Scot Dutchy wrote:I dont. If it exists prove it. I dont say it does not.

So what?

romansh wrote:Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche denied the existence of gods.

They were more interested in exploring what is denoted by the word existence than in exploring what is denoted by the word gods.

Their problems (and yours, too, I guess) merely begin with a decision even to consider claims about the existence of gods. How can you consider claims of the existence of gods without first considering the source of the claim? No new characters have appeared in this play since the goat-roasters finished work that only some people consider valuable. All that seems to be left to the gnostic line is to try to refashion the concept into something that might conceivably exist, but this is an ass-over-teakettle approach. Even agnostics have to consider the claims before deciding they don't know.

Some people see the word gods, and start obsessing about that instead of beginning with existence. The latter will keep you so busy, you won't have time to worry about deities.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Their problems (and yours, too, I guess) merely begin with a decision even to consider claims about the existence of gods. How can you consider claims of the existence of gods without first considering the source of the claim? No new characters have appeared in this play since the goat-roasters finished work that only some people consider valuable. All that seems to be left to the gnostic line is to try to refashion the concept into something that might conceivably exist, but this is an ass-over-teakettle approach. Even agnostics have to consider the claims before deciding they don't know.

Some people see the word gods, and start obsessing about that instead of beginning with existence. The latter will keep you so busy, you won't have time to worry about deities.

Not really a problem Cito. My problem, if in deed it is one, is how do we come to have definitions that people can be so vehemently passionate about and seem to claim as inviolable?

Because how can you discuss the texture of the jelly unless you've nailed it to the wall first?

romansh wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Their problems (and yours, too, I guess) merely begin with a decision even to consider claims about the existence of gods. How can you consider claims of the existence of gods without first considering the source of the claim? No new characters have appeared in this play since the goat-roasters finished work that only some people consider valuable. All that seems to be left to the gnostic line is to try to refashion the concept into something that might conceivably exist, but this is an ass-over-teakettle approach. Even agnostics have to consider the claims before deciding they don't know.

Some people see the word gods, and start obsessing about that instead of beginning with existence. The latter will keep you so busy, you won't have time to worry about deities.

Not really a problem Cito. My problem, if in deed it is one, is how do we come to have definitions that people can be so vehemently passionate about and seem to claim as inviolable?

I don't think you can beat OlivierK's suggestion unless you're willing to put on your thinking cap with the visor pointed rearward, gangsta style. It doesn't matter whether the thread is about atheism or about free will.

Cito di Pense wrote:
I don't think you can beat OlivierK's suggestion unless you're willing to put on your thinking cap with the visor pointed rearward, gangsta style. It doesn't matter whether the thread is about atheism or about free will.

Isn't the thread about how we come to a definition (of atheism)?

While Olivier was amusing and there is an element of truth in what he says, it does not address the issue of passionately held points of view.

It also reminded me of my uni days. Down the hallway some young woman had cooked a fried egg for her boyfriend. Apparently it did not have the right texture. He nailed to his dorm door so that passers-by could see for themselves.

romansh wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
I don't think you can beat OlivierK's suggestion unless you're willing to put on your thinking cap with the visor pointed rearward, gangsta style. It doesn't matter whether the thread is about atheism or about free will.

Isn't the thread about how we come to a definition (of atheism)?

While Oliver was amusing and there is an element of truth in what he says, it does not address the issue of passionately held points of view.

Well, you obviously find that to be an issue, so why don't you just deal with that issue directly?

romansh wrote:Again I don't particularly care which meaning we choose so long as it is clear.

Well, that's what you wish the thread was about. Some people regard atheism as a position, and some regard it as a group identification, and some regard it as both, or even neither. When you can articulate what is worthwhile about a clear definition besides clarity, then it will look as if you're trying to get somewhere, toward solidarity, perhaps.

Most important is that BOTH theism and atheism are indeed 'beliefs' since neither can be absolutely demonstrated and verified.

Why can't they?

truelgbt wrote:Most important is that BOTH theism and atheism are indeed 'beliefs' since neither can be absolutely demonstrated and verified.

It's easy to demonstrate and verify atheism: "I don't believe in any gods." Done so quickly there's still plenty of time to grab a quick one down the pub.

truelgbt wrote:Most important is that BOTH theism and atheism are indeed 'beliefs' since neither can be absolutely demonstrated and verified.

1. That's not the common criterion for belief.
2. Atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of one: theism.

True lack of gestated binary traction.

Keep It Real wrote:True lack of gestated binary traction.

Not directed at you Thomas, just a joke about TrueLGBT's posts.

Keep It Real wrote:Not directed at you Thomas, just a joke about TrueLGBT's posts.

I know it wasnt aimed at me. I just dont get the point/joke you're making.

some people have no sense of humour

truelgbt wrote:Most important is that BOTH theism and atheism are indeed 'beliefs' since neither can be absolutely demonstrated and verified.

Wrong. It's A-theism, not Athe-ism. The A is a privative - it denotes a lack of theism and therefore a lack of belief. My lack of belief in your claim that your pretend friend exists doesn't need to be demonstated or verified; Google 'onus probandi'.

It's A-theism, not Athe-ism. The A is a privative

Atheism is a belief like Aseptic is an infection.

hmmmmm, not sure I really agree zulumoose. Atheism usually incorporates a belief in no gods, I think. For example, you'd probably say you lack belief in the Loch Ness Monster. If I asked you if you think there is probably zero Loch Ness Monster, you would probably say yes. The difference between thinking there is zero Loch Ness Monster and believing there is zero Loch Ness Monster (or tooth fairy/lepracheans/Yahweh etc) is...not important?