1. not just me, virtuall every atheist you have ever heard of. i am not some solitary idiot making this up: Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia again, the view that god positively does not exist is irrational and nobody takes that position. it is primarily presented as athe position of atheists, by non-atheists. agin, it would be ludicrous of me to say you are positive fairies dont exist. you cant be positive of that. they might. but thats not worth mentioning when you say you dont believ in them.
At this point I just want to interject that I believe in all sorts of hooey phooey nonsense. It seems utterly crazy to be a Christian and a Catholic, but I am quite certain that nonsense has made me a better person and the world a far better place. So if what I believe makes me stupid so be it. My core beliefs in terms of how I interact with society would be no different if I were a secular humanist. In almost all ways I believe what I believe not because I a m Catholic, but I am Catholic because of what I believe.
this is an attitude i like. the goal is happiness. if delusion makes you happy, then so be it, you win. and i dont mean that to be condescending even though it sounds like it.
This is the main point that I object to....it's not delusional to make a decision that the likelihood that Christ was in fact the Son of God,......that the probability is high enough that I can accept it. Certainly it is not possible to know something like that like I know my feet are on the table or that I'm not dreaming or something. But you can know it well enough, like I know Plato existed or Socrates existed....Alexander the Great existed........they could be just myths but the evidence that they existed is sufficient to believe it and move on. Belief in God and Jesus does not, as much as the other side would love you to believe....it does not in fact make you a stupid person or unsophisticated or ignorant or gullible. It makes you part of the single greatest culture the world has ever seen, Christendom and the remnants of it are all around you. And there is no shame in paying respect to that.
And yet the definitions remain universally accepted. Clearly the dictionaries And thesaurases are run by non-athiests. It's a matter of conjecture and semantics. I like to spar but I don't really have an interest in what you or any athiest defines as athiesm. If you say agnostics are really athiests then I can adapt although I now Red's at a crossroads because you've ripped his label from him.
dont be stupid. this is very simple. the question is this: "do you believe in god?" the question isnt "can you be positive god doesnt exist". the agnostic says: "whooptee damn do i dunno i am thoughtful, i cant be sure" yes, we know that, idiot. we cant know for sure. the question is do you believe, do you have "faith"? no? you are an atheist.
Where again, outside of athiest sites claiming their own definitions, is this commonly accepted definition published? I can't find it.
it is everywhere. Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia again, not any of the prominent atheists claim to know that god doesnt exist. this is a false position held by no one. a straw man. every definition i find is on my side. atheist in English - Google Dictionary "An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God" note it doesnt say that they are sure that god doesnt exist. just like i said before, i am not sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it is not possible for me to be certain. but i am not going to mention that in conversation. for any given made up thing for which there is zero evidence, you shouldnt believe in it. that is not the same as denying the possibility. dictionary.com: 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. note it doesnt say the denying of the possibility. this is so crystal clear, why do i have to explain it? nobody denies the possibility of god. NOBODY. i have literally not once in my life heard anyone do that. we simply shouldnt go around believing anything people say out loud without any evidence whatsoever. this is atheism. the only rational position. is there a word comparable to agnostic for any of the mythical gods of antiquity? of course not. it isnt necessary. you dont say "well la dee da i am an agnostic with respect to the norse gods. maybe thor swung the warhammer and odin did whatever he does. who can know these things. give me a medal for being thoughtful". that would be retarded. so why say it with respect to the catholic god or jewish god? you were born atheist. we all were. did you pick up the disease of faith or didnt you? that is the question.
No - I was born completely ignorant. I have never been an atheist. I have teetered between belief and agnosticism. And I rest somewhere in that spectrum today. As to your "references"... Hmmm. Let's see. Dictionary.com a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. You sorta conveniently left out the juicy bit. And the first one doesn't say "...but there could be". It says "doctrine or belief that THERE IS NO GOD." (emphasis mine ) There's another definition on that page from American Heritage dictionary that says: a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods Google dictionary "Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Compare agnosticism." The wording you state does not come up either in Google dictionary or the following section of weblinks. Wikipedia The very first sentence in Wikipedia is: Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. You sorta left that one out as well. But at least I found your preferred definition under the classification of a "broader definition". Right after "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." So, like I said, I don't see your definition in any credible sources other than those written by atheists (web sites, etc.) themselves, and one place in wiki, which by definition is collective, not authoritative. Clearly I don't have the time to do this, but it would be interesting to know what the atheist narrative on this was like about 20 years ago. My guess is this movement to change the definition to "soft atheism" is fairly new. Anyway, at the very least, this is anything but simple. And being generous to you, you still haven't found a credible and widely referenced source that backs up your definition.
Did you get a chance to hear O'Hair speak before her demise? I did, at LSU in the mid 80s, probably 86 or so. She was not shy at all about denying the possibility that god existed. She very clearly debated from the stance that god did not exist. Period. Not "I don't believe in god". Not I don't see any evidence so why should I believe. She said god did not exist. I'm thinking she's a pretty prominent atheist with a very significant role in that belief system.
