Define an atheist ?

[Kerr]

Define it without using these words.

What is the purpose of this thread? Because it seems to be more of a word game then anything else when you respond to that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Define an atheist ? Without using these words: god, creator, or any word which indicates god.

... Why?

That's like asking me to define a "baker" without making any references to baking, or to define a "non-smoker" without any mention of cigarettes. It makes no sense.

 

[Yerda]

Define an atheist ? Without using these words: god, creator, or any word which indicates god.

Why define a term without using any of the other terms that comprise its defintion?

Is this an examination of our language skills?

 

[waitasec]

i think it's a challenging idea...

sort of like charades....

 

[freethinker44]

What is the purpose of this thread? Because it seems to be more of a word game then anything else when you respond to that.

It is. He is only trying to force us to say we can't be atheist without god and somehow this will prove conclusively that atheists really believe in god but hate him and only want to say there is no god so we can be comfortable with our sinfull ways. Been through this one a thousand times.

 

[HerDotness]

What is the purpose of this thread? Because it seems to be more of a word game then anything else when you respond to that.

I think we've got a pretty good hint what the purpose is from this question from the OP:

"Or an atheist means the one who doesn't believe in creation which we can see all around us ?"

I could be wrong, of course, but I doubt that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, because you can't define the phrase "non-smoker" without referencing cigarettes, this really means that all non-smokers are desperate nicotine addicts in denial?

 

[freethinker44]

So, because you can't define the phrase "non-smoker" without referencing cigarettes, this really means that all non-smokers are desperate nicotine addicts in denial?

It would appear. Either that or the whole argument is crap.

 

[Kerr]

I think we've got a pretty good hint what the purpose is from this question from the OP:

"Or an atheist means the one who doesn't believe in creation which we can see all around us ?"

I could be wrong, of course, but I doubt that.

Lol, I am terrible at hints. In either case I prefer to ask him. Maybe we have misunderstood what he wanted... unlikely, but possible.

Besides, maybe the world created itself. Maybe we build a device in the future that created the world. Those alternatives are in my opinion as unlikely as God creating it, but they dont involve a creator, so I guess an atheist can believe in creation .

 

[beerisit]

Interesting! I'm a smoker who isn't a nicotine addict. Does that make me an anicotenist?

 

[Kerr]

It is. He is only trying to force us to say we can't be atheist without god and somehow this will prove conclusively that atheists really believe in god but hate him and only want to say there is no god so we can be comfortable with our sinfull ways. Been through this one a thousand times.

Lol. If that is the case then he should be aware that you can make the same argument for a god he doesnt believe in .

 

[HerDotness]

Interesting! I'm a smoker who isn't a nicotine addict. Does that make me an anicotenist?

Naw, just a nicotinist-lite. :yes:

:run:

 

[chinu]

No, that is actually the exact minimum amount of words possible to define atheism. This question is an obvious troll but atheism isn't a claim. It is a reaction to a claim.

Answer has no relation with the quantity of words, One can use as many as they want.

 

[ankarali]

An Atheist, he/she is a free person in the field of war he/she does not want to carry a gun. He seems free but he could not defend himself against attacks

but a person who believe in God He/she also is the field of war but he must carry a gun. When we see him/her we though he/she is not free but at least he/she has the gun to defend himself

 

[HerDotness]

An Atheist, he/she is a free person in the field of war he/she does not want to carry a gun. He seems free but he could not defend himself against attacks

but a person who believe in God He/she also is the field of war but he must carry a gun. When we see him/her we though he/she is not free but at least he/she has the gun to defend himself

Say what?

This is one of the more inapt analogies I've ever read.

 

[chinu]

ooh ooh how about this?

an atheists is one who believes the brian works in mysterious ways....

You mean by the one who believes is brain-ism ?

 

[chinu]

What is the purpose of this thread?

Purpose is no atheist without god.

Because it seems to be more of a word game then anything else when you respond to that.

Lol.. if you think that everybody here on RF is very very very serious towards god, than you are in a big mistake. Every thread is the game of words, nothing else. Than what's new in if i have done this just one time more ?

 

[chinu]

... Why?

Because you have done this mistake, And the name of this mistake is: "Replying to this thread"

to define a "non-smoker" without any mention of cigarettes. It makes no sense.

This means that there would be no NON-SMOKERS without CIGARETTES, Right ?
Similarly.. i want to prove that there would be no ATHEISTS without GOD.

 

[beerisit]

It's really sad. Isn't it?

 

[Kerr]

Purpose is no atheist without god.

Atheism cannot exist without theism. That is not the same as saying atheism cannot exist without God.

Lol.. if you think that everybody here on RF is very very very serious towards god, than you are in a big mistake. Every thread is the game of words, nothing else. Than what's new in if i have done this just one time more ?

Asking for a definition of something that does not include anything that defines that something is a pointless word game, not a meaningful one .