"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[SkyChief]

It all comes down to the conventional definition of the term atheist.

My old, dusty Webster's 9th Collegiate [(c)1984] defines atheist as simply:

"One who denies the existence of God."

Period. That's it. No alternate meanings. It has been noted that meanings of terms can evolve over time.

When I google atheist, heres what I get:

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

This definition is a little more progressive; at least it includes people who lack belief in gods. Now, if we could only get rid of that pesky word "disbelieves"!

I forgot where I read it (maybe on this forum?) but to demonstrate that atheism is not a religion or a belief system, and has no dogma associated with it, simply state that there have never been any atheist Leaders. And there never will be.

[SkyChief]

It all comes down to the conventional definition of the term atheist.

My old, dusty Webster's 9th Collegiate [(c)1984] defines atheist as simply:

"One who denies the existence of God."

Period. That's it. No alternate meanings. It has been noted that meanings of terms can evolve over time.

If we google atheist, heres what we get:

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

This definition is a little more progressive; at least it includes people who lack belief in gods. Now, if we could only get rid of that pesky word "disbelieves"!

I forgot where I read it (maybe on this forum?) but to demonstrate that atheism is not a religion or a belief system, and has no dogma associated with it, simply state that there have never been any atheist Leaders. And there never will be.

That claim cannot be refuted.

[Kenisaw]

It all comes down to the conventional definition of the term atheist.

My old, dusty Webster's 9th Collegiate [(c)1984] defines atheist as simply:

"One who denies the existence of God."

Period. That's it. No alternate meanings. It has been noted that meanings of terms can evolve over time.

If we google atheist, heres what we get:

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

This definition is a little more progressive; at least it includes people who lack belief in gods. Now, if we could only get rid of that pesky word "disbelieves"!

I forgot where I read it (maybe on this forum?) but to demonstrate that atheism is not a religion or a belief system, and has no dogma associated with it, simply state that there have never been any atheist Leaders. And there never will be.

That claim cannot be refuted.

To clarify, I think you mean there have never been any leaders of all atheists, much like the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. I would agree with you on that.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 251 by Kenisaw]

To clarify, I think you mean there have never been any leaders of all atheists, much like the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. I would agree with you on that.

You are both wrong, wrong oh so very wrong.

There is an atheist leader of the world, but you guys just don't want to follow me, that's all.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 251 by Kenisaw]

To clarify, I think you mean there have never been any leaders of all atheists, much like the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. I would agree with you on that.

You are both wrong, wrong oh so very wrong.

There is an atheist leader of the world, but you guys just don't want to follow me, that's all.

That's just because you insist on ruining pizza with fish. We can't follow such blasphemy.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 253 by benchwarmer]

That's just because you insist on ruining pizza with fish. We can't follow such blasphemy.

But the fish is an important part of my iconography, yo.
Oh me of little fish.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 253 by benchwarmer]

That's just because you insist on ruining pizza with fish. We can't follow such blasphemy.

But the fish is an important part of my iconography, yo.
Oh me of little fish.

I thought you were the leader of sunglasses. Someone please create a flowchart of Blastcat's leadership roles so that I can properly follow his catness...

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 1 by Talishi]

I disagree that not believing in God is not to hold a position. Atheists hold the positions that there is "no God", this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.

This is why I could never agree with the notion that Agnostics or Skeptics should be labeled as Atheists.

For a belief is defined by something we are CONVINCED by,. Agnostics and skeptics are NOT convinced, and so should not be labelled theists or atheists.

Its completely false to claim there can only be two positions, or that atheism hold no position, and after years debating with them as I was labelled to be one I found proof of this over and over.

I am not convinced by either argument, though I think the argument for God is stronger than the argument against God, and the argument against religion is stronger than the argument for religion. But to call me an atheist when I have not dismissed the idea of God is ridiculous, just like it would be to call me a theist just because I think the argument for theism is stronger. That does not mean that I am CONVINCED by the argument that God exist or the argument that God doesn't exist. In fact I am not.

If you look Atheism up you will find that the Christian are right on this point.

Atheism: "atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist."

Rejection: "the dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc. "

Belief: "acceptance/confidence that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

See Websters dictionary and Wikipedia.

So Atheism is to DISMISS ACCEPTANCE of God existing. That is not what agnostics do, hence agnostics should not be labelled atheists. Further, to dismiss acceptance IS a position, just like it would be to reject a law or marriage proposal. A position can be both in favor and against.

If theism is a 1 and Atheism is a rejection of 1 (-1), that does not mean everything can be labelled simply in two categories of 1 and -1. There is also 0. And what about those who don't believe in God, but KNOW there is a God? Yes for a atheist that argument is dismissed on faith without proof, for we don't know if anyone know there is a God or not.

Atheists hold the positions that there is "no God", this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.

I agree with one that Atheism is definitely a position and a negative one, but they deny it to avoid the burden of proof for it. They cannot give proofs, the same kind of proofs they demand from the believers, the only thing they do is to deride and ridicule the believers and their religions and put one religion against the other. Their position is position of DOUBT and uncertainty. I believe that they just leapt into the dark and they made darkness as their abode. Nevertheless, it is their choice and they are entitled to it. If one could believe in Atheism without any evidence/proof why one cannot believe in One-True-God?
Regards

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 256 by paarsurrey1]

The answer is already in your post - we "believe in" atheism without any evidence/proof but cannot believe in One-True-God because atheism is a negative position, a position of doubt and uncertainty.

Side point, we don't believe in atheism, as there is nothing to believe in. There is no choice involved, we don't believe therefore we are atheists.

[marco]

I agree with one that Atheism is definitely a position and a negative one, but they deny it to avoid the burden of proof for it. They cannot give proofs, the same kind of proofs they demand from the believers, the only thing they do is to deride and ridicule the believers and their religions and put one religion against the other. Their position is position of DOUBT and uncertainty.

Your post makes little sense in that no one PROVES something does NOT exist. Yahweh was called into existence by some writers and as such is fictional. The Islamic Allah was called into existence by Muhammad. As such, he's a fiction. It is absurd to require that people prove such creations are NOT true. Proof does not work that way.

As for the position of negativity, in my own case I do not affirm there is NO God. That would be as foolishly dogmatic as those who say Zeus and Allah exist. We have no idea what entities populate the space we don't occupy; nor have we a clear idea of what existence is.

We can look at Allah's credentials and reasonably conclude he's a myth, for his attributes are those that a thirsty Arab would want. Yahweh, too, is clearly fictitious, a brutal male figure keen on war. Neither god tolerates dissent. They are human creations as much as any character in a play.