SignOfTheCross

Without proof.

Human knowlege doesn't make God not exist. Atheism, just like religion, is a belief system. Neither side relies on objective proof to support its position. Therefore, one cannot be judged "ignorant" for believing in a deity, since knowledge leads to definite conclusions.

Peace,
SOTC

Vylo

From the site you sent me to: 'The site is a WikiWiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can edit any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears in every Wikipedia article."

Yeah that sounds SO much more credible then the OED.

Got bias?

When you define your own words, you are always right, at least to yourself, but to those of us who speak the english language, you are wrong.

The entymology used by dictionary.com is greek, but the word atheism comes from french, and in frecnh entymology the preffix a- means against.

SignOfTheCross

Originally posted by contracycle
[B]I found only 13% of Kiwis compared to 29% of Americans aged 25-29 in 2001 had acheived a bachelors degree (not including higher degrees). The sample space is only meant to serve as an example.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2002...ndicator25.asp

http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/exte...56c8d006f29e7/$FILE/Table%202.xls

Of course not. Atheism, by definition, is a belief there is no God. I don't accept the 'play on words' definition. A baby can't believe there is no God, therefore, a baby can't be an atheist. A better definition for a baby would be non-theist, since a baby can't comprehend of God's existance, neither can it disapprove of it.

Different rules apply to logic, atheism is not a geographical location. It's like trying to say "it's not that I believe the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist, I just lack faith in it". Give me a break.

Goodnight.

Peace,
SOTC

Llyricist

Pot to Kettle.......

Self proclaimed atheists have just as much right to define their interpretation of what it means to be atheist as self proclaimed Christians have to interpret what it means to be Christian. The difference is, few atheists claim that other atheists that have some different interpretation of the word aren't "True atheists" TM.

Face it Vylo, the definition you are relying on IS created for and by theists to bolster the idea that god exists. People that lack belief in God are offended by that interpretation and choose the interpretation that actually fits their lack of belief.

Jack the Bodiless

"Atypical" means "not typical", it doesn't mean "opposed to what is typical".

"Asymmetric" means "not symmetric".

"Amoral" means "without morals".

"Abiological" means "without biology". Hence, "abiogenesis" is the genesis of life from a non-biological source (the emergence of life from non-life).

"Atheist" means "not a theist": not a believer in deities.

Llyricist

Vylo,

Further to my and Jack's point, can you bring up ANY other ENGLISH word where the a- prefix means against? Remember anti- doesn't count.

Llyricist

non-theist and atheist are synonymous

so are:
non-symmetrical and assymetrical

so are:
non-typical and atypical

so are:
non-moral and amoral

It seems theists are making a special case of the word atheist that apparently doesn't apply to any other word with an a- prefix.

Who's doing the playing SOTC?

Autonemesis

Then by this reasoning not-collecting stamps - aphilately - is a hobby.

Autonemesis

Fine. Non-theist is how I would like to be classified. It more accurately reflects my views than the word atheist, which I now recognize as a pejorative. Please do not refer to me as an atheist any more, I will take it as a deliberate attempt on your part to distort my position and attack a strawman.

Spenser

Why Vylo you are so stubborn when it comes to the word Atheist is beyond me especially when your definition of the word Atheist means 'opposed to theism' and yet you feel the need to add 'positive' to atheist in your basic beliefs. Strangely enough I see 'positive atheism' as meaning what you profess atheism to mean (opposed to theism) so are you being a bit redundant? Or should you just relax and realize that words are defined differently from different sources and Atheist's should be more qualified than anyone to define themselves. So chill.

As for SOtC,



My intention was never that 'atheists are smart, theists are stupid.' There are plenty of smart theists, right here on this site even. My point was that a vast number of theists are uneducated (as is much of the world) and therefore have their beliefs simply because that is what they were told. To use their opinions as some sort of support for accepting God's existence without any objective proof is pathetic. It is amazing how you lump these 86% together when arguing for God's existence and yet profess belief to a religion that thinks most of them are going to hell anyhow for choosing the wrong God. This 86% of people do not believe in the same thing.



Don't forget to mention you said that next time you're in confession...



I'm not sure what makes you think this, our current standard sucks and seems to be slipping further and further. The only thing that seems to be required anymore pre-college is math and English. Everything else is deteriorating, and neither subject is going to say much about peoples beliefs in a God without objective proof. But thanks for another pointless statistic...



Keep running! Avoidance seems to be a common theistic tactic...



Because if God does exist then he knows exactly why I don't believe and if he is really as just as Christians say he is he should actually reward me for not being ignorant enough to accept largely unbelievable assertions without any sort of objective proof.



Yeah right! If this was adequate evidence then the scientific community as a whole would accept it as fact. Strangely enough it doesn't, in fact they still spend untold billions of dollars researching such stuff to gain better understandings of our universe and continue to fill the gaps in science as it has always done.

Now, even if one were to concede these points to you, they offer up no evidence for God himself. God, Allah, Vishnu, the Force, some non-intelligent force, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Matrix, and any other made up explanation can be plugged into the equation as 'what' created the universe. Your supposed evidence is evidence of nothing more than itself. And once again you follow it up with your useless statistic. What's the matter, have no more legs to stand on???



Nice assertion, and this proves?



Is that like blaming atheists?



You either do believe in God, or you don't believe in God. Not knowing of God is not believing in him so once again, you're wrong. How ever will you be able to look at the infant infidels again...



This is absurd. Religion is a belief system. Lack of religion is not. I as an atheist do rely on object proof in order to believe in anything and since no objective proof can be offered by the positive statement that God exists, I continue to have a lack of belief. Atheism is the default position whether you like it or not...