Atheists are atheists because they’re without belief in God/gods, not because of any other supernatural beliefs they may or may not have. What you said about Christians being able to be atheists makes no sense.
I suppose it is, if you take the philosophy and skeptical thinking behind atheism to the next level. I only had a minor quibble with the way the word was being used.
Yes, that’s what you said. But you haven’t remotely convinced me that this idea has any merit at all.
Would it be reasonable to state that unbelief in Allah’s existence is a subset of Islam, because it addresses the topic of the existence of the Muslim deity? Of course not. Your position is preposterous on its face.
Says who? And with what justification?
When the subject of hell and eternal torture arises, I think it QUITE reasonable to weigh the likelihood and unlikelihood of its reality in deciding whether or not to accept Christianity. Calculating risks is what wise adults do, in all spheres of existence.
Um, no. I exist, and the human mind exists. I’m convinced that any philosophy that is grounded in any kind of reality needs to account for these things. Your atheism-as-an-absolute thinking seems to me to apply only in realm of Platonic ideals.
In other words, if I am being honest and realistic, I have to admit that there might be things that I don’t know or understand. And one or more of those things might allow for or suggest the existence of a god or gods. Ergo, I cannot declare as fact that their existence is impossible. And the corollary of “not impossible” is “possible”. QED.
I respected what you were saying until you said “irregardless”. 
(j/k)
Yes, what you say here is true, but that does not justify the removal of human intellectual limitations from the belief equation.
First of all, this is incorrect on its face, as I demonstrated in my first paragraph in this reply, above, but more to the point: That’s not at all what I’m doing. I’m making no factual “statement” about gods’ existence at all, beyond the personal observation that I do not happen to believe in them. You do understand the difference between an expression of opinion, and a factual claim, yes?
You got nothing.
Hmm, okay, lessee…
re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1. **A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,**
esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,
usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a
moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
[...]
6. **Something one believes in and follows devotedly;** a point or matter of ethics
or conscience: *to make a religion of fighting prejudice [or ignorance].*
Now…what was your point again? :dubious:
However, the mythology of Hell does exist. I think we can all agree on that!
I notice you carefully avoided bolding the second phrase of definition 1), above. Predictable.
Here it is:
You understand how dictionary definitions work…yes? :smack:
Atheism doesn’t meet that definition. At all.
Likewise, definition 6) is what we grown-ups call a metaphorical usage. So if you’re pinning your atheism=religion argument on the use of “religion” in a subjective, opinionated, metaphorical sense, well, you’ve lost.
But we all already knew that.
Atheism is not–and never will be–a “religion” in this word’s most literal, everyday, straightfoward, common sense. It is only in the most strained, subjective, non-literal, rhetorically loaded sense of that word, that it could even remotely be called such.
Fuzzypickles FAIL.
Wow, are you being sincere here?
That was soooooo not his point.
Dictionaries show all of the way words can be used. As the example shows, people say things like someone has made a religion out of fighting ignorance. Taking statements like that literally is a tactic theists use to claim that atheism is a religion which is what you tried to do. Lame.
ETA: Beaten by another poster once again.
By the way, fuzzypickles, we’re still waiting on that “evidence” of “higher intelligences”.
When may I say that we can expect it?
As a matter of fact, that’s the very definition of agnostism – you can “believe”, for day-to-day’s sake, that God doesn’t exist (or, at the very least, that the existence of God is irrelevant) but as long as you accept the miniscule possibility that God might exist, then congratulations – you’ve been an agnostic all this time!
However, it does sound as if you’re only saying that for appearance’s sake.
You’re saying that as if one can’t be agnostic and an atheist. They’re not mutually exclusive. If you’re without belief in the existence in God/gods, you’re an atheist. What you believe is possible has zero to do with it. I can keep repeating this for you until it sinks in.
My comments are not about opinions. People have all kinds of opinions, true, false, medium rare or well done.
The thread’s subject “there is no god” may express the opinion of the O.P. but the discussion is whether that opinion also coincides with the irrefutable and universal reality that there are no gods, a truth that is independent of human beings.
There hasn’t been a society in recorded history where a majority of opinion did not involve a substantial embodiment of the irrational – see: religion. So what people think or believe or claim or opine on has to be disregarded when we determine the truth value of a statement.
The truth is that there are no gods. Beliefs and opinions about this, pro or against, do not affect its reality.
Don’t talk down to an English Major, pal. :mad: By the standard rules of grammar, any dependent clause (after the comma) preceded by “esp.” means that it affects the independent clause most of the time, but not all of the time. IOW, that particular phrase isn’t required, and can be redacted w/o altering the sentence itself.
No, the two terms are entirely discrete. Atheism = No God. Agnosticism = Probably No God (but maybe, if more evidence comes to light…)
Why is that so challenging to comprehend???
I comprehend what you’re saying, but you’re wrong. Atheism and theism deal with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Are you going to answer the first question I asked you in post #52?
Atheism is not a belief nor a set of beliefs.
Which leaves us with:
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
That’s not a description of atheism.
No it isn’t. Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, it’s a position about what it’s possible to know. It’s possible to be both agnostic and theistic or agnostic and atheistic. Agnosticism is not, as is popularly believed, a neutral position on the existence of gods, that’s weak atheism.
You have both of those definitions wrong. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean.
I thought atheism meant “without theism”.
You know, the way “sanskrit” means “without krit.”
WTF??
You are getting more bizarre with every post.
How is someone who says, “I do not believe in god” only an agnostic? You and Naxos seem like two peas in a pod, only on opposite ideological ends of this question. And neither one of you is making a damn bit of sense.
I think you’re mixing up me, with self-proclaimed agnostics who are default, day-to-day atheists. Do please try to keep them straight, mkay?