Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PratchettFan]

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.

Apparently it is. I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief. You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.

 

[Hollie]

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.

Apparently it is. I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief. You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?

 

[sealybobo]

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree. However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts. If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it. I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit. But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero. Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome. There are two racers, called racer a and racer b. Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet. Who do you think will win, a or b? There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition. And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God. Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God? The notion is absurd.

Lots of evidence. Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

 

[sealybobo]

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

OMG! Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying! It is he/she who is not the true atheist!

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:

• a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
• b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
• c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]

Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"

I never said I was a true Atheist. I said I was the closest here to meet the definition that an Atheist was one who lacked beliefs in gods. According to Smith, I would fall under "c".

Now you are not an atheist? Honestly babe, you wouldn't be here if you didn't care, A LOT! Are you lying for Jesus?

 

[sealybobo]

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

The fact that you hold an irrational belief is simply evidence that your brain is able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Plus, why do you have to lie and say you don't believe in god?

 

[sealybobo]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.

Apparently it is. I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief. You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?

So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.

obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....

 

[PratchettFan]

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree. However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts. If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it. I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit. But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero. Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome. There are two racers, called racer a and racer b. Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet. Who do you think will win, a or b? There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition. And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God. Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God? The notion is absurd.

Lots of evidence. Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Yes. I have told you before I read your web site. I've also told you I'm not a Christian. There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God. Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God. Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult. You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Agnostic atheism

just another way of saying, "I have no way of knowing if God exists or not, but I'm going to deny it anyway"........

 

[PratchettFan]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

That is a belief. You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.

 

[Hollie]

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.

Apparently it is. I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief. You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?

So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.

You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?

 

[Hollie]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

That is a belief. You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

The fact that you hold an irrational belief is simply evidence that your brain is able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Plus, why do you have to lie and say you don't believe in god?

I have yet to lie. I have never said I don't believe in God. I do believe in God, I just consider the issue to be irrelevant and pointless. This discussion isn't about God.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not refuted, just denied.

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.

Apparently it is. I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief. You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?

So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.

You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?

You claim to, so take a second and address it. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

 

[PratchettFan]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

That is a belief. You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.

No. That is a statement of fact. He is making a claim without support of any kind. That is a belief. And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma. If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence. Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith. Show me hard evidence. Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.

 

[Hollie]

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.

Apparently it is. I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief. You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?

So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.

You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?

You claim to, so take a second and address it. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?

Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?

 

[Hollie]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

That is a belief. You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.

No. That is a statement of fact. He is making a claim without support of any kind. That is a belief. And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma. If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence. Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith. Show me hard evidence. Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.

Your believing that doesn't make it true.

 

[PratchettFan]

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

OMG! Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying! It is he/she who is not the true atheist!

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:

• a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
• b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
• c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]

Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"

I never said I was a true Atheist. I said I was the closest here to meet the definition that an Atheist was one who lacked beliefs in gods. According to Smith, I would fall under "c".

Now you are not an atheist? Honestly babe, you wouldn't be here if you didn't care, A LOT! Are you lying for Jesus?

Wow. Is it that you just don't read at all or is it intentional? If you just want to argue with whatever little voices are going on in your head, you don't need me.

 

[PratchettFan]

Apparently it is. I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief. You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?

So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.

You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?

You claim to, so take a second and address it. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?

Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?

I told you. The number is one. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?