Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

Your cat probably is an atheist, unless you practice your drivel on the poor thing before you try to fob it off on us (in which case as long as your cat is a complete moron it may be a theist). That would explain your posts, if the only resistance you have to your delusions were the replies of Mr Bigglesworth the kitten. Since the dictionary is the authority we're appealing to here..

Delusion-
1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded

2a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

You qualify on every count. Guess that means you're delusional, unless you don't like the definition....

[LastPoet]

I'm done with you lucent, seeing that I have basicly repeated myself alot. You don't get it. It is one thing to have a decent conversation, its a complete different animal to speak with someone unwilling to listen, not deaf, because deaf people want to hear. Since you can't understand what I said, Ace and the others, and when I remember about your demons, I laughted, not about you, but about me, for foolishly trying to argue with an apologist. There is something that conforts me, that is that mabe there are people out there that have their eyes opened to what I had to say.

But since you are repeating yourself ad nauseum, nothing I say will not be a repetition, go ahead with that belief about atheists, if that makes you feel better. Or using an American expression:"Knock yourself out!".

[Ace Otana]

He cannot win this debate. Many have tried to redefine atheism and failed. He is like all the others. A broken record that will only repeat itself and never listen.
He's not very bright.

"no position is more continuously misrepresented than atheism. Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God."

[LastPoet]

Its not a debate Ace, its we posting our reasonings and he repeating himself

[lucent]

I can, because there are much more credible explanations to our existence than your god lucent.

You mean how something came from nothing? Do tell.

You truly are a confused sod, like I said before belief in god or disbelief isn't a dichothomy, you can believe many things besides god, numbnuts. Knowledge, i.e. either you know or don't know, its a dichotomy, unless your unfamiliar with P^~P=false, if so, Ill give you a beating, so you know the difference between being in pain and not in pain. You mabe had a point, if the only Pssible belief for our existence is your god, yet you fail, and fail badly to understand this.

Oh really? Ok..let's examine what you said:

I reject the claim that its possible to know of god and reject claim that it exists

So, here is your argument:

1. We can't know if God exists
2. God doesnt exist

See how it doesn't follow? If you can't know if He does exist, you also can't know if He doesn't. So therefore, you cannot conclude that God doesn't exist because it isn't possible to know if He does or not.

If you want a dichotomy, you can reduce the question down to something simple like,

Did the Universe have an intelligent causation?

From there, we can define what that might be. Inevitably, it will be God.

[Ace Otana]

Its not a debate Ace, its we posting our reasonings and he repeating himself

True, you wanna start ignoring him and talk about something else?

[lucent]

I'm done with you lucent, seeing that I have basicly repeated myself alot. You don't get it. It is one thing to have a decent conversation, its a complete different animal to speak with someone unwilling to listen, not deaf, because deaf people want to hear. Since you can't understand what I said, Ace and the others, and when I remember about your demons, I laughted, not about you, but about me, for foolishly trying to argue with an apologist. There is something that conforts me, that is that mabe there are people out there that have their eyes opened to what I had to say.

But since you are repeating yourself ad nauseum, nothing I say will not be a repetition, go ahead with that belief about atheists, if that makes you feel better. Or using an American expression:"Knock yourself out!".

I do get it. You want atheism to be the default position and therefore you have to redefine atheism to mean "lack of belief", and you further cement it by trying to conjoin it with agnosticism, all to escape any burden of proof. It's an intellectual dishonesty that pervades the atheist community.

What is plainly obvious is that you don't believe in God, in fact you are totally hostile to the idea, and to anyone who believes in it. So when you claim you "lack belief" it is simply a facade you throw up because you have no justification for your position.

If someone asked you the question, "do you believe in God?", are you going to answer "i lack a belief in God"? Because that isn't an answer to the question. It is an irrelevent detail about your psychology, it does not refer to whether a proposition is true or not. And if I asked you why you "lacked belief" in God, we would quickly find out that you have many beliefs about the subject indeed.

[Welsh cake]

That there are other positions that people can take on the question...

Exactly. I'm an atheist. I lack belief in gods or anything belonging in the "supernatural" for that matter. Moving on.

You don't automatically have to believe or disbelieve. You could say you don't know, but what you can't say is that you lack a belief in aliens.

You don't understand what "disbelief" means lucent. Yes, a skeptical person can easily say they lack a belief in extraterrestrial life because there's no evidence and we're lacking a concrete definition of the term "life" in unequivocal terms. I lack a belief in gods because no one has ever provided a clear positive ontology of such a being. Get yourself a proper English dictionary for fucks sake.

There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is...

Oh fuck here we go. The God of the gaps fallacy lucent is not an explanation, it is a non-answer that makes no attempt to understand the phenomena lacking scientific knowledge in question.

Also, my claim that Jesus is God is a matter of history.

Shut up, no its not. We have no historical evidence of Jesus. Even with good theological scholarship we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. We have no contemporaries of the life of Jesus, at all. All you have is people who are reporting heresy. That's why when you ask your *educated* Christian friends they will remind you that you have to take the writings on Jesus' life and divinity on faith, because all you have is blind hope he was/is real.

I take nothing on faith.

Are you too rude to go one line without being insulting or condescending? Is this how you normally relate other human beings?

Human beings like you yes. You're in the evil cult that believes some sky daddy created the universe in six days with magic and you condemn non-believers in your fantasy to a make-believe realm of eternal torment and suffering. You should expect, indeed you deserve ridicule, even most Jews I've spoken to think you're barbaric on the doctrine of Hell.

What we reject is your attempt to redefine the debate by making atheism the default position...

Disbelief in a claim until it has met its burden of proof with sufficient evidence IS the default position.

You have an equal burden of proof by claiming God does not exist. You don't get a free ride.

First of all I'm not claming anything, you are.

Second, within epistemology and the philosophical burden of proof, positive and negative ontological claims are asymmetrical. The greater burden is always on the party positing the claim of a supernatural being's existence, because they are making a positive claim to knowledge and seeking to add to what information and data we already possess about reality. Negative claims "God does not exist" (strong atheism) have a lesser burden because its arguing for a negative, the party is not seeking to add any new information to our centralised pool of knowledge. Those who lack a belief (weak atheism) or who don't care either way have no burden.

So, what evidence do you have that atheism is true?

Oh do kindly go and fuck off, what are you now watching that retard shockofgod for trump-cards? Atheism makes NO claims about reality.

By saying that rocks lack beliefs, I am pointing out that the statement is meaningless

I agree, your statement is meaningless and further more, childishly silly.

As a former agnostic, I know what agnosticism is. There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.

Yes there is. I AM an agnostic atheist you dumbass. Most members here are self-confessed agnostic atheists! >_<

It is the standard definition of atheism, I have redefined nothing. It's in the dictionary.

You're making shit up as usual. You have a mental block that is preventing you from understanding what the definition, what the meaning of the label "atheism" actually is. Now, it's up to you to resolve that, or if you can't, seek psychiatric help or whatever.

[reverendjeremiah]

Typcal theist mindset cant understand not believing. It simply does not compute.

I understand it perfectly well. It's a positive claim.

No....it's not.

If you don't believe in God, you have a belief that there is no God. Not believing in something, believe it or not, also means you have a belief about it. This is elementary.

Not having belief in something means that you have a belief that certain something doesnt exist?

I dont believe IN theism, therefore I am an atheist. I believe that theism exist because, well, it does exist. I believe that atheism exists because, well, it DOES exist.

[lucent]

He cannot win this debate. Many have tried to redefine atheism and failed. He is like all the others. A broken record that will only repeat itself and never listen.
He's not very bright.

"no position is more continuously misrepresented than atheism. Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God."

I'm repeating myself? You have been stating "I'm an agnostic atheist" and "get over it" ad naseam. You have failed to offer one cohesive argument for your position which I haven't dismantled.