Don't marry an Atheist.

[jluv]

By your interpretation, babies are born atheist. Those who have never heard of religion or god are atheists. Anyone who has never given any of that a single thought is an atheist. Anyone who is unsure or undecided is an atheist.

You're saying that anything other than a theist is an atheist. That's not what the definitions say. Atheism stands on its own. Atheism is denial of a god.

I don't deny that there is a god. I don't believe that there is no god.

How could you interpret that as me being an atheist?

[jluv]

You're assertion, and providing evidence that supports me is not a demonstration of your position.



I've not only said it, I provided evidence that demonstrates it. I can do that because it's not my interpretation of things that make it this way, it's their definitions.



I've not gone in a single circle. If you do not deny, then you accept the existence of a god. So, if ti does not fit you, you are a theist.



Then you do not accept that a god/s exist. That means you're denying it, by definition.



That's what the definition, even the one you provided, says.

Do you believe that all squares are rectangles?

Your post is pure nonsense, and your absurd tactic of claiming that my posts back up your side is both transparent and weak.

All squares are rectangles.

Do you believe that everyone must be either a theist or an atheist?

[Maddhattter]

By your interpretation, babies are born atheist. Those who have never heard of religion or god are atheists. Anyone who has never given any of that a single thought is an atheist.

They are, by definition.

Anyone who is unsure or undecided is an atheist.

You can believe in something and be unsure. Atheism is not a matter of conviction, it's a matter of what you believe.

You're saying that anything other than a theist is an atheist.

That's because, by definition, they are.

That's not what the definitions say.

Even your definition agrees with me.

Atheism stands on its own. Atheism is denial of a god.

It's also the disbelief of a god/s. So, it is standing on it's own with no issues.

I don't deny that there is a god. I don't believe that there is no god.

Then you must, by definition, accept that there is a god and be a theist.

How could you interpret that as me being an atheist?

By using the definitions of the words.

[Maddhattter]

Your post is pure nonsense.

No, my post is accurate. I even provided evidence to demonstrate that.

All squares are rectangles.

Do you believe that everyone must be either a theist or an atheist?

That's what the definition, even the one you provided, says.

[jluv]

You crack me up. There's no point in debating further with you.

[Maddhattter]

There's no point in debating further with you.

You're right. Only evidence will change my mind.

[Baron Von Crowder]

You're right.

Of course he is, and by your own definition, you are then wrong. Cant be both ways.

Only evidence will change my mind.

That's a lie, you wont change your mind.

[Maddhattter]

Of course he is, and by your own definition, you are then wrong. Cant be both ways.

Your statement is self-refuting. I am agreeing that there is no point in further debating me. So, if I'm wrong, then he would be wrong as well.

That's a lie, you wont change your mind.

I won't change my mind unless evidence is provided that proves me wrong. As he's not provided any to support his definition, due to all his evidence supporting mine, I've yet to change my mind.

Or do you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise?

[CexMashean]

I think maddhattter has done the perfect job of explaining why people don't want to.
Argues anyone down, and no one is right besides them.

[Maddhattter]

I think maddhattter has done the perfect job of explaining why people don't want to.
Argues anyone down, and no one is right besides them.

If people are afraid of being accurately described, I'm okay with that. I've stated that numerous times. I've even conceded that his definition is correct, but not complete. So, I've not made the claim that no one is right but me. If someone wants to claim I'm wrong or lying, after I've demonstrated the accuracy of my claim, I'm going to challenge them. If they can't provide evidence, or only provide evidence that supports me, I'm going to call them out on it.

I'll also challenge people when they assert things that I don't agree with because I might be wrong. They might have evidence to support their claim that I'm unaware of. Without challenging them, I may never know what I am wrong on and, as I've stated before, I want to believe a many true things as possible and as few untrue things as possible. That's why I don't pretend that a label doesn't apply to me just because I'm afraid of being associated with others in that group. Nor do I pretend that a small subset of that group represents the whole.

[CexMashean]

If you want to keep proving my point, feel free.

[Baron Von Crowder]

If people are afraid of being accurately described, I'm okay with that. I've stated that numerous times. I've even conceded that his definition is correct, but not complete. So, I've not made the claim that no one is right but me. If someone wants to claim I'm wrong or lying, after I've demonstrated the accuracy of my claim, I'm going to challenge them. If they can't provide evidence, or only provide evidence that supports me, I'm going to call them out on it.

I'll also challenge people when they assert things that I don't agree with because I might be wrong. They might have evidence to support their claim that I'm unaware of. Without challenging them, I may never know what I am wrong on and, as I've stated before, I want to believe a many true things as possible and as few untrue things as possible. That's why I don't pretend that a label doesn't apply to me just because I'm afraid of being associated with others in that group. Nor do I pretend that a small subset of that group represents the whole.

you simply cannot provide evidence of something intangible.

[Chili]

I can see both sides to this argument (separating out the agnostic piece). The hang up that I have (which I assume is the same as jluv) is that the definition of atheist (at least the one used here) is that one actively believes there is no god.

If you go by the definition that an atheist is one that disbelieves in god, then Maddhatter is correct in his argument. The problem is that I do not agree that a lack of belief necessarily means the same as a belief in the opposite.

To me, non-believer is more appropriate than atheist. I don't necessarily believe in a god or gods, but I also don't necessarily believe that there is no god or gods. I lack a belief in either.

This is not about proving a thesis or scientific fact, this is about trying to describe one's position on god, as accurately ans succinctly as possible. It is not an either or.

[Maddhattter]

you simply cannot provide evidence of something intangible.

Demonstrate this.

[Maddhattter]

If you want to keep proving my point, feel free.

I'm only proving my behavior, and demonstrating your ignorance.