warri0r45

When did I say it wasn't lack of belief? I never argued that atheists believe in god. You seem to think lack of belief means agnosticism, not a valid definition of atheism. Let me show you: No one's saying you're not. What we were saying is that your argument that atheism doesn't have beliefs only applies to agnosticism, so you are accidentally defending agnosticism instead. Even some of the definitions you've gave say plain out "the belief that there is no god". How was I accidentally defending agnosticism if I was arguing with the following definition of atheism: "a lack of belief in god"?

I don't see how adding more words means you've "won" the debate. Well... you were partially right. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm So now you acknowledge that lack of belief is a valid definition of atheism?

I'm really not interested in continuing our debate, Zierro, so this is just a general post. I thought I'd clarify exactly how atheism is defined. It's true that a valid definition is lack of belief, disbelief or being without belief in god. All I can say is that in my experience with fellow atheists this is the most common definition used, but obviously I can't speak for everyone. It's also true that the belief/doctrine that god doesn't exist is a valid definition. Here are the top 10 of a list of definitions from this website: http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a I'm in support of the suggestion from wiki. We should distinguish between active belief that there is no god (strong atheism) and the lack of belief in a god (weak atheism). At the end of the day I really don't care what you call me. It just so happens that what I am is an atheist, and there's no escaping that fact.

Zierro, you're using the word "faith" too liberally. Faith in the context of this topic is believing things without evidence. I don't have faith in things. If you want to continue insisting that I do then I'm not going to bother any more because clearly this will go nowhere. Clearly, you don't want to consider what I'm trying to explain to you. I have a fundamentally different way of thinking about things to you. I demand evidence to accept things as true and if I don't have that evidence then (for the third or fourth time now) I accept uncertainty. I've tried time and time again to show that atheism is being without belief in god (not just to you, but to other people). If you want to be ignorant about what atheism is and what it means then I can't help you. You have to do that yourself and go look it up. I've seen it time and time again where people like you try to make yourself feel better about having faith by bringing atheists down to your level. I'm not buying it, because it's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to equate anything I take as valid with someone believing god exists with no evidence whatsoever. I just wanted to say, I prefer when people who just have an absence of faith say agnostic. Differentiating between agnosticism and atheism seems a big deal to me. Mainly because there are what I'd call agnostics, like you, who are like skeptics and just aren't real into any faith or anything; you just don't have any faith except in yourself and other people. Then there are people who dislike or openly oppose faith period, and there've been plenty of those, who I'd rather recognize as atheists because they deny faith. I find what you have more of an apathy or skepticism, then what I'd call atheism more of a faith against having faith. Vicious cycle? Maybe, I don't know what that means. To be blunt, Lenticular, I don't care what you prefer about how best to define a word. Go and look it up, please. You will find that the most broad valid definition of atheism is an absence of belief in god.

I did not meant to come off as that personal. Sorry if I'm making too many generalizations for you, but I think it's clear that I'm arguing against atheism as a whole - not really at you personally. You made your presumptions clear when you said things like this: I take you as a "skeptic" who thinks that every phenomenon has a naturalistic cause. In other words, you believe that supernatural events never occur - a belief that is not proven. Next time dont use the word you in front of something like believe x, y, x. But you think of the naturalistic answer as the final answer because you 1. Accept something when there is a scientific explanation based on observational proof and 2. Consider something unanswered when the only available explanation is supernatural. That's not skeptical if you ask me - that's being geared towards seeking an answer which is not supernatural. And what do you mean by it's a cop-out, because I can say the same thing about naturalistic explanations. Any rational thinker should acknowledge the limitations to the human mind - we can't possibly be able to explain everything. I mean a cop-out in that you can make up any supernatural explanation you like and you cant possibly test it or find any evidence to support it. You cant say the same thing about natural explanations because they (especially so in the scientific community) demand evidence to have any weight whatsoever. I never said we can explain everything, though. Of course thats beyond the abilities of the human mind, hence why I recognise uncertainty to any explanation (again, it depends on the case). You're telling me that you think you know everything though. Surely you've believed something and were wrong about it - everyone has done that. If the weather channel tells you it will rain so you bring your umbrella but yet it doesn't rain then you were using faith. You didn't have evidence that it would rain - you had what you thought was evidence. What evidence do you have that the sun will rise tomorrow? Can you possibly prove that to me without saying, "because it did yesterday". I had chicken for dinner today. Does that suggest that I will have chicken tomorrow? Ill have to chalk this up as one of the most ridiculous things Ive ever seen posted on these forums. I never said I think I know everything. How the hell can you come up with this after everything I just said? Whatever I take as valid I will back up with evidence, preferably a lot. If I have little or no evidence I'll gladly concede a level of uncertainty to an explanation. Ring any bells? I just love how youre desperately trying to make me out to be just like you and other people of faith, and with weather forecasts no less. If you must know the answer, yes, I believe that the weather forecasts will be accurate most of the time, but I dont believe they will be all of the time. Again, there is a level of uncertainty to the art of weather prediction so I take that into account. There is no faith here to speak of I know through experience that a certain percentage of the time meteorologists will relay accurate information to news organizations. Im not even going to bother with the chicken analogy because its absolutely unbelievable. How on earth you can stretch the imagination to equate whether you have chicken for dinner and whether the sun will rise tomorrow is amazing. But to answer what evidence I have for the sun rising tomorrow without saying that it always has, well the rotation of the earth ought to do it. Not that you should need any more evidence than an incredibly well established and repeatedly observed cyclical pattern. There is virtually no uncertainty to the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. As we've established that theists are the ones who say atheists have faith as well, yes naturally. Ahh, now we get to the actual crux of the argument. The two quoted statements are obviously different. I might say that I believe Australia will win 40 gold medals at London 2012. To this you could respond I believe that Aus will not win 40 gold medals. Both are beliefs with a certain level of uncertainty to them. But if you were to respond I dont believe you, thats not a belief. Thats the absence of belief and shows skepticism of my claim. Thats exactly what atheism is, in its broadest sense and most basic definition. This isnt a position of faith; its only through an absence of faith that someone will arrive at this position.

Ever heard of aiding and abetting? I'm no angel myself when it comes to illegal downloads, but whichever way you cut it this kind of thing is illegal.

Too bad their worldview is not consistent because everyone has beliefs without hardcore proof attached to them. I take you as a "skeptic" who thinks that every phenomenon has a naturalistic cause. In other words, you believe that supernatural events never occur - a belief that is not proven. Let's apply this to god's existence now. Science states that every effect must have a cause - so the universe has to have a cause. Is observational evidence available let alone even possible when it comes to determining what caused the universe? Not at all. There are two possibilities. God created the universe or something that is not god created the universe - neither possibility has any empirical proof yet you incline yourself to choose the latter - without any evidence whatsoever. You're picking and choosing. No matter how you want to slice the cake, everyone has faith. Theists don't make the claim that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are completely separate ideas. :lol: Perhaps you need me to show you the definition of belief? Oh and get your own jabs, that's totally unoriginal. :P Please don't make up what I believe and what I don't. If you would have asked me I would have told you. When it comes to the supernatural, I'm skeptical because there's no evidence for it and it's too easy a cop-out. I don't believe that supernatural things don't exist because I can't possibly know that. As for natural explanations, there is plenty of evidence for those so generally speaking there will be no faith (let's take these on a case by case basis, though). Whatever I take as valid I will back up with evidence, preferably a lot. If I have little or no evidence I'll gladly concede a level of uncertainty to an explanation. I'm inclined to believe that any given phenomenon will have a natural exlanation because of the precedent set by science. I wouldn't call this faith any more than the expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith. That's a good word to use, actually.. expectation. If there is something unexplained or unknown I would expect there to be a natural explanation to it. Any rational thinker should. As for what I'm inclined to believe caused the universe, I'd say the natural explanation but that's only a slight inclination (because again, there's a precedent for natural explanations). Fundamentally I don't know, so I don't believe in either. So no, not everyone has faith. I don't. Now that I've cleared that up, perhaps you could tell me what you mean by this: Do you mean to say that theists think that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are the same thing?

Here's the thing. Atheists generally don't agree with the concept of having faith in things, hence why they become atheists. The most broad definition of atheism (as has been said ad nauseum in this thread and others) is a lack of belief in god. We don't believe what you do. That's not to say we believe your god doesn't exist, it's just that we're not into believing things on faith. It's no wonder why atheists try to push themselves away from theists when the number one thing theists seem to get hung up on is pushing athieists closer to them with all this nonsense about atheism being a faith and a religion.

No. I'm 20 years old and my parents treat me like an adult.

Inhumanity by Mors Principum Est (album).

Stem cell therapies have come a long way over the past few years, especially adult stem cell therapies like this. Diesel is right. Bans on embryonic stem cell research have made adult stem cells a big thing, and that's lead to a lot of therapies and great steps forward with reverting adult stem cells to an embryonic-like state.

I think you raise a valid objection to democracy, but I'd rather have it than not.

Tusen År Har Gått by Mörk Gryning (album) Awesome.

I have my ticket to see the great Morbid Angel in June. Can't wait!

A classic! Love Suffocation lots. Breeding The Spawn by Suffocation (album). Despite the notoriously crappy production on this album, I recommend it.

"Nutshell" by Alice In Chains. I've been lucky enough to see them play this live (not with Layne, though)... [yt]G2_hNCu4iak[/yt]

The Unspoken King by Cryptopsy (album).

Speaking of Nirvana, Heart Shaped Box is a pretty sad song.

This is excellent news. I respect Iran's right to develop a nuclear energy program, but they shouldn't be able to enrich it further to make a weapon. As they have said, that's not their goal, so hopefully these talks can result in some international oversight while maintaining respect for their plans.

I think (or should I say I hope) we'll curb reproduction with contraception before we start with the mass genocide. The ideal scenario would be controlled reproduction while looking towards colonising other planets. The latter is obviously still pretty far off, though.

The Conductor's Departure by Anata (album). Wow! This is incredible! I'd say it's up there with Decapitated, Gorod, Atheist, Cynic and company.

As much as a lot of people seem to believe, the government doesn't just pick people up off the street and say "I think you-- and you-- and you are terrorists. Come with us." When someone is suspected of terrorism, it's for a good reason. Yes. Oops. Of course they don't just pick people up off the street, and that's not what I was suggesting. I value the concept of justice where people are innocent until proven guilty and have the right to a fair trial. I doesn't seem that you do, especially when your only response to making the critical mistake of torturing an innocent person is a flippant "oops". Tell me, how can all the moral outcry against terrorism mean anything in the face of what you propose we do?

What if they're a suspected terrorist? Would you torture then? What if they're actually innocent? I'd also argue that upholding the Geneva conventions and treating terrorists with dignity says a lot about our character. Sure, it may leave a bitter taste in your mouth, but it's an elegant way of saying "[bleep] you, we're better than that". In other words, we can claim the moral high-ground. Everyone cracks under torture. No exceptions. What do you mean by "cracks"? It doesn't matter whether they break down and start talking if the argument being made is that the information isn't reliable. Do either you or mage have any good research or evidence for your respective points of view?

Milk Lizard by The Dillenger Escape Plan. I like a few songs from Ire Works, so I've been meaning to pick it up...

Neurotripsicks by Gorod (album). Can't wait for that new album...