OK. Let me ask you all (and this is a serious question)

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
OK, let me ask you all this; (and to the Moderators, I implore you to move this thread if it is in the wrong place).

How come "atheist" is being perceived as "believer"??

In Random House Webster's Dictionary it says that atheism is;

The doctrine that there is no god

And god is; (from the same source)

1. Creator and ruler of the universe - not capitalized (my note).
2. One of several immortal powers, esp a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
3. any defined person or object.
4. an exclamation of disappointment, disbelief, frustration or the like.

Simple as that!

As an atheist, (I may use that word about myself sometimes, even though I actually resent doing so), I do not believe in "a higher power", a "god", a "destiny" or whatnot.

I have no belief. I am a very down-to-Earth, not-so-imaginative, live-and-let-live kind of person. I also try my very utmost to respect people who have found comfort and happiness in some kind of belief-system.

I have read through a number of threads where "atheists" are being considered "anti-religious", "anti-church", "militant fundamentalists" and what have you. The common theme being "believer" in something I would call almost "Anti-Christ".

When the simple fact is that a lot of us, (and of course I am guilty of judging others after my own norm here, and apologize for that, if someone feels an urge not to agree), simply don't give a hoot.

Christ, no Christ, Allah or IHVH, it doesn't make a difference to me. In my mind I have concluded that I am a human being, an animal in fact, with a life-span of approx 65-85 years on this planet.

SO WHAT????

I refuse to inhibit my life because it might not give me a place in "Heaven". I also refuse to be scared because it might send me to "Hell".

I believe in life itself. I am grateful that I am born. Grateful that I have life. Grateful to have a Husband that loves me, that I feel free to love back as much as I want.

I have taken some beatings, it comes with life. Have given some too. That also comes with life. Do I call it "Karma"? Not only no, but Hell No!

WHY, all you people out there, is it so hard for you to comprehend that a true atheist simply does NOT believe???

In anything???
 
Last edited:

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
It sounds to me like you do belive in one thing: Life. (Hey wait, you just said that at the very end) I've moved from a atheist view point to a more humanist mode of thought. But I'm sitll an atheist. I'm just an atheist humanist. Does that make sence?

But that dosn't matter. I see exactly where you're coming from. Fortunatly, I come from an almost cartoonishly nice nehiborhood so I have yet to deal with anyone discriminating aginst me because of my belifs. Becuase I do belive in humanity. We've done so many amazing things (Such as going to the moon, splitting the atom, understand the universe, extending our lives, built the pyramids and so on), is it really such a stretch to think we might be able to live next to one another and not kill each other?

The converse thing is we've also done a lot of horrible things. But I still belive that we can get better...and not so we get into heaven, not so we avoid hell...but for the future. Because that's the only immortality we're going to have, it's the future and our decendents.

You've got one life. Better make it a good one, right?
 

Sean D. Schaffer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
1,433
I think part of the problem, Melisande, is that believers have a need to define things in terms we can understand.

One of the ways many of us will define atheism in a way we can understand, is to say, rather than you have no belief, you rather have a belief that there is no god.

It's not intended in any way (at least not by me) to insult or to otherwise hurt you or anyone. It's rather a way we, as human beings, can understand your ideas in a way we can figure out. It's not easy for a lot of us to train ourselves not to call you a believer, in this case a believer in no god at all.

So when we say, "You believe there is no god" it's our way of understanding your ideas in a way we ourselves can 'get it'.

I'm certain there is no harm intended. I know there is no such intent on my own part.

:)
 

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
It's not intended in any way (at least not by me) to insult or to otherwise hurt you or anyone. It's rather a way we, as human beings, can understand your ideas in a way we can figure out. It's not easy for a lot of us to train ourselves not to call you a believer, in this case a believer in no god at all.

Yeah, I kind of get what you mean, but still have a hard time accepting the fact that so many people kind of apply their "other-side-of-the-coin-to-their-own-belief" to - atheism, (I prefer, rather than atheism, which to me has become almost "anti'Christian", the term 'non-believer').

I think that what I was trying to express was the fact that it surprises me that (especially) believers seem to think that I (and what I imagine other non-believers would agree with) would be in any way passionately "anti-religiois". Because that would be to admit that there was something there to oppose. And that, in turn, would look very much like recognition, wouldn't it???
 

Sean D. Schaffer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
1,433
Yeah, I kind of get what you mean, but still have a hard time accepting the fact that so many people kind of apply their "other-side-of-the-coin-to-their-own-belief" to - atheism, (I prefer, rather than atheism, which to me has become almost "anti'Christian", the term 'non-believer').

I think that what I was trying to express was the fact that it surprises me that (especially) believers seem to think that I (and what I imagine other non-believers would agree with) would be in any way passionately "anti-religiois". Because that would be to admit that there was something there to oppose. And that, in turn, would look very much like recognition, wouldn't it???


I think I see where you're coming from now. Sorry I didn't see it before.

A lot of people, especially within Big Religion, think that anyone who is not part of their religion is automatically against it. Sad to say, I used to be that way myself. I thought at one time that all people who did not accept the way I believed automatically were against me and my religion.

Part of this could be due to the teachings I received as a Big Christian (specifically Baptist) in my later years in my parents' house. There is a belief in the Christian circles that anyone who is not for Jesus is automatically against him. It's like there's no middle ground. When I converted to the faith I have now, it took me several months to realize that my new faith had less to do with enemies of the faith than it had to do with my living my own life in a righteous manner.

In a way, one might consider the way I was several months ago, when I was still a Christian, to be focused on other people and making them righteous; whereas now I'm focused on making myself righteous. I think that might be part of the problem, Melisande. A lot of people believe they have to make other people righteous according to their viewpoint, and thus if anyone does not accept their way, they become indignant and think the person who does not accept their way is against them and their faith.

I know it's hard to handle, because I've experienced this same kind of treatment repeatedly over the last several months (I converted in December) from the people I used to agree with. I've even had a couple people become overtly hostile because I didn't accept their god as mine anymore.

So there's a lot of animosity that I think some people have toward people who do not hold the same persuasions as they do. What I've actually had to do is just kind of shrug it off, but part of my ability to do that comes with the knowledge of how I was taught to be toward non-believers in my previous faith. The ability to see how the other half lives, as some would say, can many times give people a better tolerance for others and how they react to certain issues.

I hope this helps you out, and I wish you the very best life can offer.

:)
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Since you wrote "ask you all" ... may I answer without feeling anyone thinks I'm badgering? And may I ask that anyone who replies to MY comments, also respect the tone of the OP's sincere, serious, respectful discussion (only because we don't want to sidetrack the discussion) ???

OK, let me ask you all this; (and to the Moderators, I implore you to move this thread if it is in the wrong place).

How come "atheist" is being perceived as "believer"??

In Random House Webster's Dictionary it says that atheism is;
The doctrine that there is no god
In MY Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged, 1973):
atheism
1) The doctrine or belief that there is no God (God is capped)
2) disbelief in the existence of God or gods (capped, then lower case)
That's the whole definition (except from the Greek athe(os) godless +ism)

And god is; (from the same source)
1. Creator and ruler of the universe - not capitalized (my note).
2. One of several immortal powers, esp a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
3. any defined person or object.
4. an exclamation of disappointment, disbelief, frustration or the like.
(God) (same source)
1) the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. (and it's capped)
2) the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of battles. (capped there too)
3) (l.c.) one of several deities ...
My dictionary has 10 definitions, but the others are lower case

Simple as that!

So: as simple as we have two different dictionary definitions. I'm sure anyone can find other definitions too.

As an atheist, (I may use that word about myself sometimes, even though I actually resent doing so), I do not believe in "a higher power", a "god", a "destiny" or whatnot.

I have no belief. I am a very down-to-Earth, not-so-imaginative, live-and-let-live kind of person. I also try my very utmost to respect people who have found comfort and happiness in some kind of belief-system.

Well, without meaning to argue, I suggest we live in a culture where you indeed do have a 'belief'

belief: (same source)
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

I've been here for over 100 posts. Many of those were over the issue: Can an "atheist" support their position or claims with SCIENCE or with EVIDENCE? (That's "susceptible to rigorous proof")

If you can, good. I've asked many people many times for just that ... it's never forthcoming. Please present it now.

If you cannot ... then you have the 'belief' of atheism, and you are a believer. (Please note: I respect believers)

BUT: we live in a culture, a civilization, where 'mere belief' is considered (by some) as being intellectually inferior to FACT.

When (or, here, let me say "IF") an atheist seeks to claim that atheism is not a "belief" ... the concern (from people like myself, holding my position) is that they are claiming they own the FACT and the rest of us are reduced to BELIEF.

We all value FACTS here. (or we should)
We all respect each others' BELIEFS here. (or we should)

It's perfectly LEGIT for anyone to argue "You have your FACTS wrong" ... while we can all agree to disagree about your (or each others', or my) BELIEFS.

I have read through a number of threads where "atheists" are being considered "anti-religious", "anti-church", "militant fundamentalists" and what have you. The common theme being "believer" in something I would call almost "Anti-Christ".

Not that it matters, but I don't know what that last part meant. If you care to clarify, I can respond ...

When the simple fact is that a lot of us, (and of course I am guilty of judging others after my own norm here, and apologize for that, if someone feels an urge not to agree), simply don't give a hoot.

And many people can agree to disagree, that you and I can both get along without "giving a hoot" about what our BELIEFS are ... while still correcting each others' FACTS.

Christ, no Christ, Allah or IHVH, it doesn't make a difference to me. In my mind I have concluded that I am a human being, an animal in fact, with a life-span of approx 65-85 years on this planet.

SO WHAT????

Okay by me. Don't try to tell my kids that's what THEY are (as I won't tell your kids what I think they are, little souls that could be more than human dust) ... but we both should feel free to FREELY EXPRESS whatever we believe.

I refuse to inhibit my life because it might not give me a place in "Heaven". I also refuse to be scared because it might send me to "Hell".

Okay. Acknowledged.

I believe in life itself. I am grateful that I am born. Grateful that I have life. Grateful to have a Husband that loves me, that I feel free to love back as much as I want.

I have taken some beatings, it comes with life. Have given some too. That also comes with life. Do I call it "Karma"? Not only no, but Hell No!

WHY, all you people out there, is it so hard for you to comprehend that a true atheist simply does NOT believe???

Because, in all due respect, by my dictionary (and others have different dictionaries, but we speak English, we have to agree on basic meanings, I think) you have, in fact, by definition, stated an untruth.

You do "believe" ...

I want to limit this to your question, so I'll stop there. We needn't discuss how our "beliefs" DIFFER.

But you believe something you cannot prove. Atheism isn't based on a FACT. It's a belief.

In anything???

Well ... 'in anything' is hyperbole, right?

My point would be: Why does it bother you that you are a believer?
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Now, I had my (lengthy) say, and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth: but allow me to suggest that the whole "You believe in pink unicorns, so you're a believer" versus "I simply have zero belief in pink unicorns, so I'm NOT a believer" debate may not work (um ... ever)

2) disbelief in the existence of God or gods (capped, then lower case)

Disbelief (in that example) wouldn't be "ignorance that belief exists" (you'd have a point there, imo) ...

Given even a theist claim "God exists" (and then let's say the Theist has no proof) an agnostic could say "I don't know, show me evidence before I believe or disbelieve"

An ATHEIST has already concluded "I disbelieve" ...

They don't just claim "I don't hold that belief" ... their "atheism" posits that NO GOD EXISTS.
"When we land on another planet, and we see the aliens worship a God unlike ours, even without knowing what sort of spirit-God they worship, even if their Science is a thousand centuries more advanced than Earth's science ... they will be superstitious aliens, because NO GOD EXISTS."


To which I ask (based on this def. of belief):
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

What is your atheist conclusion of FACT based on? What 'proof' ???

May I dare predict another popular reply?

Someone will protest: "You cannot 'prove a negative'

I will reply: that is why your atheism is seen (imo) as an invalid intellectual conclusion. You'd be concluding something that shouldn't be concluded because it cannot be proved.

Agnostics don't face that problem. (imo)

Atheists cannot overcome that problem. (imo)

That's just my POV, not an insult, not a fight ... and if I'm wrong, explain it to me. But only because explaining it will also be addressing the OP's question, I hope.
 
Last edited:

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
How come "atheist" is being perceived as "believer"??

WHY, all you people out there, is it so hard for you to comprehend that a true atheist simply does NOT believe???

In anything???
Because some people are stubborn.

I'm not saying whom. But I will say that you can't reason with them, so don't waste your precious blink of consciousness trying. Just rejoice that there is no eternal life where you will be stuck with them and their endless yammering.
 
Last edited:

lauram

Freddie Mercury Devotee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
167
Reaction score
9
Location
Columbus, OH
I think part of the problem is that there are atheists who are also anti-religion. Lots of Christians that I've met believe that most or all atheists are anti-religion based on mis-information.

I am agnostic, and I generally have to explain to people what that means. I am guilty of using the definition of atheism meaning one does not believe in god. It is the simplest definition I have had to provide. I can now use the non-belief definition as well.


A little off topic, but...

I saw a bumper sticker that I thought was pretty funny:

Militant Agnostic- I don't know and neither do you


I don't want that construed to mean that I think I am better than atheists or people of varying faiths; I just thought it was funny. :)
 

Higgins

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
414
More explanations

What is your atheist conclusion of FACT based on? What 'proof' ???

May I dare predict another popular reply?

Someone will protest: "You cannot 'prove a negative'


Atheists cannot overcome that problem. (imo)

Atheists cannot overcome that problem because there is no problem to overcome. If no one has ever seen even a trace of what is supposedly the most omnipresent thing that can be defined, then the very definition of the being in question ceases to have any plausibility. You cannot look for something that cannot be described. This is far more true than any possible fact or proof: an ominpresent thing that has never been anywhere is nowhere to be found. This is far, far less existential plausibility than simply not being somewhere, it is equivalent to never having been anywhere ever in any way at all.

Or to put it another way, since the absolute nature of the claim of God's existence would require that he is everywhere all the time, even one case of his non-appearance serves as an indicator of plausibility that is far more negative than a matter of mere fact or proof.
 

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
A lot of people, especially within Big Religion, think that anyone who is not part of their religion is automatically against it. Sad to say, I used to be that way myself. I thought at one time that all people who did not accept the way I believed automatically were against me and my religion.

Thank you for understanding, and for explaining so well. I am starting to realize that there is more to being religious than just believing in a god.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
There is a scale of belief, from firm disbelief, to firm belief, with all stops on the way.

I don't need anyone telling me what I believe, or disbelief or how, or that I should prove it. I don't need to conform to anyone's definition and I have no interest in defending my postion as the only one who has to occupy it is me.

Frankly, can we go back to what this forum is meant to be--a place to get away from all that crap. If we really don't have much to talk about in terms of NT writing maybe we don't need this subforum at all. Religious debate already has a place to occur in TIO.
 

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
Frankly, can we go back to what this forum is meant to be--a place to get away from all that crap. If we really don't have much to talk about in terms of NT writing maybe we don't need this subforum at all. Religious debate already has a place to occur in TIO.
The easiest way to prevent debate on this forum would be to ask Small Axe to stop posting challenges on every thread. Although I think he's already been asked not to, he seems to believe that saying "this isn't an insult" right before insulting, or "this isn't meant to incite a fight" right before inciting one, or "this isn't to put words in anyone's mouth" right before stuffing words in one's mouth, or slapping some big smiley face after every nasty thing he says, somehow makes it all hunky-dory.

I think it would be a shame to shut this forum down because one loudmouth believer wants to come here with his capitalizations, underlines, bolds and dictionary definitions and demand we admit to "beliefs" we don't hold.

I find the posts from other believers thoughtful and insightful.
 

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
To small axe

I understand that you must have a belief in God, I guess that it is some kind of Christian faith you have, though you haven't really said so.

small axe said:
Well, without meaning to argue, I suggest we live in a culture where you indeed do have a 'belief'

belief: (same source)
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

No. I don't have a belief. I express an opinion that the concept of god is invented by man, and that I have made a choice not to recognize it.

small axe said:
I've been here for over 100 posts. Many of those were over the issue: Can an "atheist" support their position or claims with SCIENCE or with EVIDENCE? (That's "susceptible to rigorous proof")

If you can, good. I've asked many people many times for just that ... it's never forthcoming. Please present it now.

History shows, almost beyond reasonable doubt (in my opinion), when and where the various religious concepts were started by man, and how they have developed.

I don't feel a need to try and disprove the existence of a god. History has done that for me.

small axe said:
If you cannot ... then you have the 'belief' of atheism, and you are a believer. (Please note: I respect believers)

Atheism isn't a religion. It's lacking belief. It is not denying a god. It is being indifferent.

small axe said:
When (or, here, let me say "IF") an atheist seeks to claim that atheism is not a "belief" ... the concern (from people like myself, holding my position) is that they are claiming they own the FACT and the rest of us are reduced to BELIEF.

We all value FACTS here. (or we should)
We all respect each others' BELIEFS here. (or we should)

It's perfectly LEGIT for anyone to argue "You have your FACTS wrong" ... while we can all agree to disagree about your (or each others', or my) BELIEFS.

The FACT here is that you believe in God and I don't. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but you are claiming that I am. Who's got their facts wrong?

small axe said:
Because, in all due respect, by my dictionary (and others have different dictionaries, but we speak English, we have to agree on basic meanings, I think) you have, in fact, by definition, stated an untruth.

You do "believe" ...

No. I don't. I'm way to crass.

Oh, and according to my version of Random House Webster's Dictionay (Pocket, fourth edition, printed 2001)

belief
1. something believed; opinion; conviction
2. confidence, faith; trust
3. a religious creed or faith.

So I guess you are right. By expressing my opinion, I am a believer. And in my opinion pink elephants are cute!
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
So let me ask this of the atheists here. Are the following two statement equivalent? Or do they mean different things to you?
  1. I do not believe there is a god.
  2. I believe there is no god.

Note: This is not a semantic trap where I will pounce with a clever riposte. It's an honest question. My assumption was that they mean the same thing, but it got me to thinking that maybe they don't to some people.
 

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
So let me ask this of the atheists here. Are the following two statement equivalent? Or do they mean different things to you?
  1. I do not believe there is a god.
  2. I believe there is no god.
Wow. Never thought of it before, but actually there is a difference, yes.

The second statement would apply best to me, and my POV, I guess, since the first statement sounds kind of, I don't know, disappointed somehow. As if it was said by someone who's been kicked in the b-tt. It also sounds doubtful. Guess I am making no sense at all here.
 

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
So let me ask this of the atheists here. Are the following two statement equivalent? Or do they mean different things to you?
  1. I do not believe there is a god.
  2. I believe there is no god.
Note: This is not a semantic trap where I will pounce with a clever riposte. It's an honest question. My assumption was that they mean the same thing, but it got me to thinking that maybe they don't to some people.

1. I do not believe there is a god sounds agnositic, as in, there might be a god, but I don't believe it.

2. I believe there is no god sounds atheist, as in, well, there is no god.

I'm sorry you've used the word "believe" in those examples because now Small Axe is going to claim it's proof that atheism is merely a "belief." But, whatever. It's still an absence of belief.

I think there is no god.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
I'm sorry you've used the word "believe" in those examples because now Small Axe is going to claim it's proof that atheism is merely a "belief." But, whatever. It's still an absence of belief.
But it seems to me this is the gist of the problem. Is the absence of belief in something the same as the belief in the absence of something? And if not, why?
 

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
But it seems to me this is the gist of the problem. Is the absence of belief in something the same as the belief in the absence of something? And if not, why?
I don't think they're the same, and for the same reason stated in my previous post. Absence of belief in something presupposes that the "something" exists. Belief in the absence of something is positive assertion that the "something" does not exist.

I will positively assert that gods do not exist, at the same time I respect the right of others to believe in whatever god or gods they can imagine, or their culture, religion or holy texts can describe for them.
 

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
I don't think they're the same, and for the same reason stated in my previous post. Absence of belief in something presupposes that the "something" exists. Belief in the absence of something is positive assertion that the "something" does not exist.

I will positively assert that gods do not exist, at the same time I respect the right of others to believe in whatever god or gods they can imagine, or their culture, religion or holy texts can describe for them.

I wish I had the ability to express myself as clearly. All I can do is agree.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
I don't think they're the same, and for the same reason stated in my previous post. Absence of belief in something presupposes that the "something" exists. Belief in the absence of something is positive assertion that the "something" does not exist.
Wait a second. Are you sure you don't have these backwards? Because it seems to contradict your previous post. You said earlier that atheism is an absence of belief. If this presupposes that the object of the belief exists, then atheism is presupposing the existence of God? That doesn't sound right.
 

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
Wait a second. Are you sure you don't have these backwards? Because it seems to contradict your previous post. You said earlier that atheism is an absence of belief. If this presupposes that the object of the belief exists, then atheism is presupposing the existence of God? That doesn't sound right.
I think you're tripping over your own semantics there, partner. I've got a WIP to work on, so I'll leave you to chase your tail on your own.

Cheers.
 

Higgins

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
414
Strictly CINO

Wait a second. Are you sure you don't have these backwards? Because it seems to contradict your previous post. You said earlier that atheism is an absence of belief. If this presupposes that the object of the belief exists, then atheism is presupposing the existence of God? That doesn't sound right.


As a strict CINO, all I can say is that there is something very odd about watching Big Christians and Atheists quibble over verbiage that makes no sense no matter how you read it. The strict CINO view is that God is not even a coherent concept and adding extra verbiage just makes it even more confusing.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
As a strict CINO, all I can say is that there is something very odd about watching Big Christians and Atheists quibble over verbiage that makes no sense no matter how you read it. The strict CINO view is that God is not even a coherent concept and adding extra verbiage just makes it even more confusing.
I'm a Big Christian? :Wha: