Atheist: Someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of gods.
These are not discussions they are broad generalizations or just flat out wrong. When actual atheists tell you this you either ignore it, or keep repeating it like you couldn’t possibly be wrong.
yeah - it’s not a “lack of belief” - it’s simply “not believing”
I don’t have a moral responsibility to answer this question because it implies my request in the OP is insincere and provocative, and everything I describe there is a lie. If it doesn’t, then it is an off topic point that should be addressed in a thread of its own.
Nobody has a moral responsibility to say anything here. But your refusal to acknowledge the question is telling. Not that this is news at this point; you’ve been avoiding this question since … post #2, really.
I’m a theist who doesn’t believe there’s an afterlife waiting for me. Some atheists believe – the exact opposite. So what?
Again, I can’t follow this at all: some atheists do believe in objective ethics – and as for theists, why does “God said so” count as terrific objectivity if “My dad said so,” or “My country says so,” or “I say so” counts as subjectivity?
It is an absence of belief (see here or here). Let’s temporarily equate them to avoid a squabble over terminology.
Zing! Another dismissal!
Not really, and repeatedly dodging is doing that already.
Its an important distinction - the theist is implying that you need to “try a little harder” - while the atheist is making a simple statement on what they believe.
Also just realied you changed the text from “lack of belief” to “absence of belief” - but its still incorrect - "not believing " is not “missing something”.
My refusal to acknowledge the question is telling, but what it tells depends only on the reader’s prejudices. It is also telling, for example, how one may constantly choose to read between the lines and ignore the lines themselves.
This has got to be a Turing test. People simply do not speak like this.
Let’s not. It’s a fundamental rule of logical reasoning.
Logic begins with careful use of definitions. And this thread shows you are most certainly not doing so. Let’s not compound all the logical fallacies by blowing away one of its most important legs.
Yes, it’s called “dodging the question”. It’s a reasonable question. You get to make this distinction while others don’t? Again, you appear to have a different set of rules for yourself than you demand of others.
Lack of belief or absence of belief are not my phrases. What you state contravenes with the sources. Please address the authors who define atheism as absence of belief, not me.
Does absence of belief satisfy your rigor?
Idea 3 is incorrect - ‘Darwinism’ (by wwhich I think you really mean “Evolution”) is a process that occurs to life - it has NOTHING to do with “how many appeared on earth” - it only deals with what happens afterwards. If “Darwinism” once talked about " how we got here" - those are a different subject altoghether.
Idea 2 is also incorrect - the “Big Bang” does not deal with “how” the universe “came into being” but, again, deals with observable changes in the universe.
So - you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
This is perilously close to gibberish. You won’t address the question, so we can conclude that you don’t want to answer the question. It’s pretty easy to guess why, but in any case it’s crippled the discussion.
you posted the original “atheist belief” arguments - are you here to discuss that or just push off any response? Why should I acaddress the authors when you are the one posting it here (and presumably agreeing with them).
No.
The implication is the same - that there is something “missing” from an atheist’s belief structure. Semantic games are not the sign of good faith arguments.
Let’s go with the dictionary here: atheism is the doctrine or belief there are no gods.
See? There’s no “lack” or “absence” of belief here. Plenty of belief. Just that there are no gods.
I just did it (unless I’m some sort of AI).