Ya thats what I had in mind. You could believe in god but hate him, or resent him, or reject his dictatorship.

An atheist could be not merely a-theistic, but anti-theistic. — Janus

Right, such a person would be an atheist and an anti-theist but one could also just be one or the other.

My italics. But as he goes on to say, it's not so much that god does not exist, as that he is irrelevant to the human condition.

There's something in that for all of us. — Banno

Ah I see. Im not sure I agree. If god did exist then how could it be irrelevant to the human condition? Its kind of written into the character. Maybe im being too literal.

I dont understand that comment. Satre?

I would have thought atheists basing their philosophy on their atheism would be equally rare.
I wonder how that would work...basing something off of something you do not believe in.

What is a lack of belief in something? In cognition, what does that really mean? — 3017amen

Well you would lack a belief whenever you are not holding a particular belief. So in this case, I have not heard any arguments or seen evidence that convince me there is a god. Maybe there is, but I lack belief until such a time as those things are provided. Thats atheism. If anyone holds views about religion or god other than that, those views are beyond what atheism entails. (Anti theism for exemple)

Its not a belief, it is the lack of belief. This is an important distinction.

Ya, there certainly seems to be alot of posturing in these forums. The main sources seem to be defensiveness based on assumption of incoming attacks (which I cant blame them fir really, the internet is like that) and arrogance, that they have cracked some philosophical code thats 100% ironclad so disagreement is equal to failure to understand.

Ok, I will answer again but this is your last chance for an actual discussion. From me at least.

God does not exist, true or false?
The answer is I do not know. No, that doesnt mean atheism is untenable because atheism isnt the position that god doesnt exist. Atheism is the position of not believing a god does exist.
Now your turn to answer a question, I think thats fair.
Do you understand the distinction between a position that god doesnt exist and the position of not believing a god exists?

Im not trying to intimidate you, nor was any if that a personal attack. Im trying to help you, because if you keep on doing what your doing people will just start ignoring you. Id rather that people had interesting interactions instead of talking past or ignoring each other.
The reason you seem like you are trolling is because you are ignoring direct points and questions. You responded to that by just doing the exact same thing. Ignoring and restating your question. People are not confused why they are frustrated, you are confused as to why its frustrating.

And I already answered your question, remember?

But I love talking with you guys about religion. But you also have to own up to the fact that you never answered a lot of my questions in a direct succinct fashion. — 3017amen

You are conflating answering “in a direct succinct fashion” with the answers you want us to say. You clearly want an atheist to say “god does not exist and here is my proof” or somesuch. Expecting that answer shows that you do not understand atheism, nor some of the basic logic behind atheist arguments/positions (such as the burden of proof).
People are becoming frustrated because you are not engaging. (Hence the “troll” accusation). Instead of engaging in discussion you are just trying to illicit responses which you can use to perpetuate your own talking points.
Personally, I think that you are being dishonest (perhaps not realising it) and the best you can do is couch your posts with feigned humility and good humour. ( hence the accusation of condescension).
You can show that isnt the case by exercising some succinct engagement of your own. I suggest starting by recognising the difference between “talking to” and “talking at”. Most people find the former to be the better of the two.

In order to impose your views onto others, you need to grab control over the government in one way or another, and get them to do it for you. — alcontali

And if religious people control the government, wouldnt they be the ones imposing? Wouldnt they be imposing on the atheists? Wouldnt they be imposing on other religions with different practices?
Also, your tone is very angry. You interested in discussing or ranting?

There is some interesting research that some primates are entering the stone age as far as using tools. Sorry, I cannot recall the source but it mentioned primates using spears to get fish out of the water. Ill see if I can find a link if you are interested.

You do not understand the burden of proof.
If someone makes a claim, they are the ones that have to defend that claim. If someone is not convinced by the claim, they are not themselves making a claim.
Also, you are not engaging what I am saying. This is a dishonest way of trying to discuss something.
You do not have answers to all points being levelled at you, instead you are just cherry picking the parts you think you can counter-point and ignoring the rest. I mean, you didnt even quote an entire sentence to respond to in that last post.

There is no need to assert the non-existence of god, any more than I need to assert the non-existence of a magic turtle upon which the earth is built. The assertion is the claim that god or the magic turtle exists.
You do not understand atheism, nor the burden of proof. Further, you have a position of believing in something you cannot define which is nonsense. Its just nonsense that your religiosity has inoculated you against.
As long as you are focused on delivering your message, you will make no progress in discussion nor your view.

Depends on whats meant by “god”.
Care to define that term?

Agnostics are atheists, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. (A common misconception)

I was just getting ahead of the inevitable movement of goal posts

But once again, existential questions can rear their ugly heads hence: If one says that they don't know something, what are they really saying/what's behind that thought process?

I suppose one could say that one is Stoic or indifferent to the question. Or maybe even some element of the so-called sense of wonderment is there. I think that's of higher consciousness...kind of like Kant's form of a priori logic, or in other words innate or intrinsic human intuition. — 3017amen

I think you are overcomplicating it. It just means I do not know if that statement is true. Again though, it depends on what you mean by “god”.
How do you define that term?

No need to worry about me getting angry at your questions/comments.
As to your statement, it depends on what you mean by “god”. Generally my answer would be “I do not know”, but that might change depending on how you define “god”.

We agree! It does seem logical that mysteries exist. Unfortunately, many Atheists I've come to know don't hold your/that world view. — 3017amen

Many atheists might indeed hold the view mysteries do not exist, but not because of their atheism. As the person pointed out, atheism doesnt have anything to do belief in mystery, it has to do with lacking belief in god. (Or gods).
There is a different word for lacking belief in mystery, also pointed out to you.

Thats not what those statements are about, though I understand why you might think that.
That comment was not intended as insult, or to express discontentment about religion. They are observations, and I wish there were other, less “offensive” words to use but those seem like the most accurate words to use.
As to what you should do with them...you understand that what you quoted wasn't at all directed at you right? Understand? I was talking to someone else, so I really didnt have expectation of what you should do with those words. Why would I? As they were directed at somebody else, not you, I don’t have anything I would “like” you to do with them.

Whats an example of an atheist trying to impose their views?

No, im not saying that either. No idea where you are getting that from. This is why when you said “I get that” I think you were mistaken. You don’t seem to get my point at all, but true to the point I was actually making you have responded vacantly.

No im not suggesting that at all...so do you “get that” after all?

We are in the minority because the institutions from a bygone era of ignorant superstitions still exist and exert influence and control.
What you should be noticing is how vastly more common atheism is in our modern time, and spreading ever faster. There is also a huge shift in just how committed people are to any particular religion, a transitional state on the road to atheism.

Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. Trained from childhood to accept utterly vacant claims, to call the illogical logical, and to be taught meaningless terms are actually the most meaningful. (IE faith).
Its unfortunate that an accurate term like delusional, or irrational is dismissed out of hand by the religious when just accepting the potential accuracy would be enough for them to shake off the brainwashing.

Any view of whats true based on probability always seems pretty dodgy to me. Probability is not aw effective as the scientific method, or even just simple reasoning.
This is an example of vacant religious claims, to think that atheism is in trouble in our modern times is the product of a religious “bubble” where reality just isnt getting through.

Really? Engenders nothing to no one? Did you miss the parts of this thread where people were sad to see him go? Some even said they liked the guy. Imagine for a second not everyone shares your delicate sensibilities and next thing you know you’ll be swimming in the deep end with the other adults

Indeed, good analogy.

Ok, I understand.

You are not aware of all potential wars when you join up, at any time you could be sent to a war thats unjustified. You might suddenly find yourself in a war that you dont agree with. Thats what you are signing on for.
Your concerns about ethical war, or soldiers disobeying immoral command decisions are covered by the rules of engagement etc (militaries have rules for that sort of thing.)
So the ethical question you are asking yourself is “can I agree to follow orders, even if I dont agree with them?”.
If you cant do that with a clear conscience, then military is not for you.

I am completely focusing on the soldier or citizen considering becoming a soldier. What I say is simply the logical outcome of concluding a war in unjust. — boethius

No you are not. You are making specific references to society and democracy, and I dont think you are really factoring in the social contract a soldier signs up for. Thats what im talking about.

A lot of that wasnt focusing on the soldier. The soldier doesnt get to pick and choose, it cannot work that way. They do not get the luxury of moral reflections (except of course, those that are included in each militaries code of conduct). They need to obey orders and military rules or people will die. Perhaps very many people. A military just cant function if all the individuals stop for some moral philosophy while serving. Thats part of what makes choosing to serve worthy and noble, that they are making a big sacrifice for their individuality while serving. They are saying “ok, you point, I shoot”, knowing that they are entrusting the justification and morality to someone else.
We appear to have a pretty deep disagreement here, to me it seems we are operating from different axioms about morality and war.

I disagree. I think that the reality is you don’t get to pick and choose the wars you think are just or not when you are in the military. It doesnt and cannot work that way, and that has to be something you accept if you join the military.
The unjust wars aspect IS part of a violent institution. The reality is that humans are in charge of military application. Mistakes, poor judgement and bad actors are all part of it. Thats why I find unjust wars to be particularly egregious moral violations on the part of politicians etc that decide on these wars. Taking advantage of this reality (described above) for profit or ideology or whatever that results in an unjust war is truly disgusting, immoral behaviour...but not on the part of those who serve as our warriors. Its on those who send them to war.

Ive actually had experience with Pattern Chaser in other forums, where he does the exact same thing. He claims to be picked on and abused, and plays the victim card for his alleged disabilities when no one responds with a warm blanket and trauma counselling. He never used to have disabilities either.
S was spot on in what he said about Pattern Chaser, he is not an honest actor in discourse.

Well, it might be a childish rule, but enforcing the rule isnt childish itself. I dont agree with the rule either, but a rule it is. The “adult” thing to do is advocate for a rule change, rather than specific rules exemptions.

My impression was that he was unable to resist the pull of argument, that he wanted to be banned so he couldnt talk himself into coming back into bang his head against the wall. I think it had become toxic for him, and being banned takes away the opportunity for him to make a poor decision. Im basing that not just on his public posts but private conversation we had as well.
Childish or not childish, you arent allowed to just say “fuck you”. If you do, you court being banned, depending on the rules not being enforced in order to continue on the forum

If they express a desire to be banned though? How is that childish? There are rules with consequences and S not only broke the rule but essentially dared the mod to ban him. He was only going to get worse, cuz he just didn't care anymore, didnt really want to participate anymore.

I think its a bit simplistic to use a single metric to determine the morality of joining the army. Excessive force and harm are part of what the military is, and what it has to be. The question isnt whether or not that its morally acceptable, but rather if those things are worth the trade-off. You already noticed yourself the consequences of not having a military at all. Disaster.
So the consideration you are making is really a practical one. Is it practical for YOU to join the military. Not everybody is built for it, some people serve humanity in other ways and some people serve as warriors. We need both types (all kinds of types) of people, and making the military consideration one of morality rather than practicality seems a bit naive to the realities we have to live with.