Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[night912]

Be DEFINITION, and anti-theist is opposed to ALL gods and the belief in ALL gods, If he happens to believe in any form of deity, he can't be an anti-theist. By definition. (and I posted the definitions) He can only be anti-every other theist.

Where does it say ALL gods?

 

[Heyo]

I can't be bothered reading through all the hundreds of posts, so I'm probably repeating many.

Atheism doesn't exist. Flat out, there is no such thing as atheism.
Atheists exists, but that's completely different.

Theism is the belief in some religious ideology. Doesn't necessarily even include a God image, although usually it does. But theism is an ideology.

Atheism is the lack of such an ideology. So, obviously, atheism doesn't exist. It is the lack of theism.
Theism is a thing, a belief in something theistic. Atheism is the lack of such a belief.
Atheism doesn't exist. Never did. Cannot possibly.
Tom

Holes do not exist. A hole is simply the absence of substance. Therefore holes can't exist.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes I have.

(sigh) I thought my request was courteous enough. Would you mind pointing me to the post in which you did this, or repeating the proof? I must have missed it. "Yes I have" doesn't cut it. Had someone told ME 'I must have missed it," and asked for a link, I would have provided it. "Yes I have" wouldn't have passed my keyboard. It would have been 'Yes I have; HERE" (with "Here" having a link)

I don't know why atheist is relevant when this is about an anti-theist Christian.

Because 'anti-theist Christian" is an oxymoron. If one is a Christian (that is, a THEIST) one cannot be anti-theist. One can only be anti-every OTHER theism. Don't get me wrong here; I'm not saying that anti-(pick a belief system) Christians don't exist. They do. In fact, theists who are anti-some other theism tend to be pretty nasty. As a Mormon, I've been the target of a whole bunch of anti-Mormon rhetoric and physical action, and so have my immediate ancestors....and they've pretty much all been evangelistic Christians. Most anti-Semites are other theists.

Nor am I claiming that all atheists are anti-theists.

However, anti-theism ...to be against every and all theists and theism...requires that one not be a theist personally. What is one when one is not a theist? One is an atheist. Or an ignostic (I suppose an agnostic can be anti-theist but I've never run into one...) What one cannot be is a theist, of any brand.

So argument from ignorance.

"Argument from ignorance?" no, that's me using the same argument atheists use; a complete lack of belief that something for which there is NO evidence actually exists. The one committing an argument from ignorance here is you, taking my statement and concluding that if *I* have never met someone like this (an anti-theist theist) then of course one must exist.

What I wrote was like saying 'I suppose there MIGHT be fairies in my nose, but I've never met any and don't have any evidence for any." You have taken that and figured that since I don't have any evidence for fairies in my nose, then of course there have to be fairies in my nose. THAT is an argument from ignorance, and you made it. I didn't.

 

[dianaiad]

Where does it say ALL gods?

Oh good grief. Where does it say 'ALL gods in the definition of atheism? '

Are you claiming that atheists may believe in a god or gods...s/he qualifies by not believing in any one of them? that would make everybody in the world an atheist, wouldn't it?

Don't equivocate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. But you seem to be.

The people of over 4200 gods (not including the millions of personal gods) are responsible for the vast majority of killings. All you need do is learn some history.

You made a strange statement some posts back, "God's people tried to kill my children". Are you abandoning that claim today?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Right, so as I said: you mean the religious doctrine.
I don't call that a gift. I call that psychological poison.





So how, according to your religious doctrine, does one get into heaven?
Keep it short and to the point.

What is the very first pre-requisite?

Or put another way: can a non-believer get to your paradise?
Regardless of how that person lived his life. It's the only thing you know: it's a non-believer.

Based on that, can the unbeliever get to your paradise? Yes or no?

There are two ways an unbeliever can enter Heaven: repent regarding the truth of Christ, or they haven't heard of Christ but are sincerely God-seeking.

Not good news for the skeptics here, but that's what the Bible teaches.

 

[ChristineM]

You made a strange statement some posts back, "God's people tried to kill my children". Are you abandoning that claim today?

Actually i said christians, i never mentioned god but feel free to make up whatever suits you. And why should i abandon fact just because it disagrees with you.
Why are you trying to make me abandon my statement?
Do you have children?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are two ways an unbeliever can enter Heaven: repent regarding the truth of Christ

Which would turn them into a believer, meaning they'ld no longer be a non-believer at the moment of death.

, or they haven't heard of Christ but are sincerely God-seeking.

What does "sincerely God-seeking" mean?

In any case, "haven't heard of christ" is something you can pretty much rule out in most of modern society.
So I'ld rule that out as an option, since just about everybody in western society is aware of christianity.

So that leaves us with only one option then, as I insinuated: belief in the religion is the very first requirement. It doesn't matter how you lived your life, how you treated others,... nope.

The first requirement is belief on bad evidence.

So just like I said:
The religion teaches that eternal punishment awaits for those who believe the wrong thing.

In fact with the addition of the point that I said we should rule out, you actually made it worse.

I imagine a village of nice and friendly people. They are peacefull devout theists of some kind.
They are a small community living in some remote mountain region with little to no contact with the outside world. They never heared of christianity and have lived there for several centuries, set in their ways.

You then come along on a visit and preach christianity to them.
They give you a friendly welcome, discuss some religion with you, agree to disagree, and you are on your way couple days later.


Now, you have just doomed that entire village.
Now, these people get an eternity of torture, simply because you told them about your religion and they kept to their own peacefull traditions.


This is the sad state of affairs of what you are required to believe. This is how morally bankrupt and inhuman it really is.

Not good news for the skeptics here, but that's what the Bible teaches.

As a skeptic, it is completely irrelevant news to me as I view your bible pretty much like you view the Iliad or Lord of the Rings.

I'ld say rather, that it is bad news for the religion / for you, that this is what it teaches...
Because it kind of demonstrates my point that it is really just psychological poison........

 

[night912]

Oh good grief. Where does it say 'ALL gods in the definition of atheism? '

Are you claiming that atheists may believe in a god or gods...s/he qualifies by not believing in any one of them? that would make everybody in the world an atheist, wouldn't it?

Don't equivocate.

Nope. It wasn't an equivocation. I pointed out that it didn't say ALL gods because you are claiming that it has to include all theists. The definition says, "A god or gods." So it only requires for someone to be a theist. And you've already shown that it's possible to be "anti" towards other theists.

Look at post #267.
Atheism doesn't exist?:)

 

[dianaiad]

Nope. It wasn't an equivocation. I pointed out that it didn't say ALL gods because you are claiming that it has to include all theists. The definition says, "A god or gods." So it only requires for someone to be a theist. And you've already shown that it's possible to be "anti" towards other theists.

Look at post #267.
Atheism doesn't exist?:)

Of course it is possible to be anti-OTHER theists. In fact, I've written that in almost every post. It is not possible for a theist to be anti-theist, the definition of which uses the same wording as the definition of 'atheist,' namely, an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god or gods. The definition of theist is...someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods. The definition of 'anti-theist' is 'someone who is opposed to the belief in a god or gods'

That's it. That's the defintion of theism, atheism and anti-theism. I've posted the definitions from the dictionary...more than one dictionary.

So in order for you to claim that a theist can be an anti-theist, you have to change the meaning of the words in the definitions. So...'a god or gods' means ANY 'god or gods' when it applies to an atheist, but something different when it applies to anti-theist?

Sorry. If we go with your definition here, then an atheist can indeed believe in a god or gods if s/he only believes in one. You would be unique...and alone..in that idea if you did. I know of no atheists who would say that atheism means that you DO believe in the existence of a god or gods--just not all of 'em.

"Theist" means that one DOES believe in a god or gods. A god or more. You might put 'any' there, as well--it works. An atheist lacks a belief in any god or gods. Is there an atheist out there who would disagree with that?

A theist is someone who lacks a belief in any god or gods.

An anti-theist is someone who is opposed to the belief in any god or gods.

A theist can be opposed to the belief in any god or gods BUT HIS, but that still makes him/her a theist (because he believes in one god, at least). He can't be an anti-theist because an anti-theist is opposed to the belief in theism in general, and to the existence of ANY god or gods.

Only atheists, who lack a belief in any god or gods, can be anti-theists. That does not mean that all atheists are anti-theists, by any means, and I've never claimed that they were. It doesn't mean that theists can't be extremely nasty in their anti-every belief but theirs. They can, and are, and have been.

Anti-theists....the folks who are opposed to the belief and exercise of that belief, in any god, have been incredibly murderous in the twentieth century. Anti-everybody but mine folks have been incredibly murderous previously, and still can be.

This is a matter of precision, not of accusation. You are spinning this term so that it doesn't 'look as bad' for atheists...because you want to say 'well, theists can be anti-theists too!" Well, they can't. They can be really NASTY--certainly AS nasty as any anti-theist, but not anti-theist.

I honestly do not see the difference between, say, an anti-Catholic or an anti-Mormon or an anti-Jehovah's Witness than I do an anti-theist. As I have been told so often before, referring to atheism, where I'm told than an atheist simply disbelieves in one more god than a theist does, an anti-theist just hates one more religion than a theist does.

Just stop redefining English words to match your prejudices, OK?

 

[McBell]

...

Not good news for the skeptics here...

Opinions vary.

 

[Milton Platt]

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%
whereas, for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100% and that there is no God 0%
BTW a famous atheist say or wrote something like that

You can think you are 100% right....that does not mean that you are.

 

[night912]

Of course it is possible to be anti-OTHER theists. In fact, I've written that in almost every post. It is not possible for a theist to be anti-theist, the definition of which uses the same wording as the definition of 'atheist,' namely, an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god or gods. The definition of theist is...someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods. The definition of 'anti-theist' is 'someone who is opposed to the belief in a god or gods'

That's it. That's the defintion of theism, atheism and anti-theism. I've posted the definitions from the dictionary...more than one dictionary.

So in order for you to claim that a theist can be an anti-theist, you have to change the meaning of the words in the definitions. So...'a god or gods' means ANY 'god or gods' when it applies to an atheist, but something different when it applies to anti-theist?

Sorry. If we go with your definition here, then an atheist can indeed believe in a god or gods if s/he only believes in one. You would be unique...and alone..in that idea if you did. I know of no atheists who would say that atheism means that you DO believe in the existence of a god or gods--just not all of 'em.

"Theist" means that one DOES believe in a god or gods. A god or more. You might put 'any' there, as well--it works. An atheist lacks a belief in any god or gods. Is there an atheist out there who would disagree with that?

A theist is someone who lacks a belief in any god or gods.

An anti-theist is someone who is opposed to the belief in any god or gods.

A theist can be opposed to the belief in any god or gods BUT HIS, but that still makes him/her a theist (because he believes in one god, at least). He can't be an anti-theist because an anti-theist is opposed to the belief in theism in general, and to the existence of ANY god or gods.

Only atheists, who lack a belief in any god or gods, can be anti-theists. That does not mean that all atheists are anti-theists, by any means, and I've never claimed that they were. It doesn't mean that theists can't be extremely nasty in their anti-every belief but theirs. They can, and are, and have been.

Anti-theists....the folks who are opposed to the belief and exercise of that belief, in any god, have been incredibly murderous in the twentieth century. Anti-everybody but mine folks have been incredibly murderous previously, and still can be.

This is a matter of precision, not of accusation. You are spinning this term so that it doesn't 'look as bad' for atheists...because you want to say 'well, theists can be anti-theists too!" Well, they can't. They can be really NASTY--certainly AS nasty as any anti-theist, but not anti-theist.

I honestly do not see the difference between, say, an anti-Catholic or an anti-Mormon or an anti-Jehovah's Witness than I do an anti-theist. As I have been told so often before, referring to atheism, where I'm told than an atheist simply disbelieves in one more god than a theist does, an anti-theist just hates one more religion than a theist does.

Just stop redefining English words to match your prejudices, OK?

Hahaha. You wanted me to post what I said, and when I did post it, you didn't even address it at all. Instead, you just repeated what you've said before and strawman about atheism, and once again proving that I was in fact, correct and you were wrong regarding the possibility of there being anti-theist Christian.

Just accept that you were wrong. There's no shame in being wrong. And who's redefining English words here? That's right, you are, because anti-theist is no longer "opossed to someone who believes in a god." The prejudice ones are the ones who always brings it up first and accuse others of it, especially when there were talks of prejudice in the discussion.

It funny how you accused me of trying to spinning this so it doesn't "look as bad" for atheists. That's your saddest argument yet. Doing that shows nothing about you being wrong, that's why I didn't do that. Instead, I actually showed why you are wrong with reasons to support why you were wrong. I showed you why you're assumptions were wrong by explaining that you were ignorant of the meaning and even showed why it was possible.

And do you want to know why I know that you're just arguing because of ignorance and/or can't accept that you're wrong? It is because you were using examples of anti-theist. An anti-OTHER theist, is by definition, an anti-theist. Here's the shocking part, both an atheist and a theist can be an anti-theist, and I acknowledged and accept it.

Haven't you ever heard of the saying, "Just because someone is a minority, doesn't mean that they can't be racist."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually i said christians, i never mentioned god but feel free to make up whatever suits you. And why should i abandon fact just because it disagrees with you.
Why are you trying to make me abandon my statement?
Do you have children?

I apologize for not being more clear. I have children, and Christians and my Jewish family are mostly pro-life and supported their births.

You made an extraordinary claim that "God's people tried to kill my children," which you are now redacting to "Christians". Can you please cite or defend this outrageous claim? Who tried to kill your (plural) children and when/where?

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which would turn them into a believer, meaning they'ld no longer be a non-believer at the moment of death.



What does "sincerely God-seeking" mean?

In any case, "haven't heard of christ" is something you can pretty much rule out in most of modern society.
So I'ld rule that out as an option, since just about everybody in western society is aware of christianity.

So that leaves us with only one option then, as I insinuated: belief in the religion is the very first requirement. It doesn't matter how you lived your life, how you treated others,... nope.

The first requirement is belief on bad evidence.

So just like I said:
The religion teaches that eternal punishment awaits for those who believe the wrong thing.

In fact with the addition of the point that I said we should rule out, you actually made it worse.

I imagine a village of nice and friendly people. They are peacefull devout theists of some kind.
They are a small community living in some remote mountain region with little to no contact with the outside world. They never heared of christianity and have lived there for several centuries, set in their ways.

You then come along on a visit and preach christianity to them.
They give you a friendly welcome, discuss some religion with you, agree to disagree, and you are on your way couple days later.


Now, you have just doomed that entire village.
Now, these people get an eternity of torture, simply because you told them about your religion and they kept to their own peacefull traditions.


This is the sad state of affairs of what you are required to believe. This is how morally bankrupt and inhuman it really is.



As a skeptic, it is completely irrelevant news to me as I view your bible pretty much like you view the Iliad or Lord of the Rings.

I'ld say rather, that it is bad news for the religion / for you, that this is what it teaches...
Because it kind of demonstrates my point that it is really just psychological poison........

Perhaps this will clarify/solidify for us both:

If someone fell on a hand grenade for me, that would change my life utterly. I would forever praise their memory. You must be a hard person to use “belief” like a weapon in this manner, when the reality is we are to trust in Him who loved us, and gave us all He had to give, IMHO.

I've never met a person wholly unmoved by Christ's supreme example of love, leading them towards trusting Him via love, other than very hardened persons.

Rephrased: "It's not one goes to Hell because of lack of doctrine belief, it's one goes to Hell for rejecting the supreme example of love and hardening oneself against love from God and from people, further, Hell is for people unable to be in Heaven, because they lack moral perfection. One cannot sin in Heaven without ruining Heaven as a moral utopia, therefore, IMHO, Christ died not only to forgive sinners but to TRANSFORM sinners, making them eligible for Heaven."

Yes, Hell is "really, really bad" but also, only "really, really bad" people, IMHO, disdain and show contempt for, someone who died, falling on a hand grenade, for their sake!

Thanks for understanding.

 

[ChristineM]

I apologize for not being more clear. I have children, and Christians and my Jewish family are mostly pro-life and supported their births.

You made an extraordinary claim that "God's people tried to kill my children," which you are now redacting to "Christians". Can you please cite or defend this outrageous claim? Who tried to kill your (plural) children and when/where?

Thank you.

I have never said "gods people" you did. Do not make up untruths to cover your error.

I do not call christians or any one else gods people, unless you can prove me wrong a complete apology for your misrepresentation would be nice?

I have recounted the incident briefly on RF, which has search function, feel free to use it because i do not particularly wish to relive that terror to satisfy your incredulity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are two ways an unbeliever can enter Heaven: repent regarding the truth of Christ, or they haven't heard of Christ but are sincerely God-seeking.

Not good news for the skeptics here, but that's what the Bible teaches.

If that were true, proselytizing would be one of the most evil things a person could do.

If a person's ignorance of Christ could ensure that they enter Heaven, why would you ever deliberately shatter it? You'd be condemning the vast majority of the people you proselytize to to Hell: "narrow is the way" and all that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Rephrased: "It's not one goes to Hell because of lack of doctrine belief, it's one goes to Hell for rejecting the supreme example of love and hardening oneself against love from God and from people, further, Hell is for people unable to be in Heaven, because they lack moral perfection. One cannot sin in Heaven without ruining Heaven as a moral utopia, therefore, IMHO, Christ died not only to forgive sinners but to TRANSFORM sinners, making them eligible for Heaven."

Your just confirming my point and trying to over it up with love-sauce.

So yes, if you are not a christian believer, then it's to hell with you.

In other words, exactly like I said 4 posts ago, your religion teaches that hell awaits those who believe the wrong thing. The "wrong thing" being anything other then christianity.

The things you are listing for what one must do to be "eligeble" for heaven, can be simply summed up to "be a christian".

 

[Willamena]

Where does it say ALL gods?

Oh good grief. Where does it say 'ALL gods in the definition of atheism? '

Are you claiming that atheists may believe in a god or gods...s/he qualifies by not believing in any one of them? that would make everybody in the world an atheist, wouldn't it?

Don't equivocate.

It says "God or gods" in most dictionaries.

If I dislike elephants, it implies that I dislike them all. That's what generalizations are for.

 

[night912]

It says "God or gods" in most dictionaries.

If I dislike elephants, it implies that I dislike them all. That's what generalizations are for.

But that's not what generalizing means. When we generalize, we take a one characteristic thing and represent as a whole. If I don't like seafood, it doesn't mean that I don't like all the food that comes from the sea.

So if you are anti a particular type of theist, ie Catholics, Mormans, Muslims etc, you are opposed those particular type of theist. And we generalize it by using the general term, which is theist. That's why it is possible to have an anti-theist Christian, someone being a Christian that is opposed to a particular type of theist(s).