You can't say they are normal unless you choose to define what normal is. It depends on the culture. — Lone Wolf

Pedantry. I meant the typical or average person. I don't think it necessary to go into specifics.

A theist is one who believes in theism, so an atheist must be one who believes in atheism. No way around it. — Lone Wolf

No, they're circular definitions. An atheist, as I thought we'd established, given the definition that you yourself provided, is someone who has a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

It is a weak stance to attack a person, it merely proves the inability to counter the proposition. — Lone Wolf

Then why did you attack me? What I said was in retaliation to your offensive insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about. So please don't play the victim.

You are getting no where with your weak and conflicting definition of atheism. — Lone Wolf

This is absurd. I accepted the definition that you provided, so if you're criticising my definition, then you're criticising your own.

Sigh...you really don't get it do you. Atheism is either a denial or a disbelief in any god. Otherwise one cannot call oneself an atheist. It would be like a Christian denying or disbelieving that Jesus existed. That person would not be a Christian. It does not matter how strong or weak one believes or disbelieves something, either you accept there is a god or you don't. There is no middle ground on that, but one chooses how far to take it. There are strong religious people, say fundamentalist Muslims, and there are weak religious people, such as one who simply think a god exists. But they are still theists. The same goes for atheists. I really don't have time to explain basic ideas, so I'm done here. You clearly are in your own world and not even reading what I am posting. — Lone Wolf

So you've abandoned the definition that you provided? It said nothing of denial. You're being inconsistent. The irony here is that I have been paying closer attention to what you've been posting than would be convenient for you. When you defined atheism, I paid particular attention, and when you subsequently deviated from that definition and moved the goalposts, I also paid attention.

Pedantry. I meant the typical or average person. I don't think it necessary to go into specifics. — Sapientia

Average in western Europe? Average in the Far East?

No, they're circular definitions. An atheist, as I thought we'd established, given the definition that you yourself provided, is someone who has a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. — Sapientia

Mhm. You denied that definition, and I am not sure why.

Then why did you attack me? What I said was in retaliation to your offensive insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about. So please don't play the victim. — Sapientia

That you and I exist is proof that a superior being does exist. (I am that superior being). — Sapientia

Well, I could try to explain it to you, but an inferior being such as yourself couldn't possibly understand. — Sapientia

:s How have I insulted you? If it is in reference to the first post I made on this thread, I was not referring to you at all. I was referring to the general attributes of children. But clearly, you have attempted to insult me.

So you've abandoned the definition that you provided? It said nothing of denial. You're being inconsistent. The irony here is that I have been paying closer attention to what you've been posting than would be convenient for you. When you defined atheism, I paid particular attention, and when you subsequently deviated from that definition and moved the goalposts, I also paid attention. — Sapientia

No, I have not abandoned it. Please show me where I changed my stance, because I don't see it. You are the one who denied that atheists reject the belief of a god, which is in direct conflict with atheism. You went on to discuss the different levels of atheism, that weak atheists don't reject the idea of a god; and I countered that saying that would deny atheism in general. I agree that there are different levels of atheism, but the fundamental belief of it is that there it is likely there is no god.

Sappy, you had linked Bertrand Russell earlier in this thread (I think?), have you read this piece by him? It's a pretty concise little followup to his "Why I Am Not a Christian" -

http://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_6.php

To both of you, I'll share my own thoughts on the matter. I myself identify as an atheist with regard to the many theistic conceptions of God (and gods), all of those that are found in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism to an extent, and so on. That is, I do not believe in Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, yada yada yada. Yet, at the same time, I do not posit that I, or anyone, can have knowledge of "God" as a concept in and of itself. So, am I an agnostic or an atheist? Maybe both. If someone dares define this or that as being God, then I'll sit down and decide whether or not I believe in it. And if someone does not define God, then there's nothing for me to either believe in or not believe in. This has me ending up being labeled an ignostic I think, which is fine by me.

ou are the one who denied that atheists reject the belief of a god, which is in direct conflict with atheism. — Lone Wolf

Atheism rejects theism, it doesn't necessarily deny the possibility of there being, or not being, a God(s).

Average in western Europe? Average in the Far East? — Lone Wolf

Average in East Beleriand, Middle Earth, in the First Age.

Mhm. You denied that definition, and I am not sure why. — Lone Wolf

Ah yes, my apologies, I remember now. I denied it by saying "Yes... that's what I was telling you".

How have I insulted you? — Lone Wolf

I explained that already.

If it is in reference to the first post I made on this thread, I was not referring to you at all. I was referring to the general attributes of children. — Lone Wolf

I don't get it. Why would you think that when I just told you what I was referring to in the quote? To reiterate, I was referring to your rhetorical question which blatantly suggested that I don't even know what I'm saying. Not your first post. It was quite recent. If you actually go back over your recent replies, you should be able to find it quite easily.

But clearly, you have attempted to insult me. — Lone Wolf

Clearly you just don't get my humour. Honestly, I'm a little flummoxed to think that anyone could think I was actually being serious when I made those comments that you've quoted, apparently as examples of me being insulting.

I did leave you a helpful hint when I referred to British humour, which, according to Wikipedia, has "a strong theme of sarcasm... often with deadpan delivery".

No, I have not abandoned it. Please show me where I changed my stance, because I don't see it. — Lone Wolf

Why do I have to explain everything twice with you? I could hardly have been any clearer. I told you exactly what it was that was absent from the definition. All you have to do is compare the two, and it should be evident.

You are the one who denied that atheists reject the belief of a god... — Lone Wolf

This is absurd! I don't know how you've managed to reach a conclusion which is the opposite of what I did, but you'll have to get yourself out of this one. I ain't doin' it for ya.

I agree that there are different levels of atheism, but the fundamental belief of it is that there it is likely there is no god. — Lone Wolf

How many times is that now? You do realise that that's not what you said before. It changes every time! It's hard to keep up. This is the first time that you've mentioned likelihood. Originally, what you said was fundamental did not mention anything of likelihood.

I refuse to spoon feed you. You can see for yourself. I'll just note that you have been inconsistent and have been moving the goalposts.

If theism is the belief that there's a god, then atheism is the rejection of that belief. — Sapientia

This is what I have been saying all along, nothing more nothing less. You went on about the levels of atheism, and implied that weak atheists don't reject a god. You are the one moving the goalposts and changing the definitions.

Clearly you just don't get my humour. Honestly, I'm a little flummoxed to think that anyone could think I was actually being serious when I made those comments that you've quoted, apparently as examples of me being insulting.

I did leave you a helpful hint when I referred to British humour, which, according to Wikipedia, has "a strong theme of sarcasm... often with deadpan delivery". — Sapientia

I played along with your jokes, and equally made a few of my own while I was at it. Obviously you missed that part... I didn't realize it was unacceptable to have my own humor.

How many times is that now? You do realise that that's not what you said before. It changes every time! It's hard to keep up. This is the first time that you've mentioned likelihood. Originally, what you said was fundamental did not mention anything of likelihood. — Sapientia

Prove it.

I refuse to spoon feed you. You can see for yourself. I'll just note that you have been inconsistent and have been moving the goalposts. — Sapientia

Again, prove it. If you can't offer quotes of where I was off, then I am afraid I can't believe it. I am open for correction, if you would give some evidence of where I was inconsistent and moving the goalposts.

To both of you, I'll share my own thoughts on the matter. I myself identify as an atheist with regard to the many theistic conceptions of God (and gods), all of those that are found in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism to an extent, and so on. That is, I do not believe in Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, yada yada yada. Yet, at the same time, I do not posit that I, or anyone, can have knowledge of "God" as a concept in and of itself. So, am I an agnostic or an atheist? Maybe both. If someone dares define this or that as being God, then I'll sit down and decide whether or not I believe in it. And if someone does not define God, then there's nothing for me to either believe in or not believe in. This has me ending up being labeled an ignostic I think, which is fine by me. — Heister Eggcart

Hmm, very interesting. You do identify as an atheist, and think that if a god exists, that one can't know it, correct? I think your definition of yourself as an atheist is accurate, but you seem to be open minded on the matter.

Atheism rejects theism, it doesn't necessarily deny the possibility of there being, or not being, a God(s). — Heister Eggcart

But if theism is belief in God, then I don't see how one can be atheistic, yet believe in a possible god.

offensive insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about — Sapientia

Well, granted that you're a guy who used to think the Gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ, then I think in all likelihood you don't know what you're talking about :P ;)

The statement that atheists merely have disbelief proves my statement that atheists do not have any of their own structure, it is only disbelief of someone else's structure. — Lone Wolf

No, it does not. You're confusing atheism and atheists. Atheists are mostly normal guys and gals who have the normal structure and beliefs that normal people normally have. Atheism, on the other hand, by that definition, is indeed a negative position about theism. It's about destruction rather than construction. — Sapientia

lol - seems like you deny that atheists merely reject someone else's structure at first, and then you affirm that it is indeed the case by saying it's about destruction rather than construction. Clearly to think that atheists are "normal" guys and girls is just a red herring, as I don't suppose LW meant that atheists don't have any kind of structure at all, but rather that in-so-far as they are atheists (and nothing else), they represent only a rejection, without any constructive affirmation.

As I explained before, an atheist could go only as far as claiming that there isn't good enough reason to believe that there's a god without actually denying that there's a god. — Sapientia

How would we distinguish this person from an agnostic? Would he have different beliefs than an agnostic?

Atheism rejects theism, it doesn't necessarily deny the possibility of there being, or not being, a God(s). — Heister Eggcart

What do you mean possibility? That weird kind of logical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow? :D

This is what I have been saying all along, nothing more nothing less. You went on about the levels of atheism, and implied that weak atheists don't reject a god. You are the one moving the goalposts and changing the definitions. — Lone Wolf

No, you haven't been saying that all along. The evidence is right here in this discussion for anyone to see. I'll charitably grant that that might be all you meant, and that you've just been wording it very poorly, but that certainly isn't what you've consistently said.

I shouldn't have to go back and quote you to make this point. Just go back and look at what you've said!

To give but one example out of several from which to choose, in your very first reply, you said, "One can't know with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist; hence, atheism is proclaiming with certainty something that is unknowable".

This was your first misunderstanding. From that, it's clear that you were suggesting that atheism proclaims with certainty that it can be known with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist, or at least that atheism proclaims with certainty that it can be known that a superior being does not exist. Hence, if I'm an atheist, then I'm committed to that claim. But I am, and I'm not, respectively. So, how can that be? Well, because, as I explained, that is not true of atheism, but of only a very specific type of atheism, and I'm not an atheist of that type, generally speaking.

And yes, it's true that a distinction between weak atheists and strong atheists can be made by drawing attention to the fact that a weak atheist might not reject god, but instead reject the basis for belief in god. That's true, that's not that hard to grasp, and that's not inconsistent with what I've been saying. So, what's your problem? You should at least concede that you confused atheism with a type of strong atheism.

I played along with your jokes, and equally made a few of my own while I was at it. Obviously you missed that part... I didn't realize it was unacceptable to have my own humor. — Lone Wolf

Well, now you know. You must first be granted permission from the supreme being.

Prove it. — Lone Wolf

Again, this is quite an absurd request. Are you unable to compare that dictionary definition with what you said both before and subsequently and note the difference? If so, then why? I even made it easy for you. I think that you just want to be spoon fed, or don't want to concede, but spoon feeder is not my occupation. My occupation is comedian, although I do a bit of supreme being on the side.

Again, prove it. If you can't offer quotes of where I was off, then I am afraid I can't believe it. I am open for correction, if you would give some evidence of where I was inconsistent and moving the goalposts. — Lone Wolf

Prove it yourself. I can give you instructions, if you like:

Step 1: look at the dictionary definition for atheism that you provided.

Step 2: look at what else you've said about atheism.

Step 3: pay particular attention to where you've mentioned knowledge, certainty, hard evidence, denial, likelihood, and the belief in atheism.

Step 4: show me where that's contained in the dictionary definition.

Step 5: concede already and stop wasting my precious time.

Hmm, very interesting. You do identify as an atheist, and think that if a god exists, that one can't know it, correct? I think your definition of yourself as an atheist is accurate, but you seem to be open minded on the matter. — Lone Wolf

Note that one can also believe in God but claim to have no knowledge of him. My position is the opposite, and more coherent, I'd argue.

But if theism is belief in God, then I don't see how one can be atheistic, yet believe in a possible god. — Lone Wolf

Every theist is an atheist seeing as belief in one God rules out belief in all others. That is, the Christian is atheistic with regard to Allah, and vice versa.

I'm someone who would appear to be both atheistic and agnostic, but you'd similarly find that every religious person is both a theist and an atheist. And if you object, citing that everyone who believes in God does believe in God, just different Gods, then what difference does it make what God one believes in if they're all essentially the same? Clearly they're not, which is why I've said that everyone is, at least in some sense, an atheist.

What do you mean possibility? That weird kind of logical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow? — Agustino

The sun failing to rise tomorrow is not a logical proposition, dipshittus.

Every theist is an atheist seeing as belief in one God rules out belief in all others. That is, the Christian is atheistic with regard to Allah, and vice versa. — Heister Eggcart

:s Allah is meant to denote the same God. Palestinian Christians for example, use God and Allah interchangeably. It doesn't matter if you say God, or Babbsnada, or whatever - it's like using different languages to denote the same underlying person.

The sun failing to rise tomorrow is not a logical proposition, dipshittus. — Heister Eggcart

Who talked about logical propositions Mr. Smartasinus? :-}

The Muslim God is not the same as the Christian God.

Now fuck off Agu, I don't feel like arguing with you and your emoticons today.

The Muslim God is not the same as the Christian God. — Heister Eggcart

The "Muslim God" and the "Christian God" are just words (referents). They are obviously referents to the same entity, for there is One God only, there's not 50 Gods for that matter. Two different people may call me by a different name (my name as it corresponds to their language), and even describe me differently, it doesn't follow at all that I'm two different persons. So quit playing around.

The "Muslim God" and the "Christian God" are just words (referents). They are obviously referents to the same entity, for there is One God only, there's not 50 Gods for that matter. Two different people may call me by a different name (my name as it corresponds to their language), and even describe me differently, it doesn't follow at all that I'm two different persons. So quit playing around. — Agustino

(Y) Yes, thank you, and amen. Living in the USA, I am so tired of hearing true patriots curse and revile Allah, and say "God bless 'Merica" in the same breath. It is so daft that I can't even argue. Now if someone wants to curse terrorists, or yell at a particular extremist Muslim or whatever, that is different.

Now if someone wants to curse terrorists, or yell at a particular extremist Muslim or whatever, that is different. — 0 thru 9

Just because the referents of the words point to the same underlying person does not mean that they both describe Him equally well. I made no mention in my post of the accuracy of the two religions, and I take Islam to be a corruption of the revelation of Christianity, a corruption which nevertheless still retains some good.

Understood. I assumed as much, otherwise you might be correcting all the Infidels. :D

lol - seems like you deny that atheists merely reject someone else's structure at first, and then you affirm that it is indeed the case by saying it's about destruction rather than construction. — Agustino

Yes, I suppose it might seem that way to someone less perceptive, but that's their problem, not mine.

Clearly to think that atheists are "normal" guys and girls is just a red herring, as I don't suppose LW meant that atheists don't have any kind of structure at all, but rather that in-so-far as they are atheists (and nothing else), they represent only a rejection, without any constructive affirmation. — Agustino

You're basically just echoing my own point back to me. Yes, it should have been worded better so that it doesn't look like a confusion of what it is to be an atheist. Given her other comments about atheism and atheists, I wouldn't put that past her. Maybe she just has a problem of not really saying what she means, due to poor wording. Maybe she's just confused. It could be either.

How would we distinguish this person from an agnostic? Would he have different beliefs than an agnostic? — Agustino

As I said earlier, there can be an overlap between atheism and agnosticism. I don't wish to trouble myself too much with the finer semantic details. But some, for example, make the point, drawing upon the etymology of the terms, about a distinction between knowledge and belief.

As I said earlier, there can be an overlap between atheism and agnosticism. I don't wish to trouble myself too much with the finer semantic details. But some, for example, make the point, drawing upon the etymology of the terms, about a distinction between knowledge and belief. — Sapientia

And you complain about moving goalposts? You should clarify what your terms mean, that's rule number one since Aristotle! :P You're protesting at her comments, but her comments actually make perfect sense, it's only you, with your confusions between atheism and agnosticism that is creating problems at the moment.

Personally, I take atheism to be against the existence of God, positively. Most of such views are based on the problem of evil ultimately. It is so for Nietzsche for example.

You're just basically echoing my own point back to me. Yes, it should have been worded better so that it doesn't look like a confusion of what it is to be an atheist. — Sapientia

I actually thought that LW's remark which I quoted was quite well worded. Sure she didn't clarify that the structure in question refers only to atheism, but that's pretty much clear from the context. I think your reading there was quite uncharitable and problem-seeking in nature.

To give but one example out of several from which to choose, in your very first reply, you said, "One can't know with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist; hence, atheism is proclaiming with certainty something that is unknowable".

This was your first misunderstanding. From that, it's clear that you were suggesting that atheism proclaims with certainty that it can be known with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist, or at least that atheism proclaims with certainty that it can be known that a superior being does not exist. Hence, if I'm an atheist, then I'm committed to that claim. But I am, and I'm not, respectively. So, how can that be? Well, because, as I explained, that is not true of atheism, but of only a very specific type of atheism, and I'm not an atheist of that type, generally speaking.

And yes, it's true that a distinction between weak atheists and strong atheists can be made by drawing attention to the fact that a weak atheist might not reject god, but instead reject the basis for belief in god. That's true, that's not that hard to grasp, and that's not inconsistent with what I've been saying. So, what's your problem? You should at least concede that you confused atheism with a type of strong atheism. — Sapientia

With my definition of atheism, that you claimed to accept, then you are the one who is changing what is meant by atheism. Atheism is the rejection of belief of a god generally, as I have said all along. The real issue is that you don't really accept this definition, but don't have a better one. If you don't declare to know with more or less certainty, then you fall into agnosticism. It doesn't matter what you called yourself. If I called myself a purple Martian, it wouldn't change the fact that I am not a purple Martian, but human.

Again, this is quite an absurd request. Are you unable to compare that dictionary definition with what you said both before and subsequently and note the difference? If so, then why? I even made it easy for you. I think that you just want to be spoon fed, or don't want to concede, but spoon feeder is not my occupation. My occupation is comedian, although I do a bit of supreme being on the side. — Sapientia

Suit yourself, spoon feed me then. After all, I am just a pup. I don't see any contradiction from my posts yet. I can most certainly believe that you are a comedian. :P

Prove it yourself. I can give you instructions, if you like:

Step 1: look at the dictionary definition for atheism that you provided.

Step 2: look at what else you've said about atheism.

Step 3: pay particular attention to where you've mentioned knowledge, certainty, hard evidence, denial, likelihood, and the belief in atheism.

Step 4: show me where that's contained in the dictionary definition.

Step 5: concede already and stop wasting my precious time. — Sapientia

Hmmm... I think I proved myself right. I didn't go against what I originally said. It is amazing that I can control what you do with your time, since you are so much more superior.

And you complain about moving goalposts? You should clarify what your terms mean, that's rule number one since Aristotle! :P You're protesting at her comments, but her comments actually make perfect sense, it's only you, with your confusions between atheism and agnosticism that is creating problems at the moment. — Agustino

No, not at all. I don't really care about agnosticism. Define it how you like. The focus here is on atheism. Primarily, I self-identify as an atheist. Atheism has already been defined.

I actually thought that LW's remark which I quoted was quite well worded. Sure she didn't clarify that the structure in question refers only to atheism, but that's pretty much clear from the context. I think your reading there was quite uncharitable and problem-seeking in nature. — Agustino

It wasn't well worded, for that very reason. As for the rest, yeah, maybe so. Oh well. What's done is done.

and that has already been defined. — Sapientia

Yes, wrongly defined by you, because it effectively replaces agnosticism as well.

That's funny. It was actually Lone Wolf who provided that definition, and it came from a dictionary. It isn't "wrong". I find it acceptable, and I don't really care if you do not.

No, I'm saying the way you use "atheism" is wrong, I wasn't actually referring to the dictionary definition provided by LW.

With my definition of atheism, that you claimed to accept, then you are the one who is changing what is meant by atheism. Atheism is the rejection of belief of a god generally, as I have said all along. The real issue is that you don't really accept this definition, but don't have a better one. If you don't declare to know with more or less certainty, then you fall into agnosticism. It doesn't matter what you called yourself. If I called myself a purple Martian, it wouldn't change the fact that I am not a purple Martian, but human. — Lone Wolf

Clearly you're going to carry on insisting that that's what you've said all along, even though you evidently have not. That means that you're being unreasonable and stubborn, and I choose not to argue with someone who's going to be like that.

No, I'm saying the way you use "atheism" is wrong, I wasn't actually referring to the dictionary definition provided by LW. — Agustino

The way that I use "atheism" is as per that dictionary definition, so what the heck are you talking about?

The more Agustino writes, the more a thread becomes intolerable to participate in.

Note that one can also believe in God but claim to have no knowledge of him. My position is the opposite, and more coherent, I'd argue. — Heister Eggcart

Oh yes, of course. I see this often, many religious people are ignorant of the qualities of the God they claim to believe.

Every theist is an atheist seeing as belief in one God rules out belief in all others. That is, the Christian is atheistic with regard to Allah, and vice versa.

I'm someone who would appear to be both atheistic and agnostic, but you'd similarly find that every religious person is both a theist and an atheist. And if you object, citing that everyone who believes in God does believe in God, just different Gods, then what difference does it make what God one believes in if they're all essentially the same? Clearly they're not, which is why I've said that everyone is, at least in some sense, an atheist. — Heister Eggcart

I am not sure I understand this. Theism in general proclaims the existence of any god or gods, not necessarily one particular god, or a certain set of gods. Wouldn't the declaration of a particular god be beyond what theism is generally?

Clearly you're going to carry on insisting that that's what you've said all along, even though you evidently have not. That means that you're being unreasonable and stubborn, and I choose not to argue with someone who's going to be like that. — Sapientia

Suit yourself. You are not offering any convincing counter arguments proving me wrong, so I have nothing to work with. You say I am wrong, but don't show how I am.

The more Agustino writes, the more a thread becomes intolerable to participate in. — Heister Eggcart

:-} Yes, because he doesn't let you spew falsity

I am not sure I understand this. Theism in general proclaims the existence of any god or gods, not necessarily one particular god, or a certain set of gods. Wouldn't the declaration of a particular god be beyond what theism is generally? — Lone Wolf

As a position, theism doesn't proclaim every defined and categorized God as being real and believable, merely that at least one is held to be real and believable. So, if one is a theist, that person believes in the realness of at least one God or god. This also works the same for atheism, in my mind - an atheist doesn't believe in any of God or god, but at the same time does not, or at least ought not, wager that they aren't real, only that they aren't believable. In the end atheism is an imperfect label for those that try and push it past what the definition allows for, which is why I'm an atheist among other things. For instance, if one strictly uses the definition of atheism, an atheist can disbelieve in Yahweh, Allah, etc. but still have the freedom to believe in ghosts and phantoms and super naked broccoli men. Why? Because atheism as a label can only apply itself to one's disbelief in any God or gods, that's it! If one wants to add in supernatural entities, the supernatural at all really, or anything else that might be seen as silly to believe in, then that guy's trying to make atheism what it's not.

Additionally, I've found that atheism has increasingly become the dumpster bin for people's disbelief in "x, y, z" rather than it just being their singular disbelief in God. Intriguingly, at least to me, the term "God", on the other hand, is generally used as the dumpster bin for people's belief in "x, y, z" - you can insert love, justice, freedom, intellect goodness, bacon, any combination of these and more, into any of those variables and it'd be difficult to refute what God is, as a concept and definition, in of itself, which is why, as I wrote earlier, I don't venture to go down that route. Yet, I do think atheism is a knowable concept that can be defined, which is why I go out on a limb and, well, I guess "believe" in atheism, though that's slightly oxymoronic I think.