Atheism is simply LACK OF BELIEF in the existence God/s.

Why are some people trying to confuse themselves.

tintingz:
My goodness, you're just mixing everything up.

like what bro. maybe you are right

XxSabrinaxX:
I dont understand why we're trying to dissect atheism here. Atheism is simply a label that indicates that the person does not practice theism, or that the person is not a theist. He/she is an A-theist
Atheism makes no claims in itself. It must have emerged when a skeptical person heard another person make the dogmatic claim "a god exists"
It's based on not believing everything you're told; being skeptical. You're skeptical about lots of ideas and claims that you encounter every day. I've applied this skepticism to things your parents and grandparents called "unquestionable."
I didn't "want to become" an atheist, I just have an open mind and understand what the word atheist means.

Hmm. So if I don't go to church on Sunday, I am an atheist, or not a theist? I disagree. Or shall I say, not good enough for me!

I am an atheist. I am an atheist because there are no gods apart from those cooked up in the minds of those who believe in them. Gods only exist as figments of the imaginations in the mind.

for education purpose only, this link explain the taxonomy behind atheism definition.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

vaxx:
like what bro. maybe you are right

The OP already mentioned what atheist and agnostic atheist is, you sha want to argue.

tintingz:
The OP already mentioned what atheist and agnostic atheist is,

And you want me to swallow the ignorance. and as for arguing, leave that for the lawyers

tintingz:
Atheism is simply LACK OF BELIEF in the existence God/s.

Yet despite op already mentioning, you still claim its the above?

I suggest yo do not disregard vaxx's link.

Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

tintingz:
Atheism is simply LACK OF BELIEF in the existence God/s.

Why are some people trying to confuse themselves.

Exactly.

I don't care how prominent minds define it and to be honest, I don't think anyone should. I like the parable Matt Dillahunty talks about:

It is true that there is either an even or an odd number of grains of sand on earth (let's assume we have a clear definition of a grain and the number is unchanging). It's impossible to count them to make sure. Evenists claim there is an even number of grains. To them an a-evenist says "no, you have absolutely no justification for that claim". So they answer "ah, so you're an oddist"? Of course not. Even though these two propositions are mutually exclusive, there's absolutely no reason to believe either of them.

Everyone who tries to equate lack of belief with a belief of lack is an idiot, even if they are a professor of philosophy.

tintingz:
My goodness, you're just mixing everything up.

I've ignored him. I got no energy for that level of thinking.

Bacteriologist:


I've ignored him. I got no energy for that level of thinking.

stop being obtuse, what is the purpose of your knolwedge if it is full of ignorance . And what i am doing here is to brighting your understanding. i realised your post is full of the usual mantra

And if you think by ignoring we serve you well , so be it.

XxSabrinaxX:
I dont understand why we're trying to dissect atheism here. Atheism is simply a label that indicates that the person does not practice theism, or that the person is not a theist. He/she is an A-theist
Atheism makes no claims in itself. It must have emerged when a skeptical person heard another person make the dogmatic claim "a god exists"
It's based on not believing everything you're told; being skeptical. You're skeptical about lots of ideas and claims that you encounter every day. I've applied this skepticism to things your parents and grandparents called "unquestionable."
I didn't "want to become" an atheist, I just have an open mind and understand what the word atheist means.

It seems to be a difficult subject for some theists to wrap their heads around. They'll always say to someone who declares "I don't believe in god", well what do you believe then? As though one must believe in something. Some of them will even insist your nonbelief is a form of belief.

XxSabrinaxX:

Exactly.

I don't care how prominent minds define it and to be honest, I don't think anyone should. I like the parable Matt Dillahunty talks about:

It is true that there is either an even or an odd number of grains of sand on earth (let's assume we have a clear definition of a grain and the number is unchanging). It's impossible to count them to make sure. Evenists claim there is an even number of grains. To them an a-evenist says "no, you have absolutely no justification for that claim". So they answer "ah, so you're an oddist"? Of course not. Even though these two propositions are mutually exclusive, there's absolutely no reason to believe either of them.

Everyone who tries to equate lack of belief with a belief of lack is an idiot, even if they are a professor of philosophy.

Well said.

I wonder why some people just want to complicate things.

Bacteriologist:

I got no energy for that level of thinking.

Obviously, you don't have "energy for that level of thinking". Because rather than count the grains of sand to determine which is true, you'd "don't care how prominent minds define it", and insist those who do shouldn't either! Because, according to you, whether gods exist or not is a mutual exclusion. Despite the proper definition and meaning you yourself gave not admitting to holding a mutual exclusive view. And when the theists comes along and claims the number of sands is how they say it is, you claim they are "ignorant", "stupid", "illogical", "making up ridiculous conclusions" and "need to stop"!

Here's two definitions of Hypocrite, XxsabrinaxxX. Just so we know what it means.

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.

Hypocrisy is when one douchebag calls out another douchebag for being a douchebag, and the second douchebag responds to this by calling the first one a hypocrite.

vaxx:
stop being obtuse, what is the purpose of your knolwedge if it is full of ignorance . And what i am doing here is to brighting your understanding. i realised your post is full of the usual mantra

And if you think by ignoring we serve you well , so be it.

But that does not mean we wouldn't correct his errors, as you well know we would! Or the op would go propounding the same ignorance thread after thread misinforming everyone then some lazy theist would quote op to support their silly argument!

Besides, his thread was to correct such ignorance so we must help op!

budaatum:

But that does not mean we wouldn't correct his errors, as you well know we would! Or the op would go propounding the same ignorance thread after thread misinforming everyone then some lazy theist would quote op to support their silly argument!

Besides, his thread was to correct such ignorance so we must help op!

he sound too confidence with his ignorance.

budaatum:

Yet despite op already mentioning, you still claim its the above?

I suggest yo do not disregard vaxx's link.

Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

The position of atheism is plain and clear.

There's no proof, evidence and logical reason to believe God/s exist(especially personal gods), therefore atheists lack the belief of their existence. That's just it.

vaxx:
And you want me to swallow the ignorance. and as for arguing, leave that for the lawyers

ok

tintingz:
The position of atheism is plain and clear.

There's no proof, evidence and logical reason to believe God/s exist(especially personal gods), therefore atheists lack the belief of their existence. That's just it.

Some of us are telling you that there is sufficient evidence to categorically state that gods do not exist! And whatever anyone decides to believe is inconsequential and irrelevant, since the very idea of 'belief' stinks of theism!

vaxx:
he sound too confidence with his ignorance.

It is the ignorant who are always most confident! They, and those who actually know, I guess.

There's nothing wrong with atheism. The fault lies in human wisdom and the way things are interpreted. Theism is unjustifiable. That being said, strong atheists (those that assert that no gods exist) equally have a burden of proof.

tintingz:
The position of atheism is plain and clear.

There's no proof, evidence and logical reason to believe God/s exist(especially personal gods), therefore atheists lack the belief of their existence. That's just it.

Well said.

XxSabrinaxX:
That being said, strong atheists (those that assert that no gods exist) equally have a burden of proof.

To be honest, I really don't have any burden to prove to you that there are no gods, and I don't. But then, if I were a theist, I wouldn't be proving to you my god exists either, at least not in the way you'd be expecting. It is my opinion that everyone can determine whether gods exist or not, and what they exist for. Besides, attempting to prove to you either way is to assume you'd understand it if I slapped you in the face with it and stuck it in your eyes as if your mind worked like mine! buda does not ridicule herself by making out she is the equal of anyone!

budaatum:

To be honest, I really don't have any burden to prove to you that there are no gods, and I don't. But then, if I were a theist, I wouldn't be proving to you my god exists either, at least not in the way you'd be expecting. It is my opinion that everyone can determine whether gods exist or not, and what they exist for. Besides, attempting to prove to you either way is to assume you'd understand it if I slapped you in the face with it and stuck it in your eyes as if your mind worked like mine! buda does not ridicule herself by making out she is the equal of anyone!

As i've stated time without number, your belief in any deity is not my cup of tea until you start to shove it my face. To quote the late Christopher Hitchens:

"First, first I've said repeatedly that this stuff [(religion)] cannot be taken away from people, it is their favourite toy, and it will remain so as long - as [Sigmund] Freud said, in The Future Of An Illusion - it will remain that way as long as we're afraid of death and have that problem which is, I think, will likely be a very long time.

"Second, I hope I've made it clear, that I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and so on, and to share them with other people who come around and play with the toys. So that's absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don't bring the toys to my house, don't say my children must play with these toys, don't say my toys might be a condom - here we go again - are not allowed by their toys. I'm not going to have any of that.

"Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation. Is that finally clear? Have I got that across? [Audience applause.] Thank you." (May 7, 2007)

XxSabrinaxX:

As i've stated time without number, your belief in any deity is not my cup of tea until you start to shove it my face.

Wouldn't it be funny if you are imagining me shoving a belief in a deity in your face? It will be like it's a zebra, but you think it's a horse. Don't be surprised if you load your goods on it's back and it just runs off with it. Zebras don't do domestic like horses do.

budaatum:

Wouldn't it be funny if you are imagining me shoving a belief in a deity in your face? It will be like it's a zebra, but you think it's a horse. Don't be surprised if you load your goods on it's back and it just runs off with it. Zebras don't do domestic like horses do.

Lol. Budaatum, abeg

XxSabrinaxX:
There's nothing wrong with atheism. The fault lies in human wisdom and the way things are interpreted. Theism is unjustifiable. That being said, strong atheists (those that assert that no gods exist) equally have a burden of proof.

Hmmmmmm

budaatum:

That's not true! Remember the 70 something year old man who said he was 30 and the black girl who said she was caucasian? If I recall correctly, you called her deluded, and I bet if I put on my skirt, wear my bra, stick on high heels and call myself a man you'd tell me I'm deluded too or call me Bobriskyman, but many will still not let me in a toilet with their sons or throw me in jail with proper men for fear I might rape them.

One may declare oneself anything one wants to but that don't mean one is one.

budaatum:

Some of us are telling you that there is sufficient evidence to categorically state that gods do not exist!

Provide this evidence

Bacteriologist:


Provide this evidence

The evidence is that it is a belief. If it were provided believers would know.

budaatum:

The evidence is that it is a belief. If it were provided believers would know.

The evidence of the belief that gods do not exist is that it is a belief.

Does that really make sense to you?

vaxx:
lets start from here, what does it mean when some atheist says , i don't know if there is God?

It simply means, they don't have enough evidence to come to the conclusion that there's a god or gods

Bacteriologist:


The evidence of the belief that gods do not exist is that it is a belief.

Does that really make sense to you?

No that does not make any sense at all so why did you say it? Do you require evidence of a belief than that someone is doing the believing?