Atheism

Once you understand that life is without any meaning, you are free to evaluate what in life is most important to you. You are free to make the world a better place in the way that you personally think is best.

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you (makes low sweeping Walter Raleigh type bow).

Seeing that to be an Atheist takes more ridiculous belief than to be a Theist, perhaps bad company is a good thing ? If Atheists had brains like they claim, they would admit the impossibility of proving a negative and call themselves Agnostic. I am Agnostic so you would be in great company .

You are wrong. An atheist simply does not believe that there is a god, which is not at all the same as having a belief set, such as that with which religionists delude themselves. I understand, of course, that religionists need to characterize atheism as a belief set, to cut it down to size, and make the erroneous claim that there is just a conflict of beliefs.

The gobshites are trying to take over the thread--yet again.

None of that alters that atheist are not people who are expressing a belief, they are people who are rejecting a belief. If someone says to me that there a god, i say: "I don't believe that." I have not expressed a belief, i have rejected one which were expressed to me. Play all the word games you want, atheists are not equivalent believers to theists.

Once you understand that life is without any meaning, you are free to evaluate what in life is most important to you.

You're the one peddling nonsense. I haven't addressed the issue of "non-theists," nor am i obliged to review the issue in your terms. Atheist means without god, it is only your idiosyncratic and self-serving definition which requires an atheist to "deliberately" deny that god exists.

Yes, certainly someone who didn't have the necessay mental faculties to hold any belief would be without god. Too bad if that bothers you. Too bad if you lack the perception to understand something so simple as that atheist means "without god."

What the hell are you talking about!

No, you're the one who is wrong, and you seem not to have a very firm grasp on logic, quite apart from the absurdities you're posting here. You say "the baby Jesus (God) is . . ." That's present tense, Bubba. Do you allege that "the baby Jesus" exists in the here and now? You allege that this baby Jesus character of yours is "god." What evidence do you have, a., that this is true, b., that any "god" exists? That's the core question, because if you assert that, i'm going to simply say: "I don't believe that."

France is a republic, not a monarchy. There is no "present king of France." No, i don't see anything at all logically wrong with what i've posted. I see a lot of foolishness being paraded around by you under a false guise of "logic." It makes perfect sense to claim atheist means "without god," because that is in fact what the root components mean. The Greek combining form "a-" means without, and theos, the latinate form of the Greek word for god--"without god."

If you can't come up with anything better than bald, unsupportable assertions, i see little point in continuing to discuss this with you. You're spamming the thread.

Quote:

What the hell are you talking about!

Dont get too excited, friend....

Take an infinite universe. Now prove to me it is impossible for somewhere out there to be a swamp where intelligent mattresses grow. When you do that, we will give you a hard one. Prove God does not exist given extra dimensions to this universe.

Oh and your maths are extremely faulty. Nice try though.

We're not dealing solely with logic here, Bubba. I'm asking you for some proof--and you're not providing it. What proof do you offer that any "god" exists? You're assuming that in your ludicrous arguments. You're begging the question by making the existence of a "god" an a priori assumption. You're doing very badly here.