Are Atheists Too Pissed Off At The World?

[No+redamer]

I went through an atheist phase that ended about a year and a half ago. Anyway, when I returned to Catholicism and looked back, I decided that I had been far too pissed off at the order of things. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but when you spend all of your time directing hatred against organized religion, it really doesn't make life better for you.

[JoeR]

I'm not, but I'd label myself as an atheist-leaning agnostic if I had to do such a thing. Frankly most people I know who aren't religious don't really spend all that much time concerning themselves with it.

[Void Image]

I will agree with you that there are some that take atheism to an extreme, just as there are christians and followers of other religions that take their beliefs to extremes. Believe me, from my experience athiest don't hate religion. They just don't care.

We do not care about our souls being saved, or being good little boys and girls and saying our prayers. I think christians (again I don't mean to single out christians, they are just the majority in America, where I live) just like to think that way to give even more validity to their beliefs. We are "in denial" or "blind" and in the hold of satan who seduces us to hate the poor persecuted innocent church-going goold ol' fashioned family value christian.

I know I don't hate the church, I'm just sick and tired of trying to be converted and harrassed for spare change while the church spends millions on elaborate churches and cathedrals. Can't you just believe what you want to believe and leave it at that? No one can change another person's beliefs or views but the owner himself.

[sub_zer0]

More often than not, if I try to talk to an atheist they are extremely mean, ridicule and mock my faith. Typical.

[Void Image]

I'm sure it has something to do with you trying to convert them, as they've been through it a thousand times. Next time you have a conversation with one of these godless heathens try not mentioning your religion and I'll bet you won't have that problem

[sub_zer0]

I'm sure it has something to do with you trying to convert them, as they've been through it a thousand times. Next time you have a conversation with one of these godless heathens try not mentioning your religion and I'll bet you won't have that problem

LOL, actually there is no reason to mock or insult my faith that is in my heart because I wanna talk about your view and why you believe what you do while defending my side.

[JoeR]

Frankly young earth creationism is as repugnant as flat earth theories.

[sub_zer0]

Frankly young earth creationism is as repugnant as flat earth theories.

This coming from somebody who believes in the unobserved phenomona of evolution, I guess now it is OK to mock my faith and insult something I hold in my heart because I believe in the Bible... Typical.

[JoeR]

If you don't want your views critiqued, go find another website.

[sub_zer0]

If you don't want your views critiqued, go find another website.

Oh, so now insulting is critiquing? LOL, I wouldn't mind it if it was intellectually honest.

[JoeR]

You talking about intellectual honesty is absolutely hilarious. I'm done with this thread.

[sub_zer0]

You talking about intellectual honesty is absolutely hilarious. I'm done with this thread.

K, bye... Typical... ;p

[Void Image]

This coming from somebody who believes in the unobserved phenomona of evolution, I guess now it is OK to mock my faith and insult something I hold in my heart because I believe in the Bible... Typical.

All we're saying is believe what you want, but keep it to yourself. I don't wander around telling everyone to be an atheist. You can worship zeus the thunder god for all I care. The evidence for evolution is much more sound, much more abundant, much more reasonable, and much less stupid than the young earth "theory". You can argue that fact all you want but it simply isn't true. If you were right, our text books would be different. That is what pisses athiests off. When christians demand years and years of collaborative research just thrown off the table in exchange for stories about 900 year old men building boats, talking snakes, apples of knowledge and a bearded guy who for some reason was required by god (himself) to be nailed to a post in order to save humanity from sin defined by and created by the same creator. If I remember correctly (it's been a few months), I'll probably get a free will retort, so how about you let me exercise my free will and go spend your energy REALLY saving people, like starving homeless bums living on the very streets you call home.

[brainpan]

I think an atheist has a lot less to be angry about than a theist. The progress of science and humanity is simply that, it can be embraced without reservation. Atheists need not behave like deranged neo-luddites fighting against science as though it is a vast Satanic conspiracy to draw man away from the magic sky pixie who alone can save us from ourselves.

I find myself disappointed when religious symbolism is removed from public display, I don't think that should happen. But I am merely disappointed and a little worried about free speech when that happens. It doesn't represent a turning away from the truth that will surely bring God's wrath in my world.

I'll resist the urge to offer a counter charge that religious people are more angry than atheists. Deep south and Bible Belt Christians, especially of the Baptist tradition, are exceptionally angry people, but it must be remembered that they represent an infantismally small minority within the larger Christian body.

[sub_zer0]

All we're saying is believe what you want, but keep it to yourself. I don't wander around telling everyone to be an atheist. You can worship zeus the thunder god for all I care. The evidence for evolution is much more sound, much more abundant, much more reasonable, and much less stupid than the young earth "theory".

Again insulting me and calling me stupid... Proving my point.

What is so sound about the evidence for evolution if the very change in evolution has NEVER been observed?

You can argue that fact all you want but it simply isn't true. If you were right, our text books would be different.

Oh please, as if that says anything about the level of truth in the theory.

That is what pisses athiests off. When christians demand years and years of collaborative research just thrown off the table in exchange for stories about 900 year old men building boats, talking snakes, apples of knowledge and a bearded guy who for some reason was required by god (himself) to be nailed to a post in order to save humanity from sin defined by and created by the same creator.

This is what Christians do not like, the complete mockery of what they believe in, what you do quite well.

If I remember correctly (it's been a few months), I'll probably get a free will retort, so how about you let me exercise my free will and go spend your energy REALLY saving people, like starving homeless bums living on the very streets you call home.

Every mans soul is treasure I intend to open up to the Lord.

[Void Image]

Again insulting me and calling me stupid... Proving my point.
You took my statement out of context. I only said that evolution was less stupid than the young earth.

What is so sound about the evidence for evolution if the very change in evolution has NEVER been observed?

Seeing as your entire belief system is based on unobserved events recorded in a textbook, I'll just pass this one up, and I won't even ask what Ed Blythe has to do with anything.

Oh please, as if that says anything about the level of truth in the theory.

It says volumes, because the majority of the people who decide what is best to teach the children of America chose what makes sense to us at this point in time over what does not. You yourself have in the past used the number of faithful christians as proof that your beliefs are true.

This is what Christians do not like, the complete mockery of what they believe in, what you do quite well.

........keep it to yourself and problem solved.


Every mans soul is treasure I intend to open up to the Lord.


In several years of debating atheism and theism, I have made an observation. Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, "Nothing - I have faith in my god." Although such people may well exist, I personally have yet to meet a theist who would acknowledge even the possibility that his belief was in error. Many theists, by their own admission, structure their beliefs so that no evidence could possibly disprove them. In short, they are closed-minded, and have been taught to be closed-minded. (For more on this, see "Thoughts in Captivity".)

In light of this, it is ironic that atheists are often accused of being the closed-minded ones. Fundamentalist proselytizers very frequently claim that we are hard-hearted, that we are dogmatic and irrational, that we reject God based on preconceived bias, and so on. Such claims result from psychological projection. Incapable of coping with the fact that there are some people who genuinely do not believe in their god, these theists simply deny that such people exist, and instead insist that everyone thinks the same way they do. Therefore, people who reach different conclusions than them must have some secret ulterior motive for not believing. This is truly ridiculous, but unfortunately, some people really believe it.

[brainpan]

Every mans soul is treasure I intend to open up to the Lord.Your honesty and reasoned debate has certainly drawn more to Christ in this forum, nobody could deny that fact. Glory!

[mataj]

I went through an atheist phase that ended about a year and a half ago. Anyway, when I returned to Catholicism and looked back, I decided that I had been far too pissed off at the order of things. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but when you spend all of your time directing hatred against organized religion, it really doesn't make life better for you.Christ said: "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23). That means, that one is either with Christ, or against him, there is no other option. Consecutively, one is either with organized religious people, or against them. Personally, I prefer to be disdained and/or hated by such folks because I disdain and/or hate them back, than to be hated because I don't love them enough.

[burntgorilla]

Most atheists aren't angry against religion. Maybe you were just going through an angry teen phase.

By the way, mataj, is English your first language? I never thought about it until you posted in the "Your Job" thread. If it's not, you are extremely good at it.

[TomAZ]

Why would an Atheist be "pissed off at the world" for merely rejecting superstition?:confused: :confused:

[Ethos]

I must agree with TomAZ's confusion. There is no reason for an atheist to be any more or less "pissed off" at the world than any other individual.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

If anything, I would think that atheisits would not be pissed off at the world but would be comfortable with it, considering that their eggs are all in that basket. The world is in conformance to their ideology.

[Ethos]

If anything, I would think that atheisits would not be pissed off at the world but would be comfortable with it, considering that their eggs are all in that basket. The world is in conformance to their ideology.

On what basis can you support this conclusion? Atheism is only a rejection of belief in a supernatural, life-controlling entity. Beyond this very basic statement, there is no universal set of beliefs which may be attributed to all atheists.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

On what basis can you support this conclusion? Atheism is only a rejection of belief in a supernatural, life-controlling entity. Beyond this very basic statement, there is no universal set of beliefs which may be attributed to all atheists.

Ethos

Atheists align with Humanism, do they not?

[Ethos]

Atheists align with Humanism, do they not?

Some may, others do not. Again I will explain there is not a universal doctrine involved.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

Some may, others do not. Again I will explain there is not a universal doctrine involved.

Ethos


Really, then if not humanism, then what? Does anybody have a link to data to show the breakdown on this?

[Ethos]

Really, then if not humanism, then what? Does anybody have a link to data to show the breakdown on this?

It is unlikely any large studies have been done to give any sort of breakdown on atheistic belief sets. The mistake you continue to make is equating atheism with any other religion. There is not a cohesive framework of dogma for the atheist, which would obviously make categorizing this very minor fraction of society extremely difficult.

Atheism is inherently hard to quantify. This means you may need to bring yourself beyond the personal need to do so.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

It is unlikely any large studies have been done to give any sort of breakdown on atheistic belief sets. The mistake you continue to make is equating atheism with any other religion. There is not a cohesive framework of dogma for the atheist, which would obviously make categorizing this very minor fraction of society extremely difficult.

Atheism is inherently hard to quantify. This means you may need to bring yourself beyond the personal need to do so.

Ethos

Actually, I don't equate it to any religion, I equate it to a subset of the population that has a common belief. The common belief, in the stricktest sence, is that there is no God. This group of people should also have some other commonalities in regards to philosophical ideology. This is mainly constitued by humanism, naturalism, materialism or some other "ism", but their common thread would be focused on the current life of an individual since there is no after life to speak of in their view.

"This means you may need to bring yourself beyond the personal need to do so." - don't undertand what you mean here.

[Ethos]

This group of people should also have some other commonalities in regards to philosophical ideology. This is mainly constitued by humanism, naturalism, materialism or some other "ism", but their common thread would be focused on the current life of an individual since there is no after life to speak of in their view.


You are mistaken. There is no "should have" in this group beyond a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Otherwise an atheist may believe in an afterlife, or they may not. Some actually observe various eastern spiritualities that do not dictate a god (certain sects of Buddhism come to mind.) Many are naturalists, many are materialists, but this is by no means required.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up. Could you give me an example of a eastern spirituality, that doesn't have a God but an afterlife, that some atheists adhere to?

I know you said certain sects of Buddhism. Since you know, what sects?

[Ethos]

oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up. Could you give me an example of a eastern spirituality, that doesn't have a God but an afterlife, that some atheists adhere to?

I know you said certain sects of Buddhism. Since you know, what sects?



Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God in its soteriology. Indeed most Asian religions (with the possible exception of some extremely devotional forms of Hinduism) are essentially non-theistic, in that God does not occupy the central place that is accorded to him in monotheistic religious traditions. But Buddhism goes beyond most of these other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and the role of humans in it (see section "The God-Concept and Buddhist Principles" below).

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm

[neo of the mind]

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm

ok, so Buddhism has no God or Creator per se, but from what I have read, there is no re-incarnation, but rather a rebirth. So you don't come back as your self because there is no self and eventually, you don't come back at all.

So this is not compatible with the notion of a true after life, in the sense that YOU don't come back and what does come back, eventully stops.

It also states that you don't really exist...

So saying all of that, what really is the point of it then? Life that is, according to Buddhism? Granted I have only read a small amount, but at this point, it doesn't seem like Buddhism shows an actual purpose for existence...or should I say, not really existence.

[Ethos]

ok, so Buddhism has no God or Creator per se, but from what I have read, there is no re-incarnation, but rather a rebirth. So you don't come back as your self because there is no self and eventually, you don't come back at all.

So this is not compatible with the notion of a true after life, in the sense that YOU don't come back and what does come back, eventully stops.

It also states that you don't really exist...

So saying all of that, what really is the point of it then? Life that is, according to Buddhism? Granted I have only read a small amount, but at this point, it doesn't seem like Buddhism shows an actual purpose for existence...or should I say, not really existence.

I couldn't answer your questions appropriately as I am not a Buddhist. At the same time I am unsure if your are in any position to judge another religion's validity, especially when that judgement is being based on a comparison to your own.

In any event, the point here is not to argue what Buddhism is or how it is structured, but to show there is not a standard set of beliefs maintained by atheists in general.

Ethos

[FlyingGuineapig]

So saying all of that, what really is the point of it then? Life that is, according to Buddhism? Granted I have only read a small amount, but at this point, it doesn't seem like Buddhism shows an actual purpose for existence...or should I say, not really existence.

Buddhism's purpose is primarily concerned with understanding and escaping from suffering (and helping others escape from suffering). It doesn't really concern itself about why that existence came about - it is what it is. If I recall, in one of the teachings, Buddha is asked if there is a God, and his response is basically that he doesn't know, and if there is one, well, there's still all this suffering, and God isn't going to solve the problem of your suffering for you. It's more agnostic ("whether or not there's a God is unknown") rather than atheist ("there is no God").

[neo of the mind]

I couldn't answer your questions appropriately as I am not a Buddhist. At the same time I am unsure if your are in any position to judge another religion's validity, especially when that judgement is being based on a comparison to your own.

In any event, the point here is not to argue what Buddhism is or how it is structured, but to show there is not a standard set of beliefs maintained by atheists in general.

Ethos

Your jumping ahead of me. I am not judging it yet, because I don't have enough undertanding of it.

[neo of the mind]

So then, Buddhism is not really compatible with atheism since it leaves open the possibility at minimum that there is a God.

We are back to square one, for an example of a religion/spirituality that an atheist would follow that does not have a God or possibility of a God AND an afterlife.

[Ethos]

So then, Buddaism is not really compatible with atheism since it leaves open the possibility at minimum that there is a God.

We are back to square one, for an example of a religion/spirituality that an atheist would follow that does not have a God or possibility of a God AND an afterlife.

You might be correct if atheism meant a refusal to accept the existence of a god. It does not.

Ethos

[FlyingGuineapig]

You might be correct if atheism meant a refusal to accept the existence of a god. It does not.

Ethos

Hmm, I'm a bit confused - the dictionary defines atheism as "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods" (dictionary.com). Now, that is a slightly different than saying "a refusal to accept the existance of God", but I'm curious at how you're interpretting the meaning of it.

[brainpan]

So then, Buddhism is not really compatible with atheism since it leaves open the possibility at minimum that there is a God.If atheism can be described as lacking a belief in God, and it can, then there is no necessary contradiction in terms.

[Strel]

Taoism is another example. In its pure (old) form and in Western Reform Taoism, there is no "God" in the sense of an "entity". There is only the Tao.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm

"We believe in the formless and eternal Tao, and we recognize all personified deities as being mere human constructs. We reject hatred, intolerance, and unnecessary violence, and embrace harmony, love and learning, as we are taught by Nature. We place our trust and our lives in the Tao, that we may live in peace and balance with the Universe, both in this mortal life and beyond." Creed of the Western Reform Taoist Congregation 1


While the Tao is recognized as the First Cause of the Universe, there is nothing about it that suggests a personage or being of any sort - nor even guiding intelligence. Rather than the supernatural Creator of the Abrahamic religions, the Tao is about a natural as it gets.

A physicist friend and myself decided (over much alcohol one night) that the Tao is the symphony of "sound" (vibrations) made by all the strings in the Universe - if you buy into string theory that is.

Makes a lot more sense than Genesis. Ideazan, I think the other day, said that eastern religions have descriptions of the Universe that make more sense than Western explanations.

[brainpan]

Hmm, I'm a bit confused - the dictionary defines atheism as "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods" (dictionary.com).Keep reading, your source offered more than one definition!

2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

[Ethos]

Hmm, I'm a bit confused - the dictionary defines atheism as "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods" (dictionary.com). Now, that is a slightly different than saying "a refusal to accept the existance of God", but I'm curious at how you're interpretting the meaning of it.

I hesitate to define atheism in any single way because, as I've said many times already, there is not a standard set of beliefs associated with atheists.

Non-belief is not the same as believing something cannot exist.

The Pink Unicorn example is easily used in this context - I do not currently believe pink unicorns exist, but I would not be adverse to altering that non-belief if presented with evidence to the contrary.

Ethos

[brainpan]

Taoism is another example. In its pure (old) form and in Western Reform Taoism, there is no "God" in the sense of an "entity". There is only the Tao.How about Confucianism? Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/confuciu.htm)

[FlyingGuineapig]

I hesitate to define atheism in any single way because, as I've said many times already, there is not a standard set of beliefs associated with atheists.

Non-belief is not the same as believing something cannot exist.

The Pink Unicorn example is easily used in this context - I do not currently believe pink unicorns exist, but I would not be adverse to altering that non-belief if presented with evidence to the contrary.

Ethos

OK, I guess I'd term that "agnostic" ("skeptical about the existence of God" / doubtful, noncommittal, etc). What's the difference between agnostics and atheists in your definitions?

[Ethos]

OK, I guess I'd term that "agnostic" ("skeptical about the existence of God" / doubtful, noncommittal, etc). What's the difference between agnostics and atheists in your definitions?

One of commitment, of course. In actuality the line tends to be brief. In the case of an atheist, there is no doubt. If doubt arises, they no longer qualify as a true atheist.

Ethos

[brainpan]

OK, I guess I'd term that "agnostic"That's not the best term. Strel doesn't claim that knowledge of god(s), such as the Pink Unicorn, is impossible--the original definition of agnostic--only that he doubts the existence of such things.

[Strel]

That's not the best term. Strel doesn't claim that knowledge of god(s), such as the Pink Unicorn, is impossible--the original definition of agnostic--only that he doubts the existence of such things.

I'm just one of those odd people that doesn't expect the Universe to make sense. Why should it have to?

[Strel]

http://www.reformtaoism.org/table.html

An illustrative table comparing the theology of several major religions.

[Dutch]

I'm consider myself an athiest. I do believe athiests, on this forum, often display an ill disguised animosity towards christians. I find this discrimination strange, and more than a little troubling.

[Strel]

I'm consider myself an athiest. I do believe athiests, on this forum, often display an ill disguised animosity towards christians. I find this discrimination strange, and more than a little troubling.



I think that if you look a little closer, how certain "Christians" on this board are treated has more to do with their refusal to recognize errors of logic and wholesale proselytizing than it does with their status as "Christians" per se.

Some Christians deserved to get yelled at, some don't.

[Dutch]

I think that if you look a little closer, how certain "Christians" on this board are treated has more to do with their refusal to recognize errors of logic and wholesale proselytizing than it does with their status as "Christians" per se.

Some Christians deserved to get yelled at, some don't.


Strel, I think that's a very good point. I think in the future I'll try to look a little deeper into the basis of some of the remarks made about christians and christianity. :thinking:

[Strel]

It is also a matter of terminology. "Christians" is short and convenient, but too general a term for the sub-type of Christian I am talking about.

And even then, it's not their Christianity that gives me hives. It's the fundamentalism to the point where they will deny demonstrable facts and claim the sky isn't blue, etc., based on a twisted idea of faith that approaches mental illness. I'd feel the same way if they were fundamentalist worshippers of the Flying Purple Spaghetti monster (bless his Noodly Appendages).

IMHO - regardless of which religious context in which it occurs - this "fundamentalism" is a destructive and dangerous way to think. Any world view that maintains it is OK to make decisions and hold beliefs at odds with objective reality is not going to lead to positive results.

[sub_zer0]

It is also a matter of terminology. "Christians" is short and convenient, but too general a term for the sub-type of Christian I am talking about.

And even then, it's not their Christianity that gives me hives. It's the fundamentalism to the point where they will deny demonstrable facts and claim the sky isn't blue, etc., based on a twisted idea of faith that approaches mental illness. I'd feel the same way if they were fundamentalist worshippers of the Flying Purple Spaghetti monster (bless his Noodly Appendages).

So what have I said that is such a denial of, "demonstratable facts"?

[Ethos]

IMHO - regardless of which religious context in which it occurs - this "fundamentalism" is a destructive and dangerous way to think. Any world view that maintains it is OK to make decisions and hold beliefs at odds with objective reality is not going to lead to positive results.


I would qualify this in a moderately different way. A belief at odds with reality is not necessarily going to offer negative results. The inability to accept a particular personal belief may be wrong is what I would consider a very dangerous world view. This type of perspective has the potential to erode both the liberties of other people, as well as any possibility of compromise or consideration of alternative viewpoints.

Ethos

[Strel]

I would qualify this in a moderately different way. A belief at odds with reality is not necessarily going to offer negative results.

Not necessarily...or not when applied to a particular case. But as an overall trend, someone who thinks this way is much more likely to be disastrously or destructively wrong about something at some point. An example that comes to mind is refusing medical treatment, or starting a war to foment the End Times, etc. Or drowning your kids in the bathtub so Satan doesn't get them. These are extremes, but these extremes are made possible by the predicate that "faith" overrides reason. To me, that is the difference between a religious person and a fundamentalist. If someone is willing to believe, for example, that the world is 6000 years old despite astronomical (literally) evidence to the contrary, what else will they swallow?

The inability to accept a particular personal belief may be wrong is what I would consider a very dangerous world view. This type of perspective has the potential to erode both the liberties of other people, as well as any possibility of compromise or consideration of alternative viewpoints.

Naturally, but where does this attitude come from more often? From secularists, or fundamentalists? What about when one side has reality on its side?

Are all views and opinions valid, no matter how ridiculous, insensible or even dangerous?

[Ethos]

If someone is willing to believe, for example, that the world is 6000 years old despite astronomical (literally) evidence to the contrary, what else will they swallow?

Naturally, but where does this attitude come from more often? From secularists, or fundamentalists? What about when one side has reality on its side?

Are all views and opinions valid, no matter how ridiculous, insensible or even dangerous?

As a matter of example, believing the world to be 6000 years old is not harmful to anyone. You rightly point out that such a belief does not exist independently - which is to say one does not ordinarily come upon someone who holds this belief alone, but also a variety of other significantly more dangerous doctrines.

Monotheistic faiths have the unfortunate habit of encouraging and/or demanding the death, destruction, and demonization of non-conformists as a part of their dogmatic structure.

Eventually we must realize that while the thought process used to accept both as ultimate Truth is the same, belief in both are not mutually inclusive. I am unwilling to consider a Young Earther as inherently "dangerous" until such time as they exhibit a belief in other, less innocuous portions of the Old Testament (such as Leviticus.)

Ethos

[Strel]

As a matter of example, believing the world to be 6000 years old is not harmful to anyone. You rightly point out that such a belief does not exist independently - which is to say one does not ordinarily come upon someone who holds this belief alone, but also a variety of other significantly more dangerous doctrines.

I think it is arguable as to whether holding such a view is harmful or not. I can probably furrow my brow and think of a context in which it would not be a good thing.

But I'm not talking about particular cases, but the overall tendency to reject facts when they conflict with faith, instead of trying to either reconcile the discrepancy or adjust the beliefs. If they can do it in the case of the age of the Earth, then what else?

Monotheistic faiths have the unfortunate habit of encouraging and/or demanding the death, destruction, and demonization of non-conformists as a part of their dogmatic structure.

Here here. One of the many reason I am not overly fond of the Abrahamic tradition.

Eventually we must realize that while the thought process used to accept both as ultimate Truth is the same, belief in both are not mutually inclusive. I am unwilling to consider a Young Earther as inherently "dangerous" until such time as they exhibit a belief in other, less innocuous portions of the Old Testament (such as Leviticus.)

I get the idea you don't watch a lot of TBN. Some of the stuff I see and hear coming from the Religious Right, not to mention fundamentalists of other faiths, IS inherently dangerous IMHO. We can already see the kind of damage someone can do, when they think they are going to Paradise for killing Jewish civlilans, for example. Or evangelicals backing a move to start Armageddon, thinking they are just playing along with God's Plan, they create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We don't need that kind of trouble. I think the Taliban and your average YEC both suffer from the same disease. Only the symtoms and severity differ.

[neo of the mind]

and there we have it folks. The rantings of a person filled with irrational hate.

[mataj]

and there we have it folks. The rantings of a person filled with irrational hate.Nah, that's rational hate.

[Meek Heir]

and there we have it folks. The rantings of a person filled with irrational hate.

Actually, Strel doesn't sound hateful at all. Worried, yes. Hateful, no.

[Ethos]

I get the idea you don't watch a lot of TBN. Some of the stuff I see and hear coming from the Religious Right, not to mention fundamentalists of other faiths, IS inherently dangerous IMHO. We can already see the kind of damage someone can do, when they think they are going to Paradise for killing Jewish civlilans, for example. Or evangelicals backing a move to start Armageddon, thinking they are just playing along with God's Plan, they create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'll admit to viewing very little television, but the brief moments I have seen of the Trinity Broadcasting Network make it seem as dangerous as any other televised entertainment. I suspect the average viewer follows TBN's daily instructions as often as someone might attempt to replicate scripting from Fear Factor.

Ethos

[burntgorilla]

Is atheism, to all of you, the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is no god? I have always taken atheism to mean that someone believes that there is no god, just as fervently as a theist believes that there is a god. Likewise, I have heard some people say that agnosticism is the belief that you can never know for sure if there is a god or not. Again, there is the belief thing. I consider myself agnostic, but in the sense that I simply don't know if there is a god. I consider it unlikely, so in that sense I lean towards atheism, but I will not outright say that there is no god, because I don't know for sure.

[Ethos]

Is atheism, to all of you, the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is no god? I have always taken atheism to mean that someone believes that there is no god, just as fervently as a theist believes that there is a god. Likewise, I have heard some people say that agnosticism is the belief that you can never know for sure if there is a god or not. Again, there is the belief thing. I consider myself agnostic, but in the sense that I simply don't know if there is a god. I consider it unlikely, so in that sense I lean towards atheism, but I will not outright say that there is no god, because I don't know for sure.

Without evidence of a god, it is hard to justify a belief in the same. Based on this statement, I do not currently believe a god exists. I do not consider this a "fervent" ideology because it rests on a simple lack of evidence, not an emotive claim or dogmatic structure.

Ethos

[sub_zer0]

Without evidence of a god, it is hard to justify a belief in the same. Based on this statement, I do not currently believe a god exists. I do not consider this a "fervent" ideology because it rests on a simple lack of evidence, not an emotive claim or dogmatic structure.

Ethos

Romans 1:20-23:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

[Dangerrmouse]

You have to watch for those invisible attributes!

[sub_zer0]

You have to watch for those invisible attributes!

Absolutely wrong, the inivisble attributes are clearly seen and understood by the world and universe we see, so you are without excuse.

[Ethos]

Romans 1:20-23:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

My apologies; I remain unimpressed.

Ethos

[sub_zer0]

My apologies; I remain unimpressed.

Ethos

That is fine with me, I am not here to impress you but to declare the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Just know you are without excuse.

[burntgorilla]

Without evidence of a god, it is hard to justify a belief in the same. Based on this statement, I do not currently believe a god exists. I do not consider this a "fervent" ideology because it rests on a simple lack of evidence, not an emotive claim or dogmatic structure.

Ethos

Yes, but not believing in the existence of a god is subtly different to believing that there is no god. The former accepts the possibility that they are wrong, whereas the second is a belief as strong as that of theists.

[Scaryclouds]

All we're saying is believe what you want, but keep it to yourself. I don't wander around telling everyone to be an atheist.

I know what you are saying (and I understand your view point) but these are different issues (sort of). As an atheists you believe once a person dies thats it, the party is over.

However a Christian (or any other religious person for that matter) believes there is life after death. In particularly many believe an atheists/agnostic will go to hell after death (personally I think theres more to it than that) so when a person is trying to convert you they are trying to save you from damnation. Typically its an act of love, though this too is sadly not always the case.

So while I see and understand your viewpoint I think its slightly misguided as converting a person to atheism and converting a person to Christtianity (or any religion) are not nessecarily equivilent things. I would like to talk more but I have to go now, if you need clarification please ask.

[Sgt Schultz]

Is atheism, to all of you, the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is no god? I have always taken atheism to mean that someone believes that there is no god, just as fervently as a theist believes that there is a god. Likewise, I have heard some people say that agnosticism is the belief that you can never know for sure if there is a god or not. Again, there is the belief thing. I consider myself agnostic, but in the sense that I simply don't know if there is a god. I consider it unlikely, so in that sense I lean towards atheism, but I will not outright say that there is no god, because I don't know for sure.

Do I believe in God? Not at all. Do I believe there might be entities that have abilities that would boggle the imagination of man? Very possible, but that doesn't mean I believe they are gods or that they need to be worshipped.

[Ethos]

As an atheists you believe once a person dies thats it, the party is over.

This is not necessarily correct. Please review earlier portions of this thread.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

"I have always taken atheism to mean that someone believes that there is no god, just as fervently as a theist believes that there is a god."

That's the definition I hold.

If an athesist doesn't fit this, then they are agnostic in my view.

[Ethos]

"I have always taken atheism to mean that someone believes that there is no god, just as fervently as a theist believes that there is a god."

That's the definition I hold.

If an athesist doesn't fit this, then they are agnostic in my view.

Dictating the beliefs of others based on personal definitions is not an entirely rational endeavor for anyone who is looking for a broader understanding of the respective topic.

Ethos

[AgentM]

I'm an atheist. I have no problem with people being religious, generally. When I dislike religion is when it tries to interfere with others, through politics or trying to convert people or what have you. I have a live and let live philosophy. If a person's religious, but doesnt try to interfere with others, we will have no problem. Even though we may disagree philisophically.

[Sgt Schultz]

I'm an atheist. I have no problem with people being religious, generally. When I dislike religion is when it tries to interfere with others, through politics or trying to convert people or what have you. I have a live and let live philosophy. If a person's religious, but doesnt try to interfere with others, we will have no problem. Even though we may disagree philisophically.

That sounds like 99% of the atheists that I know, including me. :D

[chukster8614]

That sounds like 99% of the atheists that I know, including me. :D
Me too.

Speaking as a pissed off atheist, I would rather people just keep their superstitious beliefs to themselves. There's nothing more annoying than someone bleating on and on about their God. No wonder there's so much bloody sectarian turmoil.

And more often than not it seems that the ones who are so keen on presenting themselves as moral authorities and who are above all forms of vice are the ones you have to watch out for.

And THAT is why a lot of atheists are pissed off. (I vote Yes, incidentally)

[neo of the mind]

Dictating the beliefs of others based on personal definitions is not an entirely rational endeavor for anyone who is looking for a broader understanding of the respective topic.

Ethos

That's the defintion that I read in dictionaries and such...it appears that you want to modify the standard definition to fit you personally, which according to you, is irrational.

[neo of the mind]

Yeah, that's it, atheists have no problems with Christians as long as they keep their Christianity hidden so that they appear to be atheists. LOL.

[Dangerrmouse]

here you go.

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


atheist

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

No mention of fervence in either of those, disbelief is enough, it seems.

[Ethos]

That's the defintion that I read in dictionaries and such...it appears that you want to modify the standard definition to fit you personally, which according to you, is irrational.

As I said, the definition you observe is incorrect. Please note Dangerrmouse's post.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

Yeah, that's it, atheists have no problems with Christians as long as they keep their Christianity hidden so that they appear to be atheists. LOL.

Some atheists are more tolerant than others, so your generalisation does not apply to all.
The christian god is not the only god atheists disbelieve in. They are not only non-prophet, they are an equal opportunity disbelief group.
Fundie believers of any god who get in your face about it can be equally tedious, even odious. ;)

[neo of the mind]

As I said, the definition you observe is incorrect. Please note Dangerrmouse's post.

Ethos

"someone believes that there is no god"

versus

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
and/or
"someone who denies the existence of god"

Wow, you are absolutely, right..if it were not for the fact that the definitions are all so similar, I would have thought they were the same. LOL.

[brainpan]

That's the defintion that I read in dictionaries and such...But I gave you the other defintion, and so did Dangermouse. So you continue to deny the other legitimate definition of the word.
it appears that you want to modify the standard definition to fit you personally, which according to you, is irrational.Just to make sure it sinks in this time, a person who lacks belief in god(s) and such is an atheist, and that definition can be pulled right from dictionaries of the English language, as I and Dangermouse have both reminded you.

[Scaryclouds]

This is not necessarily correct. Please review earlier portions of this thread.

Ethos

We do not care about our souls being saved,

dictionary.com

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


Then you are not an atheists.
I know there is a lot of different "classifications" or gray area between atheists and theists. But please let us not argue over semantics.

[Scaryclouds]

When I dislike religion is when it tries to interfere with others, through politics or trying to convert people or what have you.

Understandable, and while I can't say I speak for their means understand that part of being a Christian is sharing your belief with others.

Its important to realize that the common Christian belief is that those who do not follow Jesus are doomed to either an existance in purgatory or hell.

I guess the best analogy I can give is something from life:
I have had my share of crappy jobs in my relatively short life, and my parents would always tell me that it "builds character," and well quite frankly I did not believe them. I saw the job for what I thought at the time it was, a crappy job. But now I realize it has built character, if I had not had those jobs I would not be working as hard at school now to ensure I would never have to work at a job liek that gain. Thus those jobs despite my deepest reservation did in fact build character.

P.S.
I am not intending to send inuendos that atheists are some sort of ignorant children compared to christians, that would be ignorant ;).

[brainpan]

atheism-
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.-WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[Scaryclouds]

atheism-
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.-WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Is this in reference to my post?

[Scaryclouds]

Nevermind, slow internet connection.

[brainpan]

Is this in reference to my post?I would want to deny it if it was, but I included it to clarify my earlier posting to neo.

[Craig]

Are atheists too pissed off at the world? No, I don't think so. Atheists have no more reason to be angry at the world than anyone else does. I've noticed that a lot of atheists are very similar to Christians in their basic, day to day interactions. In fact, if someone grabbed a random group of atheists and a random group of Christians and put them into a room together, you'd be hard pressed to identify who was who, until the subject of religion came up.

Are atheists more likely to be pissed off at religions and the religious? Yes, I'd say so. But that doesn't mean that we all necessarily are. Most atheists don't give a lot of thought on religion on a daily basis unless the subject comes up. So, while I think atheists are more likely to be pissed off, that doesn't mean that all are angry.

[Scaryclouds]

In fact, if someone grabbed a random group of atheists and a random group of Christians and put them into a room together, you'd be hard pressed to identify who was who,

I think this is an important thing for everybody to realize.

[Sgt Schultz]

Yeah, that's it, atheists have no problems with Christians as long as they keep their Christianity hidden so that they appear to be atheists. LOL.

I have no problem with Christians until they start trying to "save" me or treat me differently the moment they discover I don't believe in their god. I don't go around and proclaim my religious views at the drop of a hat because it's no one elses business. I would like to be treated in a similar manner. That isn't too much to ask is it?

[burntgorilla]

I think atheists get annoyed when Christians see themselves as on a higher plane. For example, a guy was trying out for my band as a singer. I ask my drummer what he's like, and he answers "he's a Christian from ... ". What do I care if he's Christian? An atheist wouldn't say "he's an atheist from ..." or anything like that. Also people who drop overt hints about their faith. I just don't care.

[neo of the mind]

Most atheists don't give a lot of thought on religion on a daily basis unless the subject comes up.

Well, there is a lot of atheists thinking about it on a daily basis then, if this forum is any measurement. LOL.

[neo of the mind]

But I gave you the other defintion, and so did Dangermouse. So you continue to deny the other legitimate definition of the word.
Just to make sure it sinks in this time, a person who lacks belief in god(s) and such is an atheist, and that definition can be pulled right from dictionaries of the English language, as I and Dangermouse have both reminded you.

Definition that was given by another poster, that I agreed with:
"someone believes that there is no god"

Versus the definitions that are said to be correct:
1."One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
2."someone who denies the existence of god"
3: "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."


They all mean the same freakin thing and the fact that there are some on this forum that can't acknowledge that, just shows that they are arguing for argument sake.

[neo of the mind]

I have no problem with Christians until they start trying to "save" me or treat me differently the moment they discover I don't believe in their god. I don't go around and proclaim my religious views at the drop of a hat because it's no one elses business. I would like to be treated in a similar manner. That isn't too much to ask is it?

Scaryclouds already pointed it out. One of the major tenents of Christianity is to speak about it to others. If we deny that, then at least 50% of the purpose of Christianity is muted. How it is done can be improved, no doubt, but it won't be ended.

[Meek Heir]

Definition that was given by another poster, that I agreed with:
"someone believes that there is no god"

Versus the definitions that are said to be correct:
1."One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
2."someone who denies the existence of god"
3: "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."


They all mean the same freakin thing and the fact that there are some on this forum that can't acknowledge that, just shows that they are arguing for argument sake.

The point is that they are not the same freakin thing. The reason that first definition has both disbelieves and denies is because they are two different meanings. A lack of belief in something is incredibly different from denying somethings existance. Do you believe that I have a Quarter from 1822? Of course not, I have presented no evidence to make you believe that. But that does not mean that you deny it because it might be true.

Also, on a personal note, I hate when people complain about arguing semantics. The reason we have different words is because different words have different meanings.

[brainpan]

Definition that was given by another poster, that I agreed with:
"someone believes that there is no god"

Versus the definitions that are said to be correct:

3: "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."Definition #3 is just correct. There is no need to qualify it with, "said to be correct," which is ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean that it isn't necessarily so.
They all mean the same freakin thing and the fact that there are some on this forum that can't acknowledge that, just shows that they are arguing for argument sake.A positive denial is not the same thing as having a lack of belief. The terms serve to differentiate between explicit and implicit atheism.

[neo of the mind]

The point is that they are not the same freakin thing. The reason that first definition has both disbelieves and denies is because they are two different meanings. A lack of belief in something is incredibly different from denying somethings existance. Do you believe that I have a Quarter from 1822? Of course not, I have presented no evidence to make you believe that. But that does not mean that you deny it because it might be true.

Also, on a personal note, I hate when people complain about arguing semantics. The reason we have different words is because different words have different meanings.

LOL, then I guess you were hating yourself when you wrote the post.

[neo of the mind]

Definition #3 is just correct. There is no need to qualify it with, "said to be correct," which is ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean that it isn't necessarily so.
A positive denial is not the same thing as having a lack of belief. The terms serve to differentiate between explicit and implicit atheism.

The only reason I quantified it was because the definition that I quoted was implied as not being correct.

End result, you are either an atheist, agnostic or a deist.

[brainpan]

The only reason I quantified it was because the definition that I quoted was implied as not being correct.That's inexplicable. In no way did your response address the problem, and I don't know who implied your definition was incorrect.

Did you have anything further to add to the discussion on semantics? Have I explained the difference between implicit and explicit atheism to your satisfaction? Have I cleared up your confusion concerning the relationship between various defintions of the word atheism?

[Atticus]

Scaryclouds already pointed it out. One of the major tenents of Christianity is to speak about it to others. If we deny that, then at least 50% of the purpose of Christianity is muted. How it is done can be improved, no doubt, but it won't be ended.That's absolutely true, but the rules of the forum press us to debate, not proselytize. You can tell us what you believe. You can tell us why. But when you're purpose moves from debate to "preaching and teaching," you've crossed a line. Nobody signed up for that.

[neo of the mind]

That's inexplicable. In no way did your response address the problem, and I don't know who implied your definition was incorrect.

Did you have anything further to add to the discussion on semantics? Have I explained the difference between implicit and explicit atheism to your satisfaction? Have I cleared up your confusion concerning the relationship between various defintions of the word atheism?

Do you think that talking down to me is going to accomplish anything positive in a conversation? But that's not the purpose is it?

[neo of the mind]

That's absolutely true, but the rules of the forum press us to debate, not proselytize. You can tell us what you believe. You can tell us why. But when you're purpose moves from debate to "preaching and teaching," you've crossed a line. Nobody signed up for that.

If that's a part of the forum rules, then you can enforce that when it occurs. If it is not a part of the forum rules then you can make it a rule or ignore the post. Once another poster responds, then grounds of this claim are dismissed.

[brainpan]

Do you think that talking down to me is going to accomplish anything positive in a conversation? But that's not the purpose is it?The purpose for me is to bring discussions to successful conclusions. You held an erronious position that implict and explicit atheism are identical, I have proven that wrong with evidence.

I thought you might have something further to add, or you might even want me to explain your error in further detail. If not, then we can move on. By the way, it is polite to acknowledge when you concede a point. That way, we can avoid these kinds of meta-discussions.

[brainpan]

If that's a part of the forum rules, then you can enforce that when it occurs. If it is not a part of the forum rules then you can make it a rule or ignore the post. Once another poster responds, then grounds of this claim are dismissed.I think his point was that your complaint is groundless. You should not be hurt, angered, or surprised when your blatant proselytization is not well received.

[neo of the mind]

The purpose for me is to bring discussions to successful conclusions. You held an erronious position that implict and explicit atheism are identical, I have proven that wrong with evidence.

I thought you might have something further to add, or you might even want me to explain your error in further detail. If not, then we can move on. By the way, it is polite to acknowledge when you concede a point. That way, we can avoid these kinds of meta-discussions.

That's funny, I haven't conceded that my defintion was wrong but you continue to speak as if I did and need further help from you.

[Meek Heir]

LOL, then I guess you were hating yourself when you wrote the post.

No, I hate it when people complain about other people arguing semantics. I did not complain that anyone else was arguing semantics, I argued semantics because the semantics were very important to the discussion of the definition of athiesm.

Because you are wrong, you only have half the definition of athiesm in your first interpretation. You are missing a very important half which makes up a great deal more athiests then the half you origionally recognized.

[neo of the mind]

No, I hate it when people complain about other people arguing semantics. I did not complain that anyone else was arguing semantics, I argued semantics because the semantics were very important to the discussion of the definition of athiesm.

Because you are wrong, you only have half the definition of athiesm in your first interpretation. You are missing a very important half which makes up a great deal more athiests then the half you origionally recognized.

I was not wrong in the context that the quote was brought up...further changes in the discussion by atheists to diffrentiate themselves, is what made it less accurate to them.

I still hold that a person is an atheist if that someone, "believes that there is no god", regardless if they deny his existence or has a lack of evidence to believe.

[brainpan]

That's funny, I haven't conceded that my defintion was wrong but you continue to speak as if I did and need further help from you.Let's have your position. Do you deny that you were wrong to state that the two definitions of atheism are the same?

[neo of the mind]

Let's have your position. Do you deny that you were wrong to state that the two definitions of atheism are the same?

See my response to Meek Heir. That's my position.

[brainpan]

See my response to Meek Heir. That's my position.That doesn't answer the question, neo. You flat out stated that the two definitions of atheism are identical. I have proven that to be incorrect. Do you wish to offer a rebuttal or have you abandoned your argument?

[neo of the mind]

I'll post my quote again since you didn't read it.

"I still hold that a person is an atheist if that someone, "believes that there is no god", regardless if they deny his existence or has a lack of evidence to believe."

You posted the following:

"But I gave you the other defintion, and so did Dangermouse. So you continue to deny the other legitimate definition of the word."

Notice your words - "the other legitimate definition"

This proves by your words that my definition was legitimate at the time. and therefore my response to Meek Heir was correct:

"I was not wrong in the context that the quote was brought up...further changes in the discussion by atheists to diffrentiate themselves, is what made it less accurate to them."

[neo of the mind]

and what should end this debate as far as I am concerned.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
atheist
One entry found for atheist.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity


Cambridge

Definition
atheist Show phonetics
noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
Compare agnostic.


Oxford

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.


Now you guys may have a personal definition specific to you as individuals, but as far as a standard definition, I will go by these guys over you all, no offense.

[neo of the mind]

If you don't believe me, read what one of your fellow brethen says about it. LOL

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

[::Major_Baker::]

my dad was an athiest, and I guess you could say he was pissed off at the world. Specifically how religion is causing so much pain,suffering, and death all over the world. I guess he thought that if no one was religious, we wouldn't have as much to be mad at eachother for.

Which actually makes sense.

[Atticus]

If you don't believe me, read what one of your fellow brethen says about it. LOL

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htmPosting this link adds very little to your debate that your dictionary reference did not. Implying that anyone on this board is "bretheren" with that site's owners comes very close to trolling. Please desist.

[Meek Heir]

I still hold that a person is an atheist if that someone, "believes that there is no god", regardless if they deny his existence or has a lack of evidence to believe.

And when are you going to realize that believeing that there is no god is different then lacking a belief in god.

[neo of the mind]

And when are you going to realize that believeing that there is no god is different then lacking a belief in god.

I posted a link that refutes that position quite well. It can not be considered as a biased link either.

[Strel]

I think his point was that your complaint is groundless. You should not be hurt, angered, or surprised when your blatant proselytization is not well received.



No more hurt, angered or surprised than the average telemarketer who people hang up on.

[neo of the mind]

Posting this link adds very little to your debate that your dictionary reference did not. Implying that anyone on this board is "bretheren" with that site's owners comes very close to trolling. Please desist.

I think it added an opinion from a biased position of another atheist.

I don't see the trolling aspect or the issue with bretheren, when I am speaking specifically to a segment of the board that adheres to the basic construct of the website. I woudn't doubt it if they get a lot of their info from the site. That being said, you and the other mods are the sole arbitrators of what constitues trolling, so I won't post the link again.

[brainpan]

I'll post my quote again since you didn't read it.I did read it. You just didn't bother to answer the challenge to prove implicit and explicit atheism are identical or else admit defeat. Anyway, let's review your earlier statements:
"I have always taken atheism to mean that someone believes that there is no god, just as fervently as a theist believes that there is a god." That's the definition I hold. If an athesist doesn't fit this, then they are agnostic in my view.You are clearly incorrect in that view. A person who lacks the ferver you describe can still be an atheist.
atheism-
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.-WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[neo of the mind]

I did read it. You just didn't bother to answer the challenge to prove implicit and explicit atheism are identical or else admit defeat. Anyway, let's review your earlier statements:
You are clearly incorrect in that view. A person who lacks the ferver you describe can still be an atheist.
atheism-
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.-WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I completely demolished your arguments by giving legitimate definitions from various sources, including a link that describes and disputes your specific argument.

[....]

[brainpan]

How does your link demolish established definitions contained in dictionaries of the English language?

[neo of the mind]

How does your link demolish established definitions contained in dictionaries of the English language?

The definition I went by coresponds to that of Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, which trumps the dictionary of brainpan.

The link, if you read the 4 freakin pages devoted to your specific argument, destroys your argument.

[....]

[steveksux]

Also, on a personal note, I hate when people complain about arguing semantics. The reason we have different words is because different words have different meanings.Its not always even avoidable. Some people are suffering from homonymphobia. Unreasonable fear of words that sound the same. Or from the other definition of homonymphobia, unreasonable fear of homosexual nymphomaniacs. But those are not mere semantic differences... ;) :D Sometimes semantics are important to fight over. Other cases they're a merely an insignificant distraction from the point.

Randy.

[Atticus]

This thread has devolved into arguments over definitions--on which you will plainly not agree and which have gone far enough. Nobody wins. I'm closing the thread and I suggest we treat each other with more respect in the future.