaking to you.

If I were someone who was on the fence about my faith, and didn't know whether God existed or not, and I came to this forum, I would reject atheism simply on the grounds of the way they treat theists. A moral person would have repudiated Welsh Cake for telling me to go kill myself. An immoral person thinks it is a laugh and adds on to it. You should be concerned about how you treat other people because it is a reflection on your character.

Maybe if you'd stop advocating for a life denying faith with a foundation in scapegoating and human sacrifice I'd treat you with a little more respect. Perhaps if you weren't spouting off ignorant bullshit with occasional bouts of flat out deceit I wouldn't have occasion to mention that you're an under-educated liar.

If you would actually engage with me instead of taking every cheap shot you can, maybe we could actually have a conversation. Garbage in, garbage out.

You can deal with any of the objections presented to you at any point, you're the only one holding yourself back by attempting to avoid them and change the subject. Well, I'm on to you, and I call bullshit.

You dismiss and reject everything I say, without exception. Part of the problem is that the persona you're showing me is so unreal. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone who isn't willing to engage on a human level.