Atheism IS a Religion

Coveny

@SilverishGoldNova I don't have access to the spam emoticon anymore. 

SilverishGoldNova

@Coveny Yeah, I was just reminding you you'll need to develop an alternative 

Coveny

@SilverishGoldNova yes because you prefer to talk smack instead of debating.

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

@SilverishGoldNova I don't have access to the spam emoticon anymore. 

That's because you abused it. You're too incompetent to understand what spam actually is.

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

@SilverishGoldNova I don't have access to the spam emoticon anymore. 

That's because you abused it. You're too incompetent to understand what spam actually is.

Coveny Dictionary Definition of Spam: A post you disagree with.

Real Definition: Irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.

He every post he disagreed with as spam, and we lost hundreds of points because of it.

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

And still we go round and round about agnostic instead of talking about the debate.

Agnostic means you don't know. As you have provided above, and I have provided before numerous times. This isn't a misuse of the word, and it's the antonym to gnostic which means you know. Now let's go with SIMPLE logic and see if I can get you there.

Theist - I believe in god(s)
Atheist - I do not believe in god(s)

So using "I know" and "I don't know" we get these four options applied to that

Gnostic theist - I know god(s) exist
Agnostic theist - I believe god(s) exist, but I don't know for sure
Gnostic atheist - I know god(s) don't exist
Agnostic atheist - I don't believe god(s) exist, but I don't know for sure

If you want to take away the modern usage it would look like this

Gnostic theist - I have knowledge of god(s)
Agnostic theist - I do not have knowledge of anything, but believe in god(s)
Gnostic atheist - I have knowledge that god(s) don't exist
Agnostic atheist -  I do not have knowledge of anything, and do not believe in god(s)

It is cowardly to say you agnostic because you aren't answering the question of whether or not you believe in god(s). Even if you don't know for sure, you still believe one way or the other, and this is a debate technique of answering another question that you are more comfortable rather than answering the one presented to you. Now maybe there are some cases of people who know know whether or not they believe in god(s), but they are VERY rare, most agnostics state their position as "I don't believe in god, but I'm not sure", and that is an agnostic atheist who's too cowardly to accept the label of atheist so they misused the agnostic part to deflect the negativity/social backlash that comes with being an atheist. The whole discussion of agnostic and gnostic is not part of a debate as to whether or not "atheism is a religion" or not regardless of how much you attempt to add agnostic to the mix.

There is no contradiction on my position, and I'm in line with the definitions that have been provide for the words.

Once you learn what the terms actually mean, we can move on. 

Theist - believes God exists 
Atheist - believes God does not exist 
Agnostic - believes it cannot be known whether God exists or not, that the question of God's existence cannot be answered

Using the actual definitions we get these four options; 2 of which don't make sense and one which is pretty far-fetched, but possible;

Gnostic theist - I have esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters and believe God exists
Agnostic theist - I believe it cannot be known whether God exists or not and believe God exists
Gnostic atheist - I have esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters and believe God does not exist
Agnostic atheist - I believe it cannot be known whether God exists or not and believe God does not exist

The gnostic theist is simply a gnostic.  I suppose its theoretically possible to be a gnostic atheist; that is, to know about secret rites, rituals, symbols of power, etc. of a religious sect or sects, yet still believe God does not exist.  This could be something like a religious researcher, professor, expert, etc.  The agnostic theist and agnostic atheist don't make sense.  You cannot believe god exists (or does not exist) while believing that God's existence cannot be known.  If you don't believe in God but you're not sure, you aren't an agnostic atheist, you aren't agnostic at all, you're simply atheist that lacks the courage of his convictions, likewise the person who believes in God but isn't sure.  Agnosticism is a specific belief like atheist and theism.  To get back to the OP; since atheism is a specific belief in the nature of existence,

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

Once you learn what the terms actually mean, we can move on. 

Theist - believes God exists 
Atheist - believes God does not exist 
Agnostic - believes it cannot be known whether God exists or not, that the question of God's existence cannot be answered

Using the actual definitions we get these four options; 2 of which don't make sense and one which is pretty far-fetched, but possible;

Gnostic theist - I have esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters and believe God exists
Agnostic theist - I believe it cannot be known whether God exists or not and believe God exists
Gnostic atheist - I have esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters and believe God does not exist
Agnostic atheist - I believe it cannot be known whether God exists or not and believe God does not exist

The gnostic theist is simply a gnostic.  I suppose its theoretically possible to be a gnostic atheist; that is, to know about secret rites, rituals, symbols of power, etc. of a religious sect or sects, yet still believe God does not exist.  This could be something like a religious researcher, professor, expert, etc.  The agnostic theist and agnostic atheist don't make sense.  You cannot believe god exists (or does not exist) while believing that God's existence cannot be known.  If you don't believe in God but you're not sure, you aren't an agnostic atheist, you aren't agnostic at all, you're simply atheist that lacks the courage of his convictions, likewise the person who believes in God but isn't sure.  Agnosticism is a specific belief like atheist and theism.  To get back to the OP; since atheism is a specific belief in the nature of existence,

Not sure why you added esoteric and spiritual, but you are getting much closer to understanding the definition of agnostic and gnostic. Now all you need to do is understand that they don't just apply to god(s) and you'll finally be on the right page. Theist/Atheist defines whether or not you believe in god(s), while Agnostic/Gnostic define whether you certain of that knowledge (whether it can or cannot be known), but Agnostic/Gnostic can be used in other areas. For example: 

"until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform" from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic
"Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality" from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic
"Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin) from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

But again this word isn't commonly used, so it's very unlikely you would hear someone make these type sentence in a conversation.

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

Not sure why you added esoteric and spiritual, but you are getting much closer to understanding the definition of agnostic and gnostic. Now all you need to do is understand that they don't just apply to god(s) and you'll finally be on the right page. Theist/Atheist defines whether or not you believe in god(s), while Agnostic/Gnostic define whether you certain of that knowledge (whether it can or cannot be known), but Agnostic/Gnostic can be used in other areas. For example: 

"until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform" from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic
"Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality" from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic
"Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin) from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

But again this word isn't commonly used, so it's very unlikely you would hear someone make these type sentence in a conversation.

The topic at hand is about belief systems, so only those definitions are germane to the discussion.  Gnostic could be used as the name of a new breed of monk fish, but that wouldn't be relevant either.

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

Not sure why you added esoteric and spiritual, but you are getting much closer to understanding the definition of agnostic and gnostic. Now all you need to do is understand that they don't just apply to god(s) and you'll finally be on the right page. Theist/Atheist defines whether or not you believe in god(s), while Agnostic/Gnostic define whether you certain of that knowledge (whether it can or cannot be known), but Agnostic/Gnostic can be used in other areas. For example: 

"until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform" from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic
"Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality" from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic
"Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin) from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

But again this word isn't commonly used, so it's very unlikely you would hear someone make these type sentence in a conversation.

The topic at hand is about belief systems, so only those definitions are germane to the discussion.  Gnostic could be used as the name of a new breed of monk fish, but that wouldn't be relevant either.

No the topic at hand is if atheism is a religion, and doesn't cover other belief systems (such as the monkfish breeds you brought up). This is why I stated that agnostic/gnostic is NOT part of this debate, and asked you to move away from the discussion of it.

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

No the topic at hand is if atheism is a religion, and doesn't cover other belief systems (such as the monkfish breeds you brought up). This is why I stated that agnostic/gnostic is NOT part of this debate, and asked you to move away from the discussion of it.

The monkfish breed isn't a belief system, which is why I mentioned it.  Likewise, agnosticism was being mistaken for atheism, which is why it became part of the conversation.

Evidence

OK, I still don't have the answer I was hoping to get regarding my understanding of the word "atheist". But first, I would like to make it clear that my views on theist/atheist should not be taken offensively by anyone here. I KNOW what "atheist" supposed to mean, and my bestest friends here are atheists, so were my best friend in life; atheists. I could never have an honest long debate with theists (there were a few exceptions). So please, please don't take my comments personal?

Theist/atheist becomes unreasonable (to me anyways) especially when we get into the agnostics and such, or deeper in the definition of "atheist" in particular. Here is what I understand "atheist" to mean, which would be fine:

"I am an atheist because I don't, or I no longer believe in God" The point here is the words: "believe in".

one example:
I grew up in Christianity and seen that none of the members really believed in God. They were all fake. Professed with their lips one thing, and their actions were at times completely the opposite. So if this is the Jesus Christ that they worship, I want nothing of him. I leave all you hypocrites, along with your hypocritical god/gods and I claim an atheist. I no longer believe in your God, nor Jesus Christ!

example 2 .. I know this guy in one of the machine shops I worked at, who they put as a supervisor on night shift (with no programmers nor engineers working on nights, a supervisor has to be a little of everything, machinist, engineer and programmer) but this guy did an awesome job pretending, improvising, but this just got us in deeper trouble, like scraping parts because he really didn't know what he was doing. (sorry for my poor English)

One day they called him in the office and told him they no longer "believed in him", .. literally because even though he passed himself off as a knowledgeable machinist, someone who knows it all, it became obvious he did not.
We workers stopped believing in him early on, but hey, he was our supervisor, so we just did what we could, with what we had, since We Have Done So Much with So Little for So Long, that by Now We Cold Do Anything with Nothing.

The moral of this is obvious I hope, that we can "stop believing in someone", .. or even choose "not to believe" in someone, .. or something, like for example in the deep jungles, way out Provinces of the Philippines, you could still run into some really primitive natives, who if you told about an airplane that can carry 500 people way up in the air and fly them over the oceans thousands of miles, well they could easily say: "I don't believe that", or "I don't believe in airplanes", now that's understandable and even makes sense.

BUT

For someone educated, who grew up in the United States or any other modern/civilized country, to say "I don't believe in God or any gods, because I don't believe they exist", .. well sorry, but that just sounds crazy, even .

But if we said: "I no longer believe in God or any gods, nor will I worship any of them", .. now that makes sense, as I've shown above.

First, we all know that God or gods exist, because we see people worship them. Also, each Religion has at least one book on their God/gods, .. if they worship Odin or Thor, they probably have some Marvel comic books sitting in the back of the pews, .. right?

'Church of Odin and his son Thor'

Now let's say a Christian Baptist went to this Church to check it out, and sat there to listened to a sermon on Odin and his son Thor. Then right after the service, tell the Minister: "This is crazy, you guys actually worship Odin and his son Thor? These are not real people, or real gods, they're from a frickin' comic book for Pete sakes!"

Church of Odin Ministers answer: "Well umm, .. yes sir, that's what they are, characters in a comic book based on Norse beliefs. Odin is the solemn ruler of the gods. He is god of wisdom, poetry, farming, and war. Note: Wednesday is named after Odin. Why, which god/gods do you worship?"

Baptist: "I worship our Lord Jesus Christ who is mentioned in the book called the Bible! I'm just not very happy with my church so I thought to check out some other churches, faiths, so here I am."

Odin's Minister: "Well, you are more than welcome to join our church, we would love to have you! And remember that Odin and Thor are not the only gods we worship, we also believe in Zeus too, and many other gods. There has to be a god that you'll find just right for you. Our aim is to please!"

Baptist: "Are you crazy? I don't believe in Odin, or Thor, or any of this comic book B.S. because I don't believe that they exist!"

Odin's Minister: "Oh, so you're an atheist."

Baptist: "I'm sorry sir, but that was an insult to me, I'm NOT an atheist, .. I am a Christian. I just haven't found the right Christian denomination that I feel right for me and my family. But you guys here are crazy, .. I can't believe you guys would have such a big church worshipping all those pagan gods that don't even exist!?"

Let's consider the following questions:;

1) What evidence does the Baptist have of Jesus Christ other then a book, .. which is just like the Church of Odin has on Odin and Thor?

2) Was Odin's Minister correct in calling the Baptist an atheist?

3) Is "not believing in someone anymore", the same as that they don't exist?

It is safe to say that none of us here has ever met Abraham Lincoln, or any of the 100 years or older World renowned Historical characters, so does that mean that; "we don't believe them because they don't exist"? And for those of us that believe they did, what evidence do we have that makes us "believe" they did? What is our 'faith' based on?

Now read the Bibles definition of "faith", this will fit right in with what I just explained above:

Hebrews11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I have built enough evidence with substance to believe Abraham Lincoln existed, and that he was our 16th U.S. President from March of 1861 to 1865. I also know that many Southerner slave owners did not like Abe, didn't believe in him either.
But I have never heard anyone say "he did not exist", .. not yet anyway!?

I await your opinions, corrections, admonishments and criticism, either brief or in detail!?

CYDdharta

@Evidence You simply haven't met any real atheists.  If you believe God (or Gods) exist, you're a theist.  If you believe God (or Gods) may or may not exist, you're an agnostic.  If you believe God (or Gods) do not exist, you're an atheist.

Wake

I am beginning to see what is being said about Atheism but find it hard to believe that people simply believe in nothing.

Give these people the question: "where did the universe come from?" and would they answer "I don't believe it did?" or perhaps "I don't know but I'm sure it didn't involve any sort of God"?

If the first, we would see that they are taking it on faith that the universe has no beginning nor any end. That would be a religious statement.

If the second wouldn't AGAIN they be taking it on faith that there is a reality that they cannot understand or explain?

What I'm saying is that you cannot take the world "Atheism" and define it solely by itself. You must define it for what it really means. And that meaning is that there is a reality WITHOUT a God. And that must also be defined as a sign of faith.

Evidence

CYDdharta said:

@Evidence You simply haven't met any real atheists.  If you believe God (or Gods) exist, you're a theist.  If you believe God (or Gods) may or may not exist, you're an agnostic.  If you believe God (or Gods) do not exist, you're an atheist.

Yes I have met a lot of atheists who claim gods do-NOT-exist. The funny thing was that most of them knew about Bible God "I Am" and everything about Him from the Bible. In my younger days, atheists knew a hundred times as many other gods than I did, yet they went on claiming "they don't believe they existed".

Google "Buy gods" or "gods for sale" or, .. "gods on sale", .. or "gods for Halloween, or Easter, for the bedroom or the garden", .. and you will see that you can get any gods you want, wood, brass or silver, and books about these gods to go along with them.

You didn't read what I wrote above did you?

OK, if I bought you a god, with the instruction book that tells you all about that god: like the phallic god Priapus, he is very popular, since he has his phallus erected in all major cities here in the US and in the world. Now how could I buy that god if it didn't exist?

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

@Evidence You simply haven't met any real atheists.  If you believe God (or Gods) exist, you're a theist.  If you believe God (or Gods) may or may not exist, you're an agnostic.  If you believe God (or Gods) do not exist, you're an atheist.

Evidence is worse than you at the English language. He thinks if you've heard about Thor then you believe thor exists, so it's impossible to be an athiest, but he's still an athiest who believes in an uncreated creator. The mental gymnastics he does are pretty impressive, but the volume of fluff he writes is so hard to get through that it's enough to make me not want to waste the time refuting him.

Coveny

Wake said:

I am beginning to see what is being said about Atheism but find it hard to believe that people simply believe in nothing.

Give these people the question: "where did the universe come from?" and would they answer "I don't believe it did?" or perhaps "I don't know but I'm sure it didn't involve any sort of God"?

If the first, we would see that they are taking it on faith that the universe has no beginning nor any end. That would be a religious statement.

If the second wouldn't AGAIN they be taking it on faith that there is a reality that they cannot understand or explain?

What I'm saying is that you cannot take the world "Atheism" and define it solely by itself. You must define it for what it really means. And that meaning is that there is a reality WITHOUT a God. And that must also be defined as a sign of faith.

So you don't understand how anyone can believe that dirt doesn't have a beginning or end, but see no problem in this super complex and power being coming from nothing, and having no beginning or end. Again atheism is a null value. So being an atheist doesn't mean you believe anything else, or know about anything else. Some people are completely fine without making up answers when we don't have them... no faith needed. 

CYDdharta

@Evidence Google "buy Jesus" or "Jesus for sale".  You'll find all the Jesuses you'd ever want in wood, brass, silver, books, t-shirts, pencils... You can even get a Jesus basketball coach.  Maintaining that these are the actual Jesus Christ makes about as much sense as saying the "gods" for sale on Google are the actual gods. As for Priapus's instruction book, you'd have to share a link, as all I can find is "The Sorrows of Priapus", which doesn't appear to be about the god Priapus at all.  I suspect any book you could find would bear less resemblance to an actual instruction book than the Bible or books about how to interpret the Bible.  As for your questions above;

@Evidence

1) What evidence does the Baptist have of Jesus Christ other then a book, .. which is just like the Church of Odin has on Odin and Thor?

2) Was Odin's Minister correct in calling the Baptist an atheist?

3) Is "not believing in someone anymore", the same as that they don't exist?

1) none

2) no; the Baptist is a Christian

3) I'd need more information, like whether or not the person being believed in was someone the believer met and/or knew in real life, or was it a cultural figure that stood for a certain moral value (or moral values).

Evidence

Coveny said:

Wake said:

I am beginning to see what is being said about Atheism but find it hard to believe that people simply believe in nothing.

Give these people the question: "where did the universe come from?" and would they answer "I don't believe it did?" or perhaps "I don't know but I'm sure it didn't involve any sort of God"?

If the first, we would see that they are taking it on faith that the universe has no beginning nor any end. That would be a religious statement.

If the second wouldn't AGAIN they be taking it on faith that there is a reality that they cannot understand or explain?

What I'm saying is that you cannot take the world "Atheism" and define it solely by itself. You must define it for what it really means. And that meaning is that there is a reality WITHOUT a God. And that must also be defined as a sign of faith.

So you don't understand how anyone can believe that dirt doesn't have a beginning or end, but see no problem in this super complex and power being coming from nothing, and having no beginning or end. Again atheism is a null value. So being an atheist doesn't mean you believe anything else, or know about anything else. Some people are completely fine without making up answers when we don't have them... no faith needed. 

Hey @Wake and he thinks we don't speak English well, .. look what he said:

@Coveny ; So being an atheist doesn't mean you believe anything else, or know about anything else.

.. because you don't. That's what atheism means, right Coveny?

 LOL, I did better in my "English my second language" class, even though English was my third language. He is an atheist alright, doesn't know anything, or believe in anything because he is evolving. Why should he care, lets evolution do everything for him, ..  right?

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

Some people are completely fine without making up answers when we don't have them... no faith needed. 

True, they're called agnostics.

Evidence

CYDdharta said:

@Evidence Google "buy Jesus" or "Jesus for sale".  You'll find all the Jesuses you'd ever want in wood, brass, silver, books, t-shirts, pencils... You can even get a Jesus basketball coach.

Yes, we have them too, idols of both our Infinite Creator, and His Son Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us all about this, and warns us not to do such things as make any idols of either Angels, or our Creator God who has no image, nor of His Son Jesus Christ, .. who does have an image so we would not confuse our Lord with man-made gods.
Now the Jesus basketball coach, well if he looks anything like the Catholic paintings of Jesus, we know He's fake. But if he doesn't, then I would have to hear what he preaches? If the Spirit that is in me verifies that he really is Jesus (through his word) then Wow, .. that's all I could tell you, .. Wow!

CYDdharta - Maintaining that these are the actual Jesus Christ makes about as much sense as saying the "gods" for sale on Google are the actual gods.

Like I said about Jesus, the idols are a definite no, but the guy, well we would have to verify that with evidence with some substance. But as for the other gods for sale, they are what they are. Of course I would verify them too with what I read on them, if they match the Greek mythology, Thor wielding a hammer and so on, than yes, those are real Greek, German, Roman mythical gods. Don't ever buy a god that's not authentic, .. or so the Greek/Roman (whatever) theists tell me, because their magical effects will not be as powerful. But of course I don't believe they have any powers, much like any other inanimate objects. I also know that "magic" is man made, using trickery.

CYDdharta - As for Priapus's instruction book, you'd have to share a link, as all I can find is "The Sorrows of Priapus", which doesn't appear to be about the god Priapus at all.  I suspect any book you could find would bear less resemblance to an actual instruction book than the Bible or books about how to interpret the Bible.

It's under "phallic god" in Google, which will lead you to Wikipedia's info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapus

Yes, the Bible is definitely more than just a book, but we do have to interpret it through the spirit. a pure unadulterated spiritual mind, free from all them Religious doctrines imbedded in our memory since birth.
It's like "you would have to forget everything you've been taught bout God, about creation and especially about His Son Jesus Christ, and go with a clear mind/spirit and look, search read the Bible as if for the first time. It was then that I've seen the errors in the Christian Religions interpretation of the Bible. I remember reading it three and even four times because what I've been taught it said wasn't in there?

I mean if I just went by my physical senses, from what I have been indoctrinated with that's stuck in my brains memory and if you were to say the name "Jesus Christ" of course I would recollect this tall, handsome white German looking blond, blue eyed guy with a beard wearing a white robe and carrying a lamb!
But I no longer walk in the flesh/memory (carnally minded) but I walk according to the spirit, or "spiritually minded" So the physical images no longer dominate how I see and recognize my Lord, OR My Creator God "I Am", or how I understand the Bible.

You see there is two different ways of seeing, spiritual eyes and our physical eyes. The spiritual eyes is "knowing", it's very hard, if not impossible to fool your spiritual eyes. It's a little like 'knowing a magicians next trick', .. people around you going; Ooohh, and Aaahh, while you're yawning, because you know the trick, the magic is gone.

But then of course if you've been taught that you don't have a spirit/mind like they teach in Evolution School, then you would not be able to understand what I'm saying. Like here, I keep explaining, but get nowhere. That's why the BB-Evolution religion was invented, so they could kill the spirit in us. This would make us a walking dead, a living-dead or a zombie. Believing that you are an evolving animal, well what else would one expect, right?

<continued>

God bless you all.

Evidence

CYDdharta - As for your questions Evidence

1) What evidence does the Baptist have of Jesus Christ other then a book, .. which is just like the Church of Odin has on Odin and Thor?

1) none - CYDdharta

Awesome. So it is up to us to figure out, gather enough evidence with substance from every source possible to decide what is true, what is real, which are man-made gods, and who Is the Only Possible uncreated Creator God!?

2) Was Odin's Minister correct in calling the Baptist an atheist?

2) no; the Baptist is a Christian - CYDdharta

X - wrong, but please let me explain:

Did you know there are many confessed atheists who were very good Christian Ministers? Not just members mind you, but Ministers, .. for many years, successful too!
Like Billy Graham, did you know He doesn't believe in Jesus Christ? He never did, yet he is a Christian and considered a Christian by billions of Christians:



if a Christian denies the existence of tens of thousands of gods, and as I shown you that he doesn't even believe in the Bible God he preaches out of, then he is qualified as an atheist. Which means there are atheist Christians out there.

So what about the Christian that doesn't believe in any of the tens of thousands of gods, but believes in Jesus Christ as God, so what does that make him?
it makes him an; atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, Theist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist ... and so on thousands of times, see what I mean? A non-believer in gods believer. That is what theist actually means.

Look, read it carefully: if a "theist" (who is the believer in god/gods) can deny the existence of all the gods (which is the job of an atheist) except one, and still be a theist, .. then it has to be visa-versa, an atheist can then believe in all the gods except one and still be an atheist.

look again: "theist" means what? It means believing in god/or gods.
but an 'a' before the "theist" is an atheist, their job is NOT to believe in the existence of ANY gods the 'theist' believes in, .. correct? A-theist, or not-theist.

You see, you guys didn't realize what you put the 'a' before, because your "theist" is not a true believer! Matter of fact, he is more of an atheist than a theist. He can deny the existence of tens of thousands of gods, and believe in just ONE god, and is still called a theist. this is what you guys put your 'a' before, .. or the 'not' before.

So let's see now, if I put the 'a' before the non believer of all the gods except one (theist), then I would be a "Non-believer of gods except one, believer"

So, an atheist is;
"None believer ('a'theist) of the nonbeliever except one (theist)"! 

Since the atheist is the opposite of theist, meaning a theist can choose to NOT believe in all the gods except one, then atheist can actually 'BELIVE' in all the gods except one, the opposite.

Theist = not believes ANY except one
Atheist = believes in ALL except one. .. the opposite. Like in math,

Again, here is how it sounds like:
"I'm a theist, I DON'T have to believe in ANY gods except one!"

and the opposite of this is:

"I'm an atheist, the opposite belief of a theist, where I BELIEVE in ALL the gods except one"

Can deny ten thousand gods, but the belief in just ONE god can keep the theist a theist. Then opposite has to be true:
Can accept ten thousand gods, but the denial of the existence of only ONE god can keep an atheist an atheist.

So you see you guys don't really know what you believe or not believe in? Which means what? It means confusion, and confusion comes from Religion.

It also means that the O.P. is correct; .. Atheism IS a Religion.

3) Is "not believing in someone anymore", the same as that they don't exist?

3) I'd need more information, like whether or not the person being believed in was someone the believer met and/or knew in real life, or was it a cultural figure that stood for a certain moral value (or moral values).

If I said "any more".
For instance: "I no longer believe in Billy Graham" (which is true), does that mean that I believe he doesn't exist?

Now if I said: "Billy Graham no longer exists, or never existed", then I would be lying, and would qualify me as a real atheist, .. same you denying all them gods, yet you know you could buy them on eBay!?

I'd like to see someone buy a god on eBay that doesn't exist?
They can't. eBay would say: "Sorry, doesn't exist! But you could be the first to create a god that doesn't exist, and we at eBay will be glad to sell it for you!" .. right?

CYDdharta

@Evidence Then everyone is an atheist, and no one can ever be a theist.  Have you studied the teachings of Marshall Applewhite, Benjamin Roden, Bob Dobbs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Principia Discordia, etc. et al.?  New religions, sects, cults, are constantly forming.  According to you, no one can be a true theist until they have evaluated all of them, including ones that do not yet exist.  Of course that isn't the meaning of the term "theist", and "atheist Christian" is an oxymoron.  And not that I really care about Billy Graham, or Christianity for that matter, but since I took the time to look into it;

I don’t know of a single scholar — Christian or non-Christian — who claims that Jesus Christ never existed. The evidence for his existence is so overwhelming that even scholars who totally reject the Christian faith still acknowledge that Jesus lived and taught some 2,000 years ago.

How do we know this? First of all, each of the four Gospels of the New Testament gives us a detailed account of Jesus’ life and ministry. When they were written, thousands of eyewitnesses to his ministry were still alive, and it would have been impossible for their writers to lie about his existence. As Luke stated concerning the facts of Jesus’ ministry, “They were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2).

But we also know Jesus was real because of the impact he made on his followers. People don’t willingly die for what they know is a lie, but immediately after his death and resurrection, Jesus’ followers courageously faced persecution and death because they were convinced he was the savior of the world.

http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article57754718.html

Coveny

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

Wake said:

I am beginning to see what is being said about Atheism but find it hard to believe that people simply believe in nothing.

Give these people the question: "where did the universe come from?" and would they answer "I don't believe it did?" or perhaps "I don't know but I'm sure it didn't involve any sort of God"?

If the first, we would see that they are taking it on faith that the universe has no beginning nor any end. That would be a religious statement.

If the second wouldn't AGAIN they be taking it on faith that there is a reality that they cannot understand or explain?

What I'm saying is that you cannot take the world "Atheism" and define it solely by itself. You must define it for what it really means. And that meaning is that there is a reality WITHOUT a God. And that must also be defined as a sign of faith.

So you don't understand how anyone can believe that dirt doesn't have a beginning or end, but see no problem in this super complex and power being coming from nothing, and having no beginning or end. Again atheism is a null value. So being an atheist doesn't mean you believe anything else, or know about anything else. Some people are completely fine without making up answers when we don't have them... no faith needed. 

Hey @Wake and he thinks we don't speak English well, .. look what he said:

@Coveny ; So being an atheist doesn't mean you believe anything else, or know about anything else.

.. because you don't. That's what atheism means, right Coveny?

 LOL, I did better in my "English my second language" class, even though English was my third language. He is an atheist alright, doesn't know anything, or believe in anything because he is evolving. Why should he care, lets evolution do everything for him, ..  right?

Yes Evidence, because I'm an atheist that doesn't mean I believe in golfing, or know anything about golfing. It only defines my belief in god(s)... that is ALL.

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

Some people are completely fine without making up answers when we don't have them... no faith needed. 

True, they're called agnostics.

Not true. Agnostic don't believe there can BE an answer, atheists don't believe made up answers. (just won't let the agnostic thing go...)

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

Not true. Agnostic don't believe there can BE an answer, atheists don't believe made up answers. (just won't let the agnostic thing go...)

Meh; believing there is no God is as much a made up answer as believing in Jesus, or Muhammad, or Bob Dobbs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Coveny

@CYDdharta when you believe "that believing with no proof", is the same as "not believing because there is no proof" you show you have zero interest in reality, and have given fantasy the same weight as reality.

CYDdharta

@Coveny They aren't the same, but then again, atheists have a definite belief.

Coveny

CYDdharta said:
 believing there is no God is as much a made up answer as believing in Jesus, or Muhammad, or Bob Dobbs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You are the one who said they were the same, but ya I agree they aren't.

CYDdharta

@Coveny Incorrect; I said "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  Believing in Jesus, or Muhammad, or Bob Dobbs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as accurate and likely as believing there is no God.

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny Incorrect; I said "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  Believing in Jesus, or Muhammad, or Bob Dobbs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as accurate and likely as believing there is no God.

I didn't change ANYTHING and now you are claiming you didn't say athiest and theist are the same thing? Wow you folks are bad liars.

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny Incorrect; I said "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  Believing in Jesus, or Muhammad, or Bob Dobbs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as accurate and likely as believing there is no God.

I didn't change ANYTHING and now you are claiming you didn't say athiest and theist are the same thing? Wow you folks are bad liars.

What is there to notice???  I agreed that "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  As I have maintained all along, believing with no proof is the domain of the theist and the atheist, in this sense, they are indeed the same.  Not believing because there is no proof is the domain of the agnostic, or the infidel. 

Wake

@Coveny - You just said you know nothing. If that is the case how do you know there isn't a God? What again I have to make clear is that IF you are a thinking being you have to have some sort of belief system. And such a belief system HAS to be taken on faith and faith alone. "I don't believe there is a God" is every bit of a faith as "I believe there is a God" except you can claim to not have any faith because you're . Sorry, you don't post as if you're .

SilverishGoldNova

@Wake So its not just me and Erfisflat you are ad hominem'ing, it's also @Coveny ?

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny Incorrect; I said "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  Believing in Jesus, or Muhammad, or Bob Dobbs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as accurate and likely as believing there is no God.

I didn't change ANYTHING and now you are claiming you didn't say athiest and theist are the same thing? Wow you folks are bad liars.

What is there to notice???  I agreed that "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  As I have maintained all along, believing with no proof is the domain of the theist and the atheist, in this sense, they are indeed the same.  Not believing because there is no proof is the domain of the agnostic, or the infidel.  

Are they not the same or are they the same? You literally prove yourself a in the same sentence. A theist believes with no proof, an atheist does not believe. An agnostic doesn't know if there can be proof, but still either believes or doesn't believe there is a god.

Evidence

CYDdharta said:

@Evidence Then everyone is an atheist, and no one can ever be a theist.  Have you studied the teachings of Marshall Applewhite, Benjamin Roden, Bob Dobbs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Principia Discordia, etc. et al.?  New religions, sects, cults, are constantly forming.  According to you, no one can be a true theist until they have evaluated all of them, including ones that do not yet exist.  Of course that isn't the meaning of the term "theist", and "atheist Christian" is an oxymoron.  And not that I really care about Billy Graham, or Christianity for that matter, but since I took the time to look into it;

I don’t know of a single scholar — Christian or non-Christian — who claims that Jesus Christ never existed. The evidence for his existence is so overwhelming that even scholars who totally reject the Christian faith still acknowledge that Jesus lived and taught some 2,000 years ago.

How do we know this? First of all, each of the four Gospels of the New Testament gives us a detailed account of Jesus’ life and ministry. When they were written, thousands of eyewitnesses to his ministry were still alive, and it would have been impossible for their writers to lie about his existence. As Luke stated concerning the facts of Jesus’ ministry, “They were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2).

But we also know Jesus was real because of the impact he made on his followers. People don’t willingly die for what they know is a lie, but immediately after his death and resurrection, Jesus’ followers courageously faced persecution and death because they were convinced he was the savior of the world.

http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article57754718.html

I understand what you're saying, but because of the Heavy Indoctrination on all of us, especially in the past 1,700 years with the Gentile pagan-god worshipping Roman Empires Emperor Constantine taking over the books of both the Old and the New Testament, you cannot possibly understand what I am saying unless you genuinely listen, with an intent to understand? Not like Coveny, he's so far gone where I truly believe he really thinks he is an animal, an ape, so why should he care?

Look, please understand that the problem is not with you personally, I am positive every one of you are much more educated, and intelligent than I am.
The fault falls on Religion. It is how they reinterpreted words and even History over time, and how for so many generations we just went along, sitting in school and church like cows at the troth where we ate what was given to us without a question!

Here is the first few thing, and definitions you will have to understand for us to be of one mind and understanding, it's history

When we say the word "theist", .. what's the first thing that comes to your mind?

It's "Oh, he/she believes in one or more gods. He is religious, .. a theist" correct?

But you see as I pointed out in those other debates the terrible logical fallacies associated with this word, and the other; "atheist" that's associated with it!

All Religious doctrines are meant to identify, defend, and reinforce the Religion, so you will never get a straight answer from Dictionaries written by Re;ligiously indoctrinated minds.

Theism.
the word "theism" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, .. just like the words "atheist", or God being a "Devine being", .. or Him and His son Jesus and the angels as living in the "supernatural realm", .. or them being some trinity-gods, .. or the early Believers, Disciples of Christ calling themselves "Christians". Or that Christ's disciples should do the unthinkable (in Biblical terms) and go to Jesuit-who worship Lucifer as God- Schools of "Divinity", and get a degree in (blasphemy of blasphemies) "Divination" so they can become "diviners to spirits/demons that reside in the supernatural realm"!

The word "theism" is a Greek word describing Gentile people who believe in pagan gods. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Hebrews, or their God, our One, and Only Possible Infinite Creator "I Am", .. who is the God mentioned talking to us through His chosen Prophets through the books of the Bible.

Q. So why do Christians consider themselves "theists"?

First, we must understand the word Christian!
Christian is what the gentiles started calling the Disciples of Christ at Antioch. This was a mock title given to them, much like if we would call the Amish: "Goodie-two-shoes". Peter in his letter even mentions this and admonishes the Disciples not to let this name calling bother them, instead, just like if we were slapped on one cheek, .. to use it to glorify God in this matter.

1 Peter 4:16

Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

So what happened was that Roman gentile Emperor Constantine through the RCC took the books, both Old and the New Testaments, and implemented its teachings into their own Religion. Renaming all their gods by the names of the Apostles found in the Bible. They took the name Mary the mother of Jesus, and gave it to their goddess Madonna. But most importantly they split our Infinite Heavenly Father YHWH, along with His son Jesus, the Holy Spirit and through their Trinity Doctrine turned them into the Trinity-gods, .. like the Three Musketeers: "All for one, and one for all!"  kind of thing.

Thus the "Christian Religion" was born. And like all religions Greek, Egyptian, Indian, Roman, Germanic, so on, they all worship pagan gods as described in the Greek word "theos".

The Romans and the Greeks had the same gods, or very similar. This is why Christians consider themselves "theist", because they believe in man made gods created by doctrines of men as they always have in Old Roman Empire times. This is how the Roman Catholics with Constantine created the Christian Religion. The Roman Catholics still believe in the same pagan gods the Greeks did, only now they call themselves "Christian", .. which as I said was a mock-name given to Early Believers, the early Disciples of Christ.
Neither Jesus, nor the Early church Disciples after create some Religion, the last thing Jesus would want. He warned them of the hypocrisy of the religious Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus didn't send his disciples to go out into the world and bring people into no Religion, but to bring people into His Kingdom, His Fathers Kingdom!

On the other hand, that is exactly what Constantine with his Catholic church did. By war and conquer he built up his Religion, which today is the most powerful pagan-Religion in the World! Yes, they are theists, which following the Christian History should show you what it really means today; yes, it is a belief in god/gods, but NOT all gods, and definitely NOT the God of their or our Bible. The Christians fought all the other gentile nations who did not worship the Roman Catholic gods, as history reveals.

Please read what I wrote about the true meaning of theist/atheist in that other post, even though it sounds funny, it isn't. Christian theists are very peculiar in which "gods" their members believe in, so it really isn't a "belief in gods", but more of a selected few gods, a disbelief and rejection of all other gods except THEIR theos/gods.

To create even a bigger blasphemy, Constantine took the symbol of Christ's cross that our Savior suffered and died on, and turned it into a weapon of destruction, his "sword", which he went to conquer the world with, torturing, raping and killing, as he spread his "Christian Religion" wherever he went.

NOT like Christ asked his disciples to do, to go out in love, carrying no weapon, not even a backpack. But the Christians conquered through war, with the sword! As for those who stood in their way, like Sadam Hussein, or any other country or leader, they were labeled "The Axis of Evil"! .. well I'm sure you know the rest of Christian History, the burning of people on poles, boiling them in oil, .. about the Inquisition and so on! Not a pretty sight. And this went on where in some European cities the streets were flowing in the blood of the Saints, or anyone, any religion that looked like a threat to "Christianity" and their theos/gods. And if you look at all the so called "Christian Countries", you will see who it is that rules over them, .. like the Statue of Liberty, and all the phallic symbols and the pentagram architecture of our Capitals, .. streets in major cities and so on.

If you are a Christian reading this, please wake up, and "Get Out Of Her/Religion". Leave your Christian Religion and their gods, even if they are only three (but not really, they just say that to not to look too obviously against the Bible!

2 Corinthians 6:
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God.

As for Dr. Billy Graham, here, this should answer your question:

2 Corinthians 11:
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

I would gladly quote this to his face. Mr. Graham has for the past 60 years prepared the already deceived Christian theists all over the world to welcome this New Jesuit Pope, who will lead them, including all the other religions of the whole world onto that curvy wide road that leads men down to the pits of hell.

Coveny

Wake said:

@Coveny - You just said you know nothing. If that is the case how do you know there isn't a God? What again I have to make clear is that IF you are a thinking being you have to have some sort of belief system. And such a belief system HAS to be taken on faith and faith alone. "I don't believe there is a God" is every bit of a faith as "I believe there is a God" except you can claim to not have any faith because you're . Sorry, you don't post as if you're .

No I said when I claim to be an atheist that isn't a claim that I don't know anything. It's not a claim that god(s) don't exist, or that theism is bad that would be anti-theism not atheism. It's not a claim that I know how the universe was created, believe in evolution, or even that I KNOW there isn't a god. It is ONLY a claim that I do NOT believe there is a god, it is opposite to the claim that I believe there is a god. No belief system needed, no faith needed. I don't believe in god, I make no claim, and have no faith. BECAUSE I haven't claimed to know anything, so there is NOTHING to make a claim about or have faith in.

Coveny

@SilverishGoldNova oh look more cussing me and name calling. This is my shocked face...

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

Are they not the same or are they the same? You literally prove yourself a in the same sentence. A theist believes with no proof, an atheist does not believe. An agnostic doesn't know if there can be proof, but still either believes or doesn't believe there is a god.

Is English a second language for you or a third language???  Whatever it is, you need to study harder.  A theist believes with no proof that there is a God, an atheist believes with no proof that there is no God.  They are both true believers.  An agnostic believes there can be no proof, and thus it's a pointless and unanswerable question.

SilverishGoldNova

Coveny said:

@SilverishGoldNova oh look more cussing me and name calling. This is my shocked face...

I wasn't even talking about you being a t roll, I was talking about Wake being a t roll, lol. My guess is you were just preemptively flagging it as a fallacy.

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

Are they not the same or are they the same? You literally prove yourself a in the same sentence. A theist believes with no proof, an atheist does not believe. An agnostic doesn't know if there can be proof, but still either believes or doesn't believe there is a god.

Is English a second language for you or a third language???  Whatever it is, you need to study harder.  A theist believes with no proof that there is a God, an atheist believes with no proof that there is no God.  They are both true believers.  An agnostic believes there can be no proof, and thus it's a pointless and unanswerable question.

Sadly English is my only language, but I'm interested in learning spanish and lojban. 

A theist believes in god(s), and an atheist does not. Many theists believe that nature is proof of god(s) existence, and many atheists don't believe there is proof and that is why they are atheist. However from my point of view as an atheist I don't believe what theists present as proof is proof of god(s) existence. If you look through this website you'll see them attempting to prove god(s) because of the complexity of the universe, or causality, or various "intelligent design" proofs. All of which I don't accept as proof of god(s) existence, but they do. Most atheist I know are open to the existence of god(s) if said god(s) could be proven scientifically to exist, therefore they are agnostic athiest. That being the atheist part is "they don't believe" and the agnostic part is "they are open to change based on proof/knowledge of god(s)".

So although you have theist and agnostic correct, you do not have atheist correct. An athiest doesn't believe in god(s). period... full stop. The REASON most athiest don't believe is that there is no proof of god, NOT that they believe there is no god without proof, however this is NOT a requirement of being an atheist as some atheist do believe there is no god with certainty but in my opinion you can't "prove" a negative so I'm not in that camp, and I'm still an atheist.

Coveny

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

@SilverishGoldNova oh look more cussing me and name calling. This is my shocked face...

I wasn't even talking about you being a t roll, I was talking about Wake being a t roll, lol. My guess is you were just preemptively flagging it as a fallacy.

Given the amount of harassment you've done to me it was a fair assumption on my part, but I guess if all you have is a hammer, and someone disagrees with you, you treat them like a nail.

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

Sadly English is my only language, but I'm interested in learning spanish and lojban. 

A theist believes in god(s), and an atheist does not. Many theists believe that nature is proof of god(s) existence, and many atheists don't believe there is proof and that is why they are atheist. However from my point of view as an atheist I don't believe what theists present as proof is proof of god(s) existence. If you look through this website you'll see them attempting to prove god(s) because of the complexity of the universe, or causality, or various "intelligent design" proofs. All of which I don't accept as proof of god(s) existence, but they do. Most atheist I know are open to the existence of god(s) if said god(s) could be proven scientifically to exist, therefore they are agnostic athiest. That being the atheist part is "they don't believe" and the agnostic part is "they are open to change based on proof/knowledge of god(s)".

So although you have theist and agnostic correct, you do not have atheist correct. An athiest doesn't believe in god(s). period... full stop. The REASON most athiest don't believe is that there is no proof of god, NOT that they believe there is no god without proof, however this is NOT a requirement of being an atheist as some atheist do believe there is no god with certainty but in my opinion you can't "prove" a negative so I'm not in that camp, and I'm still an atheist.

I thought we were past the dictionary quotes, but apparently not;

atheist

noun

1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist?s=t

atheist

n.

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

atheist

countable noun

An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/atheist

atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist


You are incorrect.  An atheist is not someone who does not believe in God(s), and atheist is someone who believes there is no God(s).  There is no grey area in atheism, they believe God(s) does not exist, period... full stop.  If someone is open to the existence of God(s), THEY ARE NOT ATHEISTS, they are either agnostic (if they believe the question is unanswerable), or they are simply infidels;

infidel

noun

1. Religion.

1. a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity.
2. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, especially a Muslim.
3. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kafir (def 2).

2. a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.

3. (loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/infidel?s=t

infidel

n.

1. Often Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

2. One who has no religious beliefs.

3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/infidel

infidel

noun

1. a person who does not believe in a particular religion, esp. the prevailing religion ; specif.,

     a. among Christians, a non-Christian

     b. among Muslims, a non-Muslim

2. a person who holds no religious belief

3. a person who does not accept some particular theory, belief, etc.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/infidel

infidel

1 :one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity

2 a :an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion

b :one who acknowledges no religious belief

3 :a disbeliever in something specified or understood

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infidel

As I said before, atheists are believers; they believe God(s) does not exist.  If, as you say, you do not hold this belief, then you are not an atheist.  The question of proof doesn't enter into atheism; an atheist believes God(s) does not exist with or without proof.  Of course, if there was proof, most atheists would likely abandon their belief (or disbelief, as it were).  Belief IS A REQUIREMENT of atheism. 

Wake

@Coveny - again you make the statement that you don't have to believe in anything at all to be an atheist. Man is not constructed to not believe in anything. So what do you believe in?

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

You are incorrect.  An atheist is not someone who does not believe in God(s), and atheist is someone who believes there is no God(s).  There is no grey area in atheism, they believe God(s) does not exist, period... full stop.  If someone is open to the existence of God(s), THEY ARE NOT ATHEISTS, they are either agnostic (if they believe the question is unanswerable), or they are simply infidels;

As I said before, atheists are believers; they believe God(s) does not exist.  If, as you say, you do not hold this belief, then you are not an atheist.  The question of proof doesn't enter into atheism; an atheist believes God(s) does not exist with or without proof.  Of course, if there was proof, most atheists would likely abandon their belief (or disbelief, as it were).  Belief IS A REQUIREMENT of atheism. 

Let me try using the semantics on a different topic that is less emotional to you. 

I can either believe or not believe you are the smartest person on this website.  (leaving proof out it, and using you so it doesn't sound so egotistical)

If I don't believe you are the smartest person it can be restated that as a claim that you are NOT the smartest person on this website, as this is changing the nature of the statement by subtles. Even if I do allow the change from one where I don't agree with your claim, to one where I make a claim that you are wrong it doesn't cover the openness to change my opinion on whether or not you are the smartest person on this website does it? Just because I don't believe you aren't the smartest person on this website, there is no implication that I would not accept an IQ test as proof that you are the smartest person on this website. By believe is my current state, and is subject to change just like anything other beliefs. Like I use to believe that cottage cheese sucked, but now I don't believe that any more. The same is true with the term theist or atheist, there is no implication about the openness to changing your opinion on the subject. I currently do not believe god(s) exist... so I'm an atheist. period... full stop. 

As I have said before atheists believe in nothing, they claim no believe. Their position is a null position, and should be the default position of EVERYONE in my opinion just as I am an abasketball player, or an apolitician. The default state should be that I am NOT something. I don't hold a belief that I'm not a basketball player and I'll never be a basketball player, I simply don't believe I am a basketball player. (and a not a wide host of other things as well) 

Hopefully you can see how you support my position with this statement "if there was proof, most atheists would likely abandon their belief" as a semantics debate with someone who is willfully using the terms incorrectly because they can't deal with cognitive dissonance isn't that interesting to me.

Coveny

Wake said:

@Coveny - again you make the statement that you don't have to believe in anything at all to be an atheist. Man is not constructed to not believe in anything. So what do you believe in?

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

I didn't say I don't believe in anything, that's a strawman fallacy. I said that the term athiest does not imply that I believe in anything. The term atheist is only a lack of belief, or a null statement.

As for what I believe in you'd have to be more specific, but as the topic lists religion I'll assume that's where you want to know my beliefs. I believe that religion is inherently bad for society. I believe that religion is bad because it teaches percussion, hinders scientific advancements, and causes a lot of guilt for actions I don't feel people should feel guilty for. A short example of these (but not an exhaustive list) is

1) thought crimes like coveting your neighbor's property... like their wife
So long as there are no any actions who cares

2) Sex
Everything that is completely nature from masturbation to homosexuality causes people to kill themselves over guilt from having completely nature urges

3) Torture and death
Every religion promotes torture or death... and in many cases a torturous death. (because killing someone isn't enough, you have to make it slow and painful)

I just consider the "morals" of every religion I've researched to be bad. Even the pacifist ones like buddhism or mormons still cause harm, and attempt to create laws that force their beliefs on others which goes directly against freedom which I am a big fan of.

Erfisflat

 "if there was proof, most atheists would likely abandon their belief"

Evidence

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny Incorrect; I said "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  Believing in Jesus, or Muhammad, or Bob Dobbs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as accurate and likely as believing there is no God.

I didn't change ANYTHING and now you are claiming you didn't say athiest and theist are the same thing? Wow you folks are bad liars.

What is there to notice???  I agreed that "that believing with no proof" is not the same as "not believing because there is no proof".  As I have maintained all along, believing with no proof is the domain of the theist and the atheist, in this sense, they are indeed the same.  Not believing because there is no proof is the domain of the agnostic, or the infidel.  

Are they not the same or are they the same? You literally prove yourself a in the same sentence. A theist believes with no proof, an atheist does not believe. An agnostic doesn't know if there can be proof, but still either believes or doesn't believe there is a god.

@Coveny said: "A theist believes with no proof, an atheist does not believe. An agnostic doesn't know if there can be proof, but still either believes or doesn't believe there is a god

OK you lost me here @Coveny, .. so "Who's" on first?

Christ

For atheism to exist theism must also exist, no theism no atheism, atheism exists only in the mind of the theist.

Atheism is not a religion in itself, atheism is a part of the theist's religion.

Unwilling people become a part of the theist's religion whether they want to be or not.

Atheism is imposed on atheists by theists, it is a form of religious persecution and bigotry.

Coveny

Evidence said:

@Coveny said: "A theist believes with no proof, an atheist does not believe. An agnostic doesn't know if there can be proof, but still either believes or doesn't believe there is a god

OK you lost me here @Coveny, .. so "Who's" on first?

A theist believes in god(s) - I do not believe they have proof
An atheist doesn't believe in god(s)
An agnostic doesn't know if there can be proof of god(s) or they are unsure about the proof of god(s) but they can believe or not in god(s) regardless

I know English is your third language but I've been over this ad nauseam. 

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

Let me try using the semantics on a different topic that is less emotional to you. 

I can either believe or not believe you are the smartest person on this website.  (leaving proof out it, and using you so it doesn't sound so egotistical)

If I don't believe you are the smartest person it can be restated that as a claim that you are NOT the smartest person on this website, as this is changing the nature of the statement by subtles. Even if I do allow the change from one where I don't agree with your claim, to one where I make a claim that you are wrong it doesn't cover the openness to change my opinion on whether or not you are the smartest person on this website does it? Just because I don't believe you aren't the smartest person on this website, there is no implication that I would not accept an IQ test as proof that you are the smartest person on this website. By believe is my current state, and is subject to change just like anything other beliefs. Like I use to believe that cottage cheese sucked, but now I don't believe that any more. The same is true with the term theist or atheist, there is no implication about the openness to changing your opinion on the subject. I currently do not believe god(s) exist... so I'm an atheist. period... full stop. 

As I have said before atheists believe in nothing, they claim no believe. Their position is a null position, and should be the default position of EVERYONE in my opinion just as I am an abasketball player, or an apolitician. The default state should be that I am NOT something. I don't hold a belief that I'm not a basketball player and I'll never be a basketball player, I simply don't believe I am a basketball player. (and a not a wide host of other things as well) 

Hopefully you can see how you support my position with this statement "if there was proof, most atheists would likely abandon their belief" as a semantics debate with someone who is willfully using the terms incorrectly because they can't deal with cognitive dissonance isn't that interesting to me.

I realized I was debating with someone who is willfully using the terms incorrectly at the beginning of this debate.  I understand your position quite well, unfortunately you're just plain wrong.  What you claim is an atheist is NOT an atheist by any definition of the word, which is why I posted them.  Those are YOUR SOURCES, they're the very same sites you used earlier in the debate.  "A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."  "A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being."  "An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God."  "Someone who believes that God does not exist."  You're trying, desperately and unsuccessfully, to introduce a grey area where none exists.  An atheist is a believer (or disbeliever).  There is no grey area, no ambiguity, no middle ground, no wiggle room, in a single one of those definitions.  As "abasketball player", "apolitician", and "asmartest person on this website" are not words with established definitions, they can mean whatever you want them to mean.  Atheism is an established word with a specific and well-established meaning.  That meaning isn't what you consistently, but erroneously, claim it is.  It doesn't matter how much you wish things to be different, or how much you really really want things to be different, or how many friends you have that have the same mistaken belief, that isn't reality.  The reality is, atheism is the BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD.  If you simply don't believe in God, YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST!!!  If you don't believe in God, but you're open to the possibility, YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST.  You're an infidel or a disbeliever if you don't like the term "infidel", but you are NOT an atheist.

I fail to see how my statement "if there was proof, most atheists would likely abandon their belief" in any way supports your position.  Most atheists believe there is no God because they have no proof of God's existence.  If presented with such proof, they would admit they were wrong (you could use a lesson in that department), abandon their erroneous belief, and adopt a new belief.