Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

Still don't see any evidence. All I see is a preacher frothing at the mouth, hot with christfire and self righteousness.

You don't see how anyone could have a conversation with a person who will not willingly suffer bullshit to even begin the discourse? That's probably the reason you have trouble having a conversation in the first place, and end up talking at people instead of with people. Neither myself nor anyone else has to give your fairy tales any credibility whatsoever to have a discussion about them. You don't just desire that we do, you require that we do, otherwise it's bullshit start to finish. Not just in actuality, but even in the hypothetical. A does not prove B unless you can first prove A. You aren't prepared to demonstrate the truth of any of your claims, let alone the foundation upon which they rest. So you suggest that we simply put the whole greasy cock of a claim directly down our throats, and complain that a conversation can't be had if we don't. Guess what, bullshit.

It isn't my blanket denial and skepticism of anything you claim that should bother you, it's your inability to overcome it that should give you reason for pause. If you can't establish the factual reality of your truth claims then what are they exactly? Bullshit.
(I wouldn't even assume this position if you didn't have a habit of posting junk "science" and deliberately misleading or downright deceitful quotes. If you appeared to be even remotely capable of having an honest discussion. You don't, and so here we are.)

[Norfolk And Chance]

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?

If you like. Call me what you like. It makes no difference. The only constant, no matter which name you try and label me with, is that I don't believe in god.

[reverendjeremiah]

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.

That is very rude of you. You wish me to lend you the benefit of the doubt and modern relevancy, yet you are COMPLETELY unwilling to reciprocate.

Just one more thing, just because you REFUSE to acknowledge how modern atheists think and act, does not mean that the whole of atheism, or humanity, have to follow your standards. In other words, you can keep claiming that disbelief needs to be argued, but modern atheists will simply look at you and laugh. Now, I remember you mentioning something about "atheists ridicule and mock", well, you know, if you beg special arguments, and then refuse not a single bit to allow atheists any room... you are going to get mocked and ridiculed and then ultimately ignored. discussing things like this is sometimes a give and take process. You want to take everything from the atheist, and then you want the atheist to give you special treatments, like you "the question is does god exist, not which god is he". the special circumstances you are demanding in such a statement is outrageous, yet you are unwilling to even budge on a simple definition of atheism.

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.

Yes you can. and you still refuse to listen to the definition of atheism as "without theism" if you can have an agnostic theist, then you can just as well have an agnostic atheist. I am not reclassifying your beliefs against your will, I expect you to reciprocate that respect.

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.

Actually, nature is best explained by nature itself. Science studies its properties and records them for further use. Inserting God into the mix does absolutely nothing for human knowledge or even the utility of nature. Saying "God made this blade of grass" doesnt change its scientific classification, or that it uses photosynthesis, or aything for that matter. Also, why just a God? Dwarves are spirits of the Earth. Using them to explain where nature comes from is just the same as suggesting some generic god did it.

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.

Strange, when you say "I have faith" you make it sound noble and wise. Then, you turn around and suggest that we atheists need mor faith than you, and you make faith sound insulting. It is inconsistencies like this in your posting that atheists ridicule and mock you for. As far as contradictions in the bible, even the most hardened bible scholar will disagree with you. But, then again, you arent in it merely for the literature are you?
"Thou shalt not kill" - God
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - God
The bible contradicts itself so much that the Bible itself was the one source of information that converted me from Christian to Atheist. Yes, reading the bible turned me into an atheist.

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.

And how do you know I didnt receive revelation from Loki? How can I be sure that Loki was or was not using my hands to type this post. Can you be 100% sure that Satan isnt guiding your every move and thought right now.

Prove it to me. prove that you are not being controlled by Satan right now to believe in the Christian lie. Prove to me that Santa Claus isnt using mind control on you right now to make you gullible and foolish. Sure, I can admit that revelation from an omnipotent being could be logical, my fingers could be led by Odin right now, trying his damnedest to get you away from worshipping that Devil Yahweh you love so much. If you can admit that I may in fact be correct, then you will understand the logic of revelation.

Also, what an ignorant ass. You think revelation JUST resides in Christianity? Asatru is slam full of revelation. Odin crucified himself on the tree of life in order to give mankind the runes, which can be cast to predict the future. Have you read anything other than what your preacher has told you to read?

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.

Wrong, it is exactly just the same claims as Christianity, and every other world religion that you refuse to allow be discussed. You are only willing to discuss Christianity versus your definition of atheism, everything else is irrelevant, and you wonder why people ridicule and mock you. Some words you use incorrectly. Of course, nothing, in your mind, has parity with what you think Christianity is. How can any argue against something that only you are allowed to define?

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.

Very incorrect. Damn near every god and goddess known to man, including the most recent Flying Spaghetti Monster, has a creation story attached. Marduk, of the Babylonian mythos has a great creation story, where he rips tiamat in half in a great battle. He uses one half to make the earth, the other half to make the sky. Your bible clearly speaks of "windows of heaven" in which god opened to "let the flood waters out".. care to show me the evidence for these storehouses of water in the sky?

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

Thoughtful people dont back people into the corner and force them to accept their redefinitions of things. Thoughtful people dont condemn other people to Hell.
You are not a thoughtful 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.

LMFAO, sure thing dude. In fact why not change the definition of atheism to "anti-christian", it might make you feel better. In reality, Christianity is just merely one more failed religion from a long, long list of other failed religions. The only thing special about it to me is that it is currently the popular superstition of my country. A thoughtful person would not say "every tongue will wag, every knee will bow". Also, you are completely wrong, my tongue will not wag nor will my knee bow. You can argue all you want, but it will not happen...and I couldnt give a donkey fuck about the authority of Jesus. He can suck start a fart out of my asshole.

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.

Fine, then I am in full understanding of what I am choosing to reject and am well aware that I may go to hell for it. ...and how the fuck am I supressing the truth. Your religion isnt truth, its fucking mythology, and even then I am still not supressing it.

Now please, take your immoral belief in eternal flaming torture and shove it the fuck up your ass. Jackass. You say fucked up things like this, and then wonder why atheists mock and disrespect you?
What a fucking douche bag.

You do, and you are suppressing the truth.

What a prick.

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

I dont care what other atheists say. I am atheist because of my own research, not because of the words of other atheists. If I were the only atheist on this planet, I would still not care..but I would be lonely.

WTF is macro evolution?
[quote]

[Norfolk And Chance]

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.

Waffle. Meaningless waffle.

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

Because it is based on evidence, and facts. This validates it.

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.

No, god isn't an explanation at all. It is a guess. It is a wild stab in the dark - which is incidentally what you would get if I ever met you down some dark alleyway.

The rest - waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, bit more waffle, silly claims, circular reasoning and waffle, waffle, waffle

Meaningless drivel.

[The Grand Nudger]

The fundy concept of macro evolution (as opposed to what the term actually means) is an attempt to redefine what change over vast spans of time would or could do to any given "species", a word which itself is simply a snapshot in time. The overwhelming evidence for evolution has left the faithful with no room to dissent, and so they simply accept that change occurs(micro evolution), but then put an arbitrary limit on how far that change can take any given creature (kinds). Thus, animals change (micro evolution), but animals don't change(macro evolution). If by whiskey.

No one wants to admit that they've surrendered their mind to complete absurdity, and so problems with their thought process are handled by redefinition since it's simpler than handling it with critical thought or honest inquiry. Critical thought or research-in-earnest might lead to cognitive dissonance, or de-conversion from beliefs(or a retraction of statements) that they have made a fool of themselves arguing for so publicly. Essentially this would be the first step in admitting that they've been a complete ass and willfully ignorant, and so it is waved away with platitudes. Par for the course.

Now, I love biology; botany specifically, and I could talk anyone's ear off about the changes that autotrophs (and not every plant is an autotroph, though they all began that way) have undergone over time. I find the insights we've gained into this process fascinating, and I feel that evolution has dropped a gold mine in our laps. The proof of concept we have in these lifeforms for so many different systems and their different uses is astonishing. I also feel that selective breeding and genetic modification are the most practical and feasible solutions for many of our problems. Without an understanding of DNA and the process of evolution neither of which would be possible (to the extent that it is possible with this information), and we'd be staring down the barrel of a gun. I'd talk anyone's ear off about any of it, except those that have shown a willingness to deliberately misrepresent our understanding of the subject in order to further an agenda which has it's origins in their garbage little fairy tales.

[lucent]

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.

That is very rude of you. You wish me to lend you the benefit of the doubt and modern relevancy, yet you are COMPLETELY unwilling to reciprocate.

Just one more thing, just because you REFUSE to acknowledge how modern atheists think and act, does not mean that the whole of atheism, or humanity, have to follow your standards. In other words, you can keep claiming that disbelief needs to be argued, but modern atheists will simply look at you and laugh. Now, I remember you mentioning something about "atheists ridicule and mock", well, you know, if you beg special arguments, and then refuse not a single bit to allow atheists any room... you are going to get mocked and ridiculed and then ultimately ignored. discussing things like this is sometimes a give and take process. You want to take everything from the atheist, and then you want the atheist to give you special treatments, like you "the question is does god exist, not which god is he". the special circumstances you are demanding in such a statement is outrageous, yet you are unwilling to even budge on a simple definition of atheism.

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.

Yes you can. and you still refuse to listen to the definition of atheism as "without theism" if you can have an agnostic theist, then you can just as well have an agnostic atheist. I am not reclassifying your beliefs against your will, I expect you to reciprocate that respect.

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.

Actually, nature is best explained by nature itself. Science studies its properties and records them for further use. Inserting God into the mix does absolutely nothing for human knowledge or even the utility of nature. Saying "God made this blade of grass" doesnt change its scientific classification, or that it uses photosynthesis, or aything for that matter. Also, why just a God? Dwarves are spirits of the Earth. Using them to explain where nature comes from is just the same as suggesting some generic god did it.

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.

Strange, when you say "I have faith" you make it sound noble and wise. Then, you turn around and suggest that we atheists need mor faith than you, and you make faith sound insulting. It is inconsistencies like this in your posting that atheists ridicule and mock you for. As far as contradictions in the bible, even the most hardened bible scholar will disagree with you. But, then again, you arent in it merely for the literature are you?
"Thou shalt not kill" - God
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - God
The bible contradicts itself so much that the Bible itself was the one source of information that converted me from Christian to Atheist. Yes, reading the bible turned me into an atheist.

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.

And how do you know I didnt receive revelation from Loki? How can I be sure that Loki was or was not using my hands to type this post. Can you be 100% sure that Satan isnt guiding your every move and thought right now.

Prove it to me. prove that you are not being controlled by Satan right now to believe in the Christian lie. Prove to me that Santa Claus isnt using mind control on you right now to make you gullible and foolish. Sure, I can admit that revelation from an omnipotent being could be logical, my fingers could be led by Odin right now, trying his damnedest to get you away from worshipping that Devil Yahweh you love so much. If you can admit that I may in fact be correct, then you will understand the logic of revelation.

Also, what an ignorant ass. You think revelation JUST resides in Christianity? Asatru is slam full of revelation. Odin crucified himself on the tree of life in order to give mankind the runes, which can be cast to predict the future. Have you read anything other than what your preacher has told you to read?

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.

Wrong, it is exactly just the same claims as Christianity, and every other world religion that you refuse to allow be discussed. You are only willing to discuss Christianity versus your definition of atheism, everything else is irrelevant, and you wonder why people ridicule and mock you. Some words you use incorrectly. Of course, nothing, in your mind, has parity with what you think Christianity is. How can any argue against something that only you are allowed to define?

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.

Very incorrect. Damn near every god and goddess known to man, including the most recent Flying Spaghetti Monster, has a creation story attached. Marduk, of the Babylonian mythos has a great creation story, where he rips tiamat in half in a great battle. He uses one half to make the earth, the other half to make the sky. Your bible clearly speaks of "windows of heaven" in which god opened to "let the flood waters out".. care to show me the evidence for these storehouses of water in the sky?

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

Thoughtful people dont back people into the corner and force them to accept their redefinitions of things. Thoughtful people dont condemn other people to Hell.
You are not a thoughtful 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.

LMFAO, sure thing dude. In fact why not change the definition of atheism to "anti-christian", it might make you feel better. In reality, Christianity is just merely one more failed religion from a long, long list of other failed religions. The only thing special about it to me is that it is currently the popular superstition of my country. A thoughtful person would not say "every tongue will wag, every knee will bow". Also, you are completely wrong, my tongue will not wag nor will my knee bow. You can argue all you want, but it will not happen...and I couldnt give a donkey fuck about the authority of Jesus. He can suck start a fart out of my asshole.

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.

Fine, then I am in full understanding of what I am choosing to reject and am well aware that I may go to hell for it. ...and how the fuck am I supressing the truth. Your religion isnt truth, its fucking mythology, and even then I am still not supressing it.

Now please, take your immoral belief in eternal flaming torture and shove it the fuck up your ass. Jackass. You say fucked up things like this, and then wonder why atheists mock and disrespect you?
What a fucking douche bag.

You do, and you are suppressing the truth.

What a prick.

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

I dont care what other atheists say. I am atheist because of my own research, not because of the words of other atheists. If I were the only atheist on this planet, I would still not care..but I would be lonely.

WTF is macro evolution?

If you'd like to rewrite this without the trash insults I'd be happy to respond to you.

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='212367' dateline='1323013843']
Still don't see any evidence. All I see is a preacher frothing at the mouth, hot with christfire and self righteousness.

You don't see how anyone could have a conversation with a person who will not willingly suffer bullshit to even begin the discourse? That's probably the reason you have trouble having a conversation in the first place, and end up talking at people instead of with people. Neither myself nor anyone else has to give your fairy tales any credibility whatsoever to have a discussion about them. You don't just desire that we do, you require that we do, otherwise it's bullshit start to finish. Not just in actuality, but even in the hypothetical. A does not prove B unless you can first prove A. You aren't prepared to demonstrate the truth of any of your claims, let alone the foundation upon which they rest. So you suggest that we simply put the whole greasy cock of a claim directly down our throats, and complain that a conversation can't be had if we don't. Guess what, bullshit.

It isn't my blanket denial and skepticism of anything you claim that should bother you, it's your inability to overcome it that should give you reason for pause. If you can't establish the factual reality of your truth claims then what are they exactly? Bullshit.
(I wouldn't even assume this position if you didn't have a habit of posting junk "science" and deliberately misleading or downright deceitful quotes. If you appeared to be even remotely capable of having an honest discussion. You don't, and so here we are.)

God did miracles non-stop in front of the israelites and they still rebelled against Him, so your behavior isn't unusual. The entire problem is that your scorched earth method of debate poisons everything. You have already admitted that you wouldn't believe in Jesus if He came to your door and shook your hand. You even said if He did that you would try to murder Him. So, by your own words you are completely closed-minded to everything I have to say. You can't have a conversation on these terms.

[Erinome]

I am totally confused. Not about gods. I still don't believe in those, but the post above this is fucking my mind.

[Jackalope]

So, by your own words you are completely closed-minded to everything I have to say. You can't have a conversation on these terms.

Could it possibly be that he (and by he, I mean we) has heard your arguments before, found them lacking, and sees no reason to consider them again?

Nah, that can't be it.

[reverendjeremiah]

The fundy concept of macro evolution (as opposed to what the term actually means) is an attempt to redefine what change over vast spans of time would or could do to any given "species", a word which itself is simply a snapshot in time. The overwhelming evidence for evolution has left the faithful with no room to dissent, and so they simply accept that change occurs(micro evolution), but then put an arbitrary limit on how far that change can take any given creature (kinds). Thus, animals change (micro evolution), but animals don't change(macro evolution). If by whiskey.

No one wants to admit that they've surrendered their mind to complete absurdity, and so problems with their thought process are handled by redefinition since it's simpler than handling it with critical thought or honest inquiry. Critical thought or research-in-earnest might lead to cognitive dissonance, or de-conversion from beliefs(or a retraction of statements) that they have made a fool of themselves arguing for so publicly. Essentially this would be the first step in admitting that they've been a complete ass and willfully ignorant, and so it is waved away with platitudes. Par for the course.

Now, I love biology; botany specifically, and I could talk anyone's ear off about the changes that autotrophs (and not every plant is an autotroph, though they all began that way) have undergone over time. I find the insights we've gained into this process fascinating, and I feel that evolution has dropped a gold mine in our laps. The proof of concept we have in these lifeforms for so many different systems and their different uses is astonishing. I also feel that selective breeding and genetic modification are the most practical and feasible solutions for many of our problems. Without an understanding of DNA and the process of evolution neither of which would be possible (to the extent that it is possible with this information), and we'd be staring down the barrel of a gun. I'd talk anyone's ear off about any of it, except those that have shown a willingness to deliberately misrepresent our understanding of the subject in order to further an agenda which has it's origins in their garbage little fairy tales.

Ah..macro eveolution....so thats the same thing as saying a walk to the tiny mart 4 blocks away is completely possible (and god inspired), but to walk one mile to the grocery store is completely absurd (god damned!)


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

---

If you'd like to rewrite this without the trash insults I'd be happy to respond to you.

No thanks. When someone thinks that it is a fine idea that I should be punished for not sharing his beliefs by being tortured under flame for all eternity doesnt deserve my respect. He deserves my distrust and scorn.

Fuck you and your little Jesus too.

[tackattack]

I will review this thread in it's entirety and post a formal debate tonight if all parties are still wishing to have a formal debate and I find here within the purpose and if it is to be a formal debate. Are lucient and revj still in agreeance on having a formal debate?

We'll do it in standard debate format with four rounds..opening, 2 rebuttals, and closing.

RevJ will be taking the position of the theist with beliefs non-denominational and a trinitarian, as well as a bible literalist and a young earth creationist, original sin, the fall, the life death and resurrection, substitutionary atonement, the second coming, judgement day, heaven and hell as attained from http://100prophecies.org/christianity.htm

lucient will be taking the position of the atheist

The posting times will be one week with an open structured question session after the close, unless the participants would prefer to save questions for a separate discussion thread. If you still agree to the debate, please post an affirmative response with a projected start time for your openers.