Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

because you dont believe you r a non believer so you r an atheist.

reason without reason...

riddle me this riddle me that.

Why do you care what others think?

You're not even sure what you believe urself.

U live in doubt.

Not believeing in "atheists," does not make me an "atheist."


Unless you are claiming "atheists" are divine....


In which case, you're not an "atheist."


Can you find one, and prove it exists?




http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

atheist
One entry found.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \'a-the-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \?a-the-'is-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \?a-the-'is-ti-k?l\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(?-)le\ adverb

CORRECTION


Unless you are claiming "atheists" are divine....


I meant to say...

Unless you are claiming "atheists" are deities....

In which case, you're not an "atheist."Can you find one, and prove it exists?

Actually, this is kinda, the point of the question, as I see it. I've posed the same question on another post and recieved the same guff.

You did not see E.Presleys dead body (or did you?), I'm guessing you've never seen a Black Hole, and you cannot put a piece of air in your hand.

These are beliefs (albiet the effects they can produce [which are not 'them']), we accept them on faith - essentially. And as we have seen on many similar posts - Faith and science apparently negate each other.

which is real?
cheers
galaxy

May I check.....for the sake of the argument only
lol teasing...

I don't know what kind of "faith" you are talking about here, but my faith certainly doesn't negate science or vice versa. i have complete faith in islam and my faith in islam doesn't negate science. in fact, if anything, islam teaches and encourages people explore and learn about the mystery of the universe.

Completely granted mnowsa! A civilisation that could revolutionize space by inventing and constructing the concept of zero, has my vote.
But, the kind of faith I was speaking of was 'in general' faith.
We assume many things 'on faith' (not necessarily religious in nature).
cheers
galaxy

oh ok..sorry brother. you are absolutely right. you never mentioned about "religious faith" here. I stand corrected, brother.

What I could say, though, is that some 'science', faith, is elevated to a religious level (with all the emotion etc), and both sides of the debate, thrust and parry in exactly the same way - using the same language, and then ultimately falling into deprecation and ridicule.
...and, you only build walls, when there is something you feel needs protecting. (whether it is warranted or not, is another question)
cheers to you
galaxy

I am an atheist. I am real.

I exist as much as you care to believe I do. I can gaurantee you that I will pass the same test for existance as many other things that you DO acknowledge actually exist.

Being an atheist does not always mean a confirmed denial of a god's existance. It can simply mean that there is not yet enough proof to make a commitment to the existence of a god. I also do not believe in pink unicorns, leprachauns, loch ness monster, big foot, etc. This is not proof that they do NOT exist, yet I am very comfortable professing not to believe in them. IN SCIENCE YOU DO NOT "UNPROVE" SOMETHING BASED ON LACK OF EVIDENCE. YOU ONLY PROVE SOMETHING WITH EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE. You are NOT applying the same rules , or burden of proof that science requires. Tell me of the last scientific study to disprove unicorns. There is not enough evidence to support their existence, NOT any evidence AGAINST their existance. Nice attempt, but no prize to you. Yours is the logic of a 4 year old. It does not have ANY bearing on science in any way.

Everyone is an atheist to some degree. If you are a christian, than you ARE an atheist when it comes to Allah, buhda, and Jehovah. You do not believe in Zuess, do you? Then, when talking about zuess, you would be an atheist. So IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DO IN FACT EXIST, THEN ATHEISM EXISTS, AND SO DO ATHEISTS.

Richard Dawkins often says, " we are all atheists, we just go ONE god further". Meaning that whichever god you happen to choose, you are choosing to the exclusion of all the other available gods you could choose. In this way you are an ATHEIST to all but the one you have chosen not to have disbelief in. In this respect you are NOT in a separate class from me at all. You can look at another religion and see that it does not have any real basis, and think it is all a bit silly, and come to the conclusion it does NOT have merit. You can do this to MANY different belief sets. You just stop at one, where I keep going past where you have stopped. So we are on different pages in the same book.


I also find that your post also proves your acknowledgement of atheists. It is obviously directed specifically to atheists. You are looking for a response from us. I do not believe in unicorns, yet I do not feel at all inclined to start a post asking them to prove their existance to me. But if you know of any, I WOULD like to see a pic if you have one, and I will take the effort and opportunity to examine all available evidence to see if it backs up or contridicts my currently held position on them.

Thanks for making my argument so easy and simple,

Jw

You may be able to pass a test that you exist; but, how big is a pound of "atheisim?"



====



Can you find a dictionary that agrees with you?



=====



If my question was directed to the mythical "atheist" I would have told the people who claimed to be Christians not to post, this refutes your argument, that I addressed it to a mythical creature.

My acceptance of statements from everybody, shows I don't expect proof from anywhere, and my question is directed to people... because I do believe people exist.

And I knew no "atheists" could answer, I don't wrtite letters to Santa either.



====

I like what you said here...




Because...

1: I am not trying to unprove anything, I aked for proof "atheists exist: Which according to you, is good science.


You say I am not applying the same rules, the burden of proof that science requires.

But, I am! I'm requring proof that "atheists" exist, like you said I should!


2: And, I allowed you to set the burden of scientific proof, I did not set it, you did; so why are you complaining about it now?




===




If you think a quote from somebody saying we are all "atheists" is proof "atheists" exist...


I can show you a verse in the Bible that says, Ye are all gods.
I can also find other people, and philosophies which say the same thing; and, people who claim to be God, and Jesus.

If you want me to accept a man's word as scientific proof, how can you be an "atheist?"

According to the burden of proof you offered...

People were saying they were God, long before the word "atheist," was thought of, and they still do; that should be all the proof you need.


However, you have decided to use your standard, your burden of proof... in a subjective manner, you are not applying it equally, it is a double standard.


Can you show me something more substantial than, a... "Atheists exist because I said so?"

That hardly meets a scientific burden of proof.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

atheist
One entry found.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \'a-the-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \?a-the-'is-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \?a-the-'is-ti-k?l\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(?-)le\ adverb

What you are doing is silly. It would be like me saying " I don't believe in big foot, show me proof" And then You say " Well, I know bigfoot, he is at my house right now, I will take you to him!" And then I respond by saying what is a "house" anyway. I do not accept your definition of what " house" means, so therfore bigfoot does not exist. You are sidestepping and using distraction and semantics.

All you are doing is trying to wiggle out and not get pinned down. This is nothing more than a wrestling match for you. You are down and close to getting pinned, but you just keep wiggling. You can't improve your position, but you will just sit there and keep wiggling anyway. You know you can't win, but you enjoy just trying to make the other guy work.

I think your real goal is just to incite people, and frustrate them enough so they get tired of beating their head against a wall, and then you try to claim that as some sort of victory.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Jw

With all of what you said, you offered no proof "atheists" exist, aside from you, and someone else saying they do.

You saying they do, is not proof, it's just the opinion of somebody who could be wrong.


Speaking of you being wrong...

I think you might be wrong about the reference you gave for the definition of "atheist," I did not find what you said there.

But, isn't that because you changed your definition of "atheist," from the first one you gave? while you were accusing me of changing definitions?

But, isn't that because you changed your definition of "atheist," from the first one you gave? while you were accusing me of changing definitions?

#1 I have not changed my definition even a little bit at any time. In case you missed it the SIMPLE definition is a person who does profess a belief in a deity. Go ahead and play with the wording however you choose. You know what an atheist is, and you knwo they exist.

Your ENTIRE position boils down to " I am rubber , you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Na na na na na" And you wonder why people intelligent people aren't giving you any respect.

I accused you of moving goalposts, not changing definitions. For someone who is as hung up on wording as much as you are, you sure take quite a bit of liberty with others' words.


Like I have said previously, I COULD BE WRONG. Just as you could be wrong. At NO point did I say I am an atheist and I KNOW there is no god. I said I do not believe that there is one. Just as there MAY be a SAnta Clause. I have at no time said for certain that god or santa clause does or does not exist. I believe there is about as much evidence to support either. I choose not to believe that either exist, not to know for sure. If more evidence surfaces , I will be very willing to consider it. Based on current evidence, I feel very comfortable believing in thier non exixtence.

I am a skeptic. I actually believe that the existance of god is actually "unknowable". You CANNOT prove he exists, I CANNOT prove he does not. In this way, neither position is superior. As I said before. THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. Something may very well exist and we not have any proof of it. The lack of evidence does not prove that something does not exist. On this much I think we agree.

I know this game and this argument well. You have not come up with anything new at all. You actually have presented the argument worse than ANYONE else I have heard use it.

This argument basically comes from insecurity. Some people want to have their blind faith and still feel that they can defend their blind belief in the real world against people who apply rational logic to things. They get very tired of feeling foolish without anything but a story in a book, and try to respond and say " you think you're better than me, well you believe in stuff too, so there!" You are basically saying " I know my beliefs are silly and not based on anything but a belief, but YOU BELIEVE stuff too, so you are just as silly as me!"

The difference that you will refuse to see is that science is based on real world REPEATABLE observations. Most miracles and supernatural occurances do not fit into this.

You can then argue that all of science is just based on observations that could be flawed. Maybe we just think we are here and we really aren't. Maybe this is all just a dream, etc, etc. The point is we "know" science as much as we "know" anything. I can give you proof, I could put a tangible thing in your hand, then you can still deny it. You CAN choose to ignore any proof offered on any basis you want, but it ALSO does not change its existence. According to all that we "know", if you jump off a tall building you will fall and most likely die. Do you accept this, or would you like more proof? Would you like to test it, or will you , based on all that you have observed on this earth, be comfortable to accept this as a truth and not contest it, and ask for more proof.

A delusional person may see a hallucination. You do not see it. You can walk up to it, and put your hand through it. Show them in every way that what they are seeing is imaginary. They will not believe you. They will not accept anything you say or do as any kind of proof. So who is right?

You can sit here and watch as I put a hand through your delusions, and you can continue to ignore any evidence. What is the point?

1. Show me where I changed my definition of "atheist."


2. I'll bet you can't find a dictionary that agrees with the definition you gave for "atheist."


3. I'll bet you change your definition now.

So, are we back to square one? ..i think we should better agree on a concrete definition of "atheism"

You quoted me , quoting you! You accused me of changing defintions NOT the other way around. I accused you of moving goalposts and semantics. Man, you really do your best at trying to use distraction and muddying the waters!



Once again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Look under definitions section 2.2 and 2.3

You must not have read it the first time.


And using my simple definition again is " a person who does not profess a belief in a deity". Which part of this do you take issue with?

I am a person who does not believe there is a god of any nature by any name. How can I make this any clearer to you?

You say you believe in people. Okay I am a person. So far so good. Now I ALSO profess no belief in a deity. So Now do you not believe that I am professing my belief ( or non bleief). Or do you think I am lying about what I believe?



Also if it is your stance that you can't believe in something without proof, how can you be a christian?

Once again, YOU DO NOT DISPROVE ANYTHING WITH A LACK OF EVIDENCE. YOU CAN ONLY PROVE SOMETHING WITH EVIDENCE.

It is not scientific to say " no proof exists, therefore I can say for certain this does not exist".

I'm a smart rational atheist and I know everything. lol

I'm a smart rational atheist and I know everything. lol[/quote

Welcome to the head banging wall