Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Well I don't think god is real, and I find it hard not to laugh at iron age fairy tales. What does that make me in this new lingo? A laughtheist?
Aw hell... At this rate we are gonna end up with a whole new language system soon. LOL
The more the merrier
@John: "An atheist that "lacks theism"
Lack's is also negative. It appears in words like "lackluster" and "lackadaisical". King John (the villain in Robin Hood stories) was nicknamed "Lackland" by his own father because he wasn't expected to inherit large estates.
The implication is that atheists are deprived of some great thing that "normal" people have. I'd say the opposite is true. The scales have fallen from my eyes.
Technically, how are you supposed to interpret a phrase like I don't believe in abortion.
People obviously use it to mean they believe abortion is wrong. But the structure of the sentence allows it to also mean I dont have a belief in abortion.
Is there a proper way to know?
@John 61X Breezy: "But the structure of the sentence allows it to also mean I dont have a belief in abortion."
It's a flaw in the English language. To be perfectly clear, they should say either "I think abortion is wrong" or "I don't believe abortion is real." But when did people ever say what they mean? A similar flaw is used in the old joke: "Call me a taxi." "You're a taxi."
If we could express ourselves clearly and unambiguously all the time, would we stop killing each other or start killing each other?
another for your list:
If is used commonly to represent logical if and logical if and only if.
"An atheist that "lacks theism""
All atheists lack theism by definition, so we already have a word for it.
The two positions are not mutually exclusive. Your problem is you are not making a distinction between atheism and atheist. Atheism is a single position on a single claim nothing more or less. What an individual atheists thinks beyond that doesn't alter what atheism is, as unlike theism it has no accompanying doctrine or dogma. Just as not playing cricket doesn't require an adherence to rules and a dress code.
Of course I'm not distinguishing between atheism and atheist. I'm treating an atheist as a person for whom the definition of atheism is true. But given that definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, I'm describing atheism as whatever describes the people that label themselves atheists.
So far most reject the idea of God.
" I'm treating an atheist as a person for whom the definition of atheism is true. "
Oh good grief man, atheism is true for every single atheist, that's axiomatic, you've thrashed around here for 4 pages and got nowhere.
"'m describing atheism as whatever describes the people that label themselves atheists."
Expcet this is only one belief they lack, that's the distinction you are failing to grasp.
"So far most reject the idea of God."
And some collect stamps, so what?
Atheism is the absence or lack of belief in a deity or deities, an atheist is someone who lacks of belief in a deity or deities. It is that simple, and requires no new words or expressions. FYI I don't reject the idea of god anymore than I reject the idea of unicorns, I simply see no objective evidence they are real, and plenty of evidence that humans have a propensity to create fictional deities, which you yourself confirmed,when you stated you absolutely don't think Zeus is real.
I received plenty of good answers and interesting opinions; so I got just where I wanted.
You do in fact reject the idea of unicorns, do you not? You don't just lack belief in unicorns.
"You do in fact reject the idea of unicorns, do you not? "
No, I just don't think the idea describes something that is real.
"You don't just lack a belief in unicorns."
Yes, I do, and unless someone can present a definition that is falsifiable I have to be agnostic as well.
What does it mean to say I don't reject the idea of god anymore than I reject the idea of unicorns, if you don't reject the idea of unicorns?
The same thing it meant last time I explained it. Here it is verbatim...
" FYI I don't reject the idea of god anymore than I reject the idea of unicorns, I simply see no objective evidence they are real, and plenty of evidence that humans have a propensity to create fictional deities, which you yourself confirmed,when you stated you absolutely don't think Zeus is real."
Do you "reject" Superman, or Batman & Robin? I don't reject god, anymore than I reject unicorns, and exactly as I said last time, I simply have seen no objective evidence that either is real.
An atheist can be agnostic, as they're not mutually exclusive, and this is as true now as it was 4 pages ago.
I do reject Superman and Batman as fictional. But isn't rejecting unicorns, and not thinking the idea describes something that is real, the same thing?
Its difficult to converse when you don't follow a sequential format. You split arguments into ten separate responses, sprinkled across the forum. Don't expect me to keep track. You left our conversation on agnosticism hanging. As far as I'm concerned we've moved past that.
Reject
Verb
dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.
In this context I said I don't reject them any more than I reject god, I just don't believe they are real. So in what way do you feel Superman and Batman are inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty that doesn't involve them being fictional?
It's your thread title that wrongly assert atheists are not agnostics, if you have moved on why are you still posting in this thread? I have read nothing in this thread from you recanting your spurious claim.
I just don't believe they are real—what does that even mean without rejecting them?
I'm not sure how you expect me to judge superheroes, in a way that doesn't involve them being fictional.
"I'm not sure how you expect me to judge superheroes, in a way that doesn't involve them being fictional."
I don't expect it at all, IT WAS YOUR CLAIM that you reject them?
As I said I no more reject god than I reject unicorns, I simply don't believe they are real.
It's your thread title that wrongly assert atheists are not agnostics, A person can be both an atheist and agnostic, as they are not mutually exclusive.
I reject them on the basis that they're fiction, don't you?
In what way are you claiming they are inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty?
Now are you ever going to acknowledge that your thread title is erroneous, since an atheist can also be agnostic?
Say that again, just for fun.
The fun has been watching your tap dance slowly run out of steam.
Atheists can also be agnostic, and your thread assertion is nonsense. I have also now seen you claim you "reject" batman, that was quality entertainment.
John 6IX Breezy,
If Yahweh, the ethnocentric God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies, existed I would join the army that will fight against him even if we lost.
@Dio
Sign me up, Dio!
I'm inclined to agree, luckily no objective evidence has been demonstrated he is any more real than Huitzilopochtli.
"I would like you to define it. "
Atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
That took all 2 seconds.
I can tell it took 2 seconds. That question wasn't addressed to you. Yours is in the OP.
I never said it was addressed to me, and if you knew it took 2 seconds why ask for it?
Page 4 now, and nothing posted by you suggests you're not on another tedious fishing expedition to misrepresent atheism and atheists.
If you don't know what the difference is between agnosticism and atheism then look em up, and we needn't waste 4 pages watching you thrash about like this.
Pages