Don't marry an Atheist.

[jluv]

And I and jluv have both provided definitions from different sources that includes the above, but extends it to other atheists who just don't believe.

Just to keep you honest, here is the definition of "atheist" that I referenced:

noun: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This whole thing is based on what part of the definition you want to focus on.

Let's first look at the word "deny".

verb: to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true

By that definition, I certainly do not deny the existence of a god. That points to me being NOT an atheist.

Okay, but maybe you want to focus on the other half instead. Let's look closer at the word "disbelieve"...

verb: to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in

And again, this breaks down even further into what part you choose to focus on. I certainly do not "refuse" or "reject" belief in a god. Based on that, I would say that I neither deny nor disbelieve that there is a god. And therefore, when you take that statement and compare it to the definition I posted above, you could not rightfully say that I'm an atheist.

However, I will concede that IF you focus on "disbelieves" in the original definition, instead of "denies", and then you take that a step further when defining "disbelieves" by only using "to have no belief in" and ignoring "refuse or reject", then it is possible for you to work your way to the conclusion that I'm an atheist.

When you compare the "ifs" and "buts", then the path of least resistance (a.k.a. common sense) points you towards the conclusion that I am not an atheist.

You're just being a stubborn mule, and you know it. It's not winning anyone over. And I'm admittedly stubborn, too, which is why I find myself drawn back in one more time. You kept bringing up my name and referring to my definition as backing your side, which is an absurd stretch on your part.

And one more thing - I'm not scared of labels. You can call me an atheist, a theist, or a purple-bellied booger monster. It carries no weight.

jluv, out!

[talisman]

You assholes sure fucked up my thread!

[Baron Von Crowder]

You assholes sure fucked up my thread!

I blame the purple-bellied booger monster

[Maddhattter]

Just to keep you honest, here is the definition of "atheist" that I referenced:

noun: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This whole thing is based on what part of the definition you want to focus on.

No, it's not. By the fact that 'or' is the word used between denies and disbelieves makes both options. So, if you meet either of those criteria (denies or disbelieve), you're an atheist.

Let's first look at the word "deny".

verb: to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true

By that definition, I certainly do not deny the existence of a god. That points to me being NOT an atheist.

If you do not believe something is true, you believe it to be untrue by default. So, you're still an atheist by this definition. That's not saying that it is false, it's simply stating that it's not true. So, by the fact that you do not believe the god claim to be true you find it untrue.

Okay, but maybe you want to focus on the other half instead. Let's look closer at the word "disbelieve"...

verb: to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in

And again, this breaks down even further into what part you choose to focus on. I certainly do not "refuse" or "reject" belief in a god. Based on that, I would say that I neither deny nor disbelieve that there is a god. And therefore, when you take that statement and compare it to the definition I posted above, you could not rightfully say that I'm an atheist.

The only way to not be an atheist is to believe in a god/s. In fact, "to have no belief in" is the definition you're providing. As, by your own statement, you don't believe, you're an atheist.

However, I will concede that IF you focus on "disbelieves" in the original definition, instead of "denies", and then you take that a step further when defining "disbelieves" by only using "to have no belief in" and ignoring "refuse or reject", then it is possible for you to work your way to the conclusion that I'm an atheist.

You're an atheist by definition. You're atheist because, based on the definitions you provided, you both deny and disbelieve in the existance of a god/god. I've concluded that you are one based on your assertion that you don't believe in a god/s. If you told me that you believe in a god/s then I would conclude you're a theist. That's the dichotomy there.

You also seem to believe that in order for a word to be accurate it must meet all definitions. That is not the case. It only needs to meet one of the definitions to be accurate. So, if you meet any of those definitions, the word is accurate.

When you compare the "ifs" and "buts", then the path of least resistance (a.k.a. common sense) points you towards the conclusion that I am not an atheist.

Incorrect. if you take the path of least resistance, you'll take the definition that's most likely to be true. That's going to be the more inclusive definition that I've provided is the more likely one. That would make you an atheist as well.

You're just being a stubborn mule, and you know it. It's not winning anyone over.

I hope that I'm not winning anyone over. I'm hoping that the facts that I've provided do. I always hope the facts win out. That's my goal.

You kept bringing up my name and referring to my definition as backing your side, which is an absurd stretch on your part.

No, it's not. It's using words as they are defined. In fact, based on the definitions you've provided here, you've done nothing but confirm everything I've said about atheism.

And one more thing - I'm not scared of labels. You can call me an atheist, a theist, or a purple-bellied booger monster. It carries no weight.

jluv, out!

They why shy away from the label that accurately describes you based on the definitions you've provided?

I do thank you for demonstrating the fact that I've been honest about the definitions you've provided.

[CWO]

you atheist bro?

[CWO]

[Chili]

My ninja.. I am not a fan of his show, but I think he explained his position well, and it seems to fall pretty much in line with how I feel about the topic.

[jluv]

No, it's not. By the fact that 'or' is the word used between denies and disbelieves makes both options. So, if you meet either of those criteria (denies or disbelieve), you're an atheist.

Well, I don't meet the criteria for deny. And I only meet the criteria for disbelieve if you ignore the "refuse and reject" portion of that definition. You really don't see how you're stretching and skewing things to try and make your point?

If you do not believe something is true, you believe it to be untrue by default..

That is absolutely false!

So, you're still an atheist by this definition. That's not saying that it is false, it's simply stating that it's not true. So, by the fact that you do not believe the god claim to be true you find it untrue..

This really sheds the light on why your whole argument is flawed.

I can not believe something is true, and at the same time not believe it is untrue. If you came to me and said that the 49ers were going to win the Superbowl, I would not believe that's true, and I would not believe that it's untrue. It could go either way, much like the whole god thing.

The only way to not be an atheist is to believe in a god/s. In fact, "to have no belief in" is the definition you're providing. As, by your own statement, you don't believe, you're an atheist.

Well, if that's your definition "the only not way to be an atheist is to believe in a god/s", then yes, I am an atheist. I just don't see that definition anywhere except in your own words. I don't agree with your words or your translation of the definitions provided.

You're an atheist by definition.

By your definition, which means squat.

You're atheist because, based on the definitions you provided you both deny and disbelieve in the existance of a god/god.

I absolutely do NOT deny the existence of a god. Pay attention.

I've concluded that you are one based on your assertion that you don't believe in a god/s. If you told me that you believe in a god/s then I would conclude you're a theist. That's the dichotomy there.

Conclude what you want. Call me what you want. It has no merit. I'm just a purple-bellied booger monster, remember?

You also seem to believe that in order for a word to be accurate it must meet all definitions. That is not the case. It only needs to meet one of the definitions to be accurate. So, if you meet any of those definitions, the word is accurate.

I disagree. In the definition of disbelieves, it wasn't "to have no belief in OR to refuse or reject". The word "or" wasn't in there. The "refuse or reject portion was to clarify the first part about having no belief. That's where it drops me and my situation from the definition. You might have been able to say that I have no belief, but you certainly can't say that I refuse or reject. And that's why "disbelieves" is a weak leg to stand on. Denies is certainly, completely NOT applicable to me, so therefore, by the very definition I posted, it's silly to call me an atheist.

Incorrect. if you take the path of least resistance, you'll take the definition that's most likely to be true. That's going to be the more inclusive definition that I've provided is the more likely one. That would make you an atheist as well.

Complete nonsense. This is an example of you just saying something and hoping everyone will just accept it as truth. It's not working.

I hope that I'm not winning anyone over. I'm hoping that the facts that I've provided do. I always hope the facts win out. That's my goal.

Good luck! How do you think it's working out for you so far? lol

No, it's not. It's using words as they are defined. In fact, based on the definitions you've provided here, you've done nothing but confirm everything I've said about atheism.

More nonsense. Are you clicking your ruby slippers as you say this stuff?

They why shy away from the label that accurately describes you based on the definitions you've provided?

I don't shy away. I'll embrace the fact that you call me an atheist. No one I know of whose point of view carries any weight or who has any grasp of facts and reality at all would ever give me that label, but you are more than welcome to do so if it makes you feel good.

I do thank you for demonstrating the fact that I've been honest about the definitions you've provided.

There's no place like home! There's no place like home! Auntie Em! Auntie Em!

LOL, good times.

[Maddhattter]

Well, I don't meet the criteria for deny. And I only meet the criteria for disbelieve if you ignore the "refuse and reject" portion of that definition. You really don't see how you're stretching and skewing things to try and make your point?

I'm not stretching or skewing anything. I'm using the definitions that you provided. Based on the definitions you provided, you're an atheist.

That is absolutely false!

Then demonstrate that.

This really sheds the light on why your whole argument is flawed.

No, what this does is show a fundamental misunderstanding you possess.

I can not believe something is true, and at the same time not believe it is untrue.

Agreed. However, you can believe something is untrue without believing it to be false. Like the whole god thing. If you do not believe it to be true, then you believe it to be untrue.

Well, if that's your definition "the only not way to be an atheist is to believe in a god/s", then yes, I am an atheist. I just don't see that definition anywhere except in your own words. I don't agree with your words or your translation of the definitions provided.

I'm using the definitions you provided. So, you're now stating that you don't agree with the definitions you provided...

Okay, provided some support for your position.

your[/I] definition, which means squat.

No, by your definitions. At least, the definitions you've provided.

I absolutely do NOT deny the existence of a god. Pay attention.

According to the definition of deny that you provided, you do.

Conclude what you want. Call me what you want. It has no merit. I'm just a purple-bellied booger monster, remember?

And an atheist, based on the definitions you've provided.

I disagree. In the definition of disbelieves, it wasn't "to have no belief in OR to refuse or reject". The word "or" wasn't in there. The "refuse or reject portion was to clarify the first part about having no belief. That's where it drops me and my situation from the definition.

So, you have a belief in a god? You've said numerous time's you don't...

You might have been able to say that I have no belief, but you certainly can't say that I refuse or reject.

Then you accept the god claim?

And that's why "disbelieves" is a weak leg to stand on. Denies is certainly, completely NOT applicable to me, so therefore, by the very definition I posted, it's silly to call me an atheist.

Based on the definition you posted, disbelieves and deny both describe your stated position.

Complete nonsense. This is an example of you just saying something and hoping everyone will just accept it as truth. It's not working.

No. The common sense route when using a word that has multiple definitions is to use the definition that has the highest accuracy.

Good luck! How do you think it's working out for you so far? lol

As I'm having this conversation, still. It's not. That, however, doesn't change any of the facts.

More nonsense. Are you clicking your ruby slippers as you say this stuff?

Nope. I'm just using words as they are defined. No wishing or magic required. It's simple logic and reason.

I don't shy away. I'll embrace the fact that you call me an atheist.

Then we really have no issue then.

No one I know of whose point of view carries any weight or who has any grasp of facts and reality at all would ever give me that label, but you are more than welcome to do so if it makes you feel good.

So, you're back to being a theist again. Could you make up your mind?

There's no place like home! There's no place like home! Auntie Em! Auntie Em!

LOL, good times.

The only evidence you've provided supports the fact that you are an atheist. Though in this post, you claim to be a theist on several occasions. This far, the only dishonesty you've demonstrated is your own.

[jluv]

I'm not stretching or skewing anything. I'm using the definitions that you provided. Based on the definitions you provided, you're an atheist.



Then demonstrate that.



No, what this does is show a fundamental misunderstanding you possess.



Agreed. However, you can believe something is untrue without believing it to be false. Like the whole god thing. If you do not believe it to be true, then you believe it to be untrue.



I'm using the definitions you provided. So, you're now stating that you don't agree with the definitions you provided...

Okay, provided some support for your position.



No, by your definitions. At least, the definitions you've provided.



According to the definition of deny that you provided, you do.



And an atheist, based on the definitions you've provided.



So, you have a belief in a god? You've said numerous time's you don't...



Then you accept the god claim?



Based on the definition you posted, disbelieves and deny both describe your stated position.



No. The common sense route when using a word that has multiple definitions is to use the definition that has the highest accuracy.



As I'm having this conversation, still. It's not. That, however, doesn't change any of the facts.



Nope. I'm just using words as they are defined. No wishing or magic required. It's simple logic and reason.



Then we really have no issue then.



So, you're back to being a theist again. Could you make up your mind?



The only evidence you've provided supports the fact that you are an atheist. Though in this post, you claim to be a theist on several occasions. This far, the only dishonesty you've demonstrated is your own.

Really solid points there!

[racrguy]

Maddhattter, I think you may be talking past him. Simplify it a bit.

[jluv]

Maddhattter, I think you may be talking past him. Simplify it a bit.

Lol. Hardly!

[racrguy]

Lol. Hardly!

Well, I'm not sure if you understand the difference between true, untrue, and false.

[jluv]

Well, I'm not sure if you understand the difference between true, untrue, and false.

I do.

You want to get into semantics, and that's fine. I'll stick to the facts and make this very simple:

I don't have a belief that a god exists.

I don't have a belief that a god does not exist.

I don't deny the existence of a god.

I don't reject the existence of a god.

I don't refuse the existence of a god.

There is no supreme being that I believe exists.

I do not believe that there isn't a supreme being that exists.

I don't believe either way. I don't really care either way, other than being curious and imaginative about the different possibilities.

Now, based on all of that, if someone still wants to label me an atheist, then more power to them. I'd label them a moron, and we can go about our day.

[Maddhattter]

I don't have a belief that a god exists.

Then, by the definitions you provided above, you are an atheist.