Define an atheist ?

[chinu]

And you would be wrong. There are no atheists without theists. There is a difference.

Like there would be no son without grandfather, Similarly there would be no atheists wothout god. If still you don't agree than ask any father (theist).

 

[chinu]

So, the existence of people who don't believe in the Loch Ness monster proves that there is a Loch Ness Monster? The existence of people who don't believe in leprechauns proves that there are leprechauns?

Yes! Right.
And that because.. Do you know from where the idea of Loch Ness Monster and Leperechauns came from ?

I call them by some another name.

 

[chinu]

[/b]attempting to raise once again that same-old-same-old, "There has to be some deity of some kind or there'd be no cause for anyone to be an atheist."
It's a specious and more than somewhat silly argument to start with.

Just think.. if there would have been NO such a specious and silly THREAD, than from where all these replies would have been came from ?

I think it would have been never possible, and similarly is the OP

And more intresting matter is that if it is so and so.. Than why you replied ?

 

[chinu]

No problem, an atheist is someone who does not accept the claims of theists.

For Example: An atheist has a theist mother, and mother claims that person is your real father insted of this.
Does atheist do not accepts such claims ?

 

[chinu]

What does this mean? Do we need DNA testing to know where babies come from?
You answered: An atheist is one who believes in things only when there's evidence for them.

I mean to say..
Which evidence do atheists get from their wifes to believe that their child is their own geniune product, insted of somebody else is not involved in this production ?

 

[chinu]

Thats like asking to define the word theist without using the words god, creator, etc...

Yes this is also not possible.
There would be no atheist, as well as theist without god.

 

[chinu]

Atheist=Reality

Yes! Atheist = Reality of God.

 

[flame93]

Is it possible ?

No, because theism means God, and A-theism without God.
Nevertheless, me as Thelemc Atheist, view god as personal experience, as a part of me "Homo deus est", but I deny God in a classical religious way as one person for all humanity.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Like there would be no son without grandfather, Similarly there would be no atheists wothout god. If still you don't agree than ask any father (theist).

Close, but not quite. There would be no atheists without belief in gods. Otherwise you are creating a terrible argument for the existence of gods

 

[chinu]

Close, but not quite. There would be no atheists without belief in gods. Otherwise you are creating a terrible argument for the existence of gods

I think you are totally responding off topic.
The question was simply to define an atheist whiout using the word god or similar words to god etc.. Thats it .
If this is not possible, than am correct.
If you are saying that it is a terrible argument than why you replied ? Don't you know all this before responding ?

 

[chinu]

No,

Thankyou atleast you agreed.

because theism means God, and A-theism without God.

Yes yes yes friend everybody know's this very well. Cheers!

Nevertheless, me as Thelemc Atheist, view god as personal experience, as a part of me "Homo deus est", but I deny God in a classical religious way as one person for all humanity.

The question was just to define an atheist without using the word god or similar words to god etc.. Thats it.

Who are you ? or what and why you deny so and so god or gods etc..? is another good topic, which is more than welcome to discuss in your introduction thread. So for the mean time pls don't go off topic its my humble request my friend.

 

[Valjean]

Like there would be no son without grandfather, Similarly there would be no atheists wothout god. If still you don't agree than ask any father (theist).

Close, but not quite. There would be no atheists without belief in gods. Otherwise you are creating a terrible argument for the existence of gods

You're both wrong. I suspect you don't clearly understand what atheism is.
There's nothing complicated about it. Basic, weak atheism is simply non-belief in a God or Gods. Despite the apparently confusing name it does not need to reference theism.

Atheism is the epistemic default position. We are born atheist. My cat is an atheist. It's theism that must be learned and appended to our natural state of atheism

 

[chinu]

You're both wrong. I suspect you don't clearly understand what atheism is.

Niether we nor you, or nobody here is wrong.
The question was simply just to define an atheist without using the word God or similar words like god etc.. Thats it nothing else.

There's nothing complicated about it. Basic, weak atheism is simply non-belief in a God or Gods. Despite the apparently confusing name it does not need to reference theism.

Atheism is the epistemic default position. We are born atheist. My cat is an atheist. It's theism that must be learned and appended to our natural state of atheism

Why are you changing the simple topic to ISM's ?

 

[HonestJoe]

The question was simply just to define an atheist without using the word God or similar words like god etc.. Thats it nothing else.

We all know that isn't true. If it was, you wouldn't have posted the following earlier in the thread;

Yes! this is what i want to say, firstly came god, and then came thiests, and further came atheists.

This is a discussion board. Posting simple "yes or no" questions and claiming to expect nothing more than one-word answers is either dishonest or ignorant. Flatly refusing to engage in a discussion about your question, the motives behind asking it or the concepts it raises can only be dishonest.

You might like to think you're coming across as being very clever but you've achieved the exact opposite. The fact we've been around this same path in the past doesn't help.

 

[flame93]

Who are you ? or what and why you deny so and so god or gods etc..? is another good topic, which is more than welcome to discuss in your introduction thread. So for the mean time pls don't go off topic its my humble request my friend.

I've just tried to expand boundaries of discussion, but I presume this is not disscusion, rather a strict call for a correct answer. Hope you'll get one. Peace

 

[chinu]

We all know that isn't true.

Firstly.. The talk is just going on between you and me so why are you responding on the behalf of others by using these words "We All" insted of "I" ? or you are just collecting your votes in advance ? Don't worry no compitation is going on here..

If it was, you wouldn't have posted the following earlier in the thread;

What are you talking about, or what i have posted earlier ? can you tell me once again ?

This is a discussion board. Posting simple "yes or no" questions and claiming to expect nothing more than one-word answers is either dishonest or ignorant. Flatly refusing to engage in a discussion about your question, the motives behind asking it or the concepts it raises can only be dishonest.

You are painting this picture in your own mind. Nothing else..

You might like to think you're coming across as being very clever but you've achieved the exact opposite.

Firstly.. everybody here want to be clever, than what's new if am doing this ?
Secondly.. if i have achieved the exact opposite, than also what's new, Because nobody on this forum, or even in this whole world want somebody another to be more cleaverer than him/her. Thus its doesn't make any difference.

The fact we've been around this same path in the past doesn't help

Again you are talking on the behalf of others here. Or before replying to me have you discussed this matter with any other RF member ? tell me ?

 

[chinu]

I've just tried to expand boundaries of discussion, but I presume this is not disscusion, rather a strict call for a correct answer. Hope you'll get one. Peace

No no no.. you are getting something wrong. Just try to concentrate insted of expanding.

Yes! that's why you are not getting the point, Now i know. Concentrate and then disscuss again.

Hope you'll get now. Peace.

 

[A Troubled Man]

For Example: An atheist has a theist mother, and mother claims that person is your real father insted of this.
Does atheist do not accepts such claims ?

That is not a claim based on theism so it isn't relative to the definition.

Obviously, a claim from a theist is going to be a claim of theism.

 

[HonestJoe]

Firstly.. The talk is just going on between you and me so why are you responding on the behalf of others by using these words "We All" insted of "I" ?

I am speaking on behalf of the other people who have responded to you, making the same points in a different way in a vain attempt to stop you dodging them.

What are you talking about, or what i have posted earlier ? can you tell me once again ?

I quoted you from a previous post in this thread. You said;
"Yes! this is what i want to say, firstly came god, and then came thiests, and further came atheists."

I'm suggesting this goes entirely against your claim that this thread is only about the initial yes/no question.

You are painting this picture in your own mind. Nothing else..

Which part? Is this not a discussion board (you can check the mission statement in the rules FAQ for that)? Have you not claimed that you only want a yes or no answer to your question and refuse to engage in any discussion surrounding it?

Again you are talking on the behalf of others here. Or before replying to me have you discussed this matter with any other RF member ? tell me ?

That "we" just refers to me and you. This isn't the first time I've addressed you on similar topics and it isn't the first time you've feigned ignorance of the very straight forward points I and others make in response.

 

[chinu]

That is not a claim based on theism so it isn't relative to the definition.

Obviously, a claim from a theist is going to be a claim of theism.

You are changing the mode of this thread from simply to define something to claims and ISM's.

This was not the question.