If that is what atheism is, then I would have to be an atheist. But I don't think I am. What really is being argued is a certain philosophical wankery involving our different perceptions of the concepts of faith and belief.

Like I said, I think lack of faith is faith, and disbelief is belief, a lack of statement is a statement in itself and all that crap.

but doesn't atheism involve being certain of the fact that there is no God?
I'm really just asking questions, i don't see the need to get so heated.

just relax a bit.

Em, please read what i asked before posting that. I kinda asked a reasonable question, bullshit though that is to the likes of you. Why the shit have i got involved in a religion discussion on the internet? I thought id learnt my lesson with the help of real life

Base atheism is arm-chair scientism.

As long as you don't demonstrate the vacuity of my argument, you are committing sophistry. Keep that in mind.

To make it clear, I don't really misunderstand it. I'm just questioning certain concepts. It's what I do to keep healthy.

No, it is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Some people may be certain in their minds that there is no god and they may call themselves atheists, but that doesn't mean anything - it doesn't change the definition of atheism.

Now you are becoming meaningless.

In other words, if how people use a term has no relevance to what it means while we also can't have personal definitions, then language is neither esoteric nor public. Language is meaningless. Considering that you just understood what I've written, pookie is wrong somewhere.

Ok, that is much better.

Now, the other question I'd like to ask is why do people feel the need to define themselves as something?

And another thing, in a different world in which organized religion didn't play such a significant role, would atheism still exist?

do you think it's possible to not believe or disbelieve anything? in that case, what would you call yourself?

do you think it's humanly possible to not have some sort of spirituality of any kind?

Ive already outlined my position earlier in this thread. So if you are struggling i refer you to that. But with that in mind and assumed as common knowledge to this thread by now, you are either the most base level of smart arse or a simpleton on the level of a chimp (unevolved) pissing into its own mouth
Happy Christmas

again, Atheism isnt a definition, its the rejection of a definition. You cant have atheism without theism

Goodnight knox. It's 2:45am and I really need to go to bed.

is it really? so if i don't believe in any Gods am I automatically an atheist? Can I not reject that?

Re-asserting an assertion is not demonstrating an assertion.

Unreasonable as fuck.

You can choose to reject the definition in the same way you can choose to reject the definition of "girl", but it doesn't make it any less so.

Could you link me? My *which ever ad hominem you choose* is interfering with giving a fuck.

Does the definition of atheist apply to those who do not believe nor disbelieve in those Gods?

Pookie folds.

to think my participation in this discussion started by defending an atheist who was getting a jesus poke.

I cant help you with not giving a fuck, thats beyond my powers

If you accept the definition and accept that reasonable atheists accept that god or gods may exist then the definition is good.

You could call yourself an agnostic, but it pretty much means the same thing to me as atheism. You still lack belief.

A Jesus poke? We're back to the hardcore again.

I lack belief in belief and in the lack of belief.

fucks sake, shoot me.

There have been so many Gods, everyone is an atheist to some degree. If you reject the idea there are no Gods, you must therefore accept the idea there are one or more gods. I hate to get bogged down in semantics but i like to say what i mean

to be fair you did bring it up. and this is your thread!

out of curiosity, ill see what the dictionary says.

atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

I see a difference.

this thread is alot more fun to read after a few beers lol

gnostic
theist

two different things

Okay, looking up your post because I <3 you.

I've been having some beers during the whole process. And it's great because I discovered I should be calling myself an agnostic all this time. But I don't like how the word sounds. So I'm gonna be calling myself a cunt, because I think the word cunt sounds much better.

you didnt have to tell me sweetheart, i sense all

mythos is a terrible beer but i love it because it reminds me of that time in halkidiki when i climbed the mountain

In responding to this, I would like to refer back to my example of the chair in the closed room. An atheism of this definition assumes both hard atheism and agnosticism. By atheism, let's say it is achairism. There is an assertion of the lack of a chair and a suspension of a lack of a chair. To further answer this question, we must contrast belief from knowledge. What would we call knowledge that there is no chair? Achairism? No, that can't be. To be charitable, we must consider not an assertion of a lack of a chair but the opposition to the belief in an chair. So, considering the etymology, we get an a-chairism and an a-chair-ism. That is, 'not a belief in chair' or 'a belief that chair is not.' This distinction is schismatic and we return to the question: what would we call the knowledge that there is no chair? What is atheism as both opposition and denial? I mean denial here in the sense of making a conclusive metaphysical statement (or, rather, a denial of metaphysics). As we should see, agnosticism makes a perfect statement of the suspension of a lack of god/chair. Thus, this leaves atheism as an affirmative statement against the existence of God and not the belief in the existence of God.

Agnosticism is for art history majors. I'm all absurdist up in this shit.

all beer is beer.

if you ever try crappy ukrainian beers you will no longer believe this

the taste of an old mans butt, now available in several convenient formats

it looks strange enough!

this whole thing put me in the mood to start a new religious cult.

Fine
Extend your point to include tables, sofas, colostomy bags, girraffes with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 necks and every other thing you can possibly imagine including the God you are thinking of now, and now, and now, and now, which are equally likely then you might have a point.

You could of course acknowlege the limitations of the human mind and its inability to assert any of these things, but coming from such a prime beef example as yourself you probbaly wont.
til then

I should buy beer tomorrow because I'm drinking all this up.

Too bad my dad has a half-shit taste in beer.

Michelob... trash

i had really good beer,la fin du monde, and now i'm drinking shit and honestly i like the shit better,sorry gmku