And how would one prove a negative. I don't know any atheists that rely on faith at all. They rely on the history of man and other things to come to the conclusion that the god of the bible does not exist.

This a typical sign of unrealistic and unreasonable people.

Semantics are ALWAYS subjective, unless you're talking about a specific well-defined term within a particular displine. And even then the professionals within that displine will have different opinions are the precise meaning of a word.

Words are nothing more than abstract symbols that humans created to convey generalizations. Even dictionaries by different publishers rarely agree on the precise definition of a word.

In fact, this shows precisely where you mind is and how you think.

You are an absolutist.

You believe that there are absolute morals, absotlute truths, absolute dogmas, and absolute definitions for words.

You have a LOT to learn about life grasshopper.

You'll soon discover that absolutism is impossible and can only lead to contradicions.

In fact, if you truly understood the knowledge of modern science it would blow your mind, because even physical reality is not absolute.

Nothing is absolute.

If I say that the sky is orange, should anyone expect to believe me? Should it require a positive belief to not accept that the sky is orange?

I am working over time here, I think this is pointless.

I was going to leave this conversation alone, but I had to crack up at that.

Speaking of faith.

Why would anyone want to put their faith in the belief that they have fallen from grace from their creator and he had to have his only begotten son nailed to a pole to pay for their rebellious attitude?

I can't imagine anyone want to belief such a horrible thing on pure faith.

That's stupid.

Also, why would anyone argue to keep such a story alive?

Hells bells, any SANE person would JUMP at a chance to believe that it's nothing more lies made up by a clearly unruly and male chauvinistic society.

Why people argue so hard for this picture to be true is beyond me.

It's a horror story that no sane person would ever want to be true.

Tell me Nubby, what would you do if you dicovered beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is a total fabrication?

Would you be disapointed?

If so why?

Should you jump for JOY!

After all, if the Bible is false, that means that there is no Satan, there is no hell, there is no mean judgmental God, and you're not guilty of God needing to have his son nailed to a pole.

That would be the greatest news possible wouldn't it?

Or do you get some kind of a thrill out of all this negativity?

Are you an emotional masochist?

Truer words were never spoken!

Moreover, why all guys?

Just more male chauvinistic crap.

Women weren't good enough for the God of the Mediterraneans because they were a society of male chauvinistic pigs.

Why should anyone believe that the creator of this universe is a male in the first place, and why should they believe that he's a male chauvinist on top of that?

The religion set very poor moral and social standards.

Let's move FORWARD instead of trying to covert everyone back into the ignorant behavior of the dark ages.

The biblical religion is way out of its time period. It's far beneath the moral standards that we have aspired to in modern times.

You have forgot. This isnt personal opion. We are talking about the definition of atheism.

Yes which has everything to do with belief, and my example stands, you posit that god exists and just like any other belief it does not require a positive belief to the contrary.


See this is your problem you take for granted that god exists. You cannot objectively argue this topic.

The lack of somethings existence is the default perspective for everything else, except god in the minds of those that take the idea for granted.

Nubby, ever hear of a guy named Sǿren Kierkegaard; he was philosopher?

What Kierkegaard intoned, when he wrote about the offence that has been perpetrated, by many millions of people for millennia, was

“…under the guise of perfecting Christianity, sought little by little to cheat God out of Christianity, and have succeeded in making Christianity exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament.” (1944)

He would not agree with any of the religious fundamentalist thought of today. He came to existentialism naturally through his own “detective talent” and because of his strong faith. Faith, for him, was an internalization of the external power of God; therefore, convention as well as the establishment of the church depersonalized that which can only be experienced between the individual and the absolute, God.

While his personal strength of character is one to admire, his existential philosophy is short sighted and underdeveloped. However, he had some absolutely admirable perspectives that, theist, agnostic, pantheist and even atheists might well be in agreement about. See if YOU agree with my paraphrasing of his thoughts.

He believed that humans fear their own freedom and that faith was the way to alleviate those fears. Long before I had ever read Kierkegaard, I recognized that faith rests within the individual. Like Kierkegaard, I understood that faith which seeks justification (substantiation through knowledge) is not devotional faith, which is what Kierkegaard supports as do a great many of today’s “designer” Christians.

Furthermore, Kierkegaard had little regard for anyone, especially Christians who claimed to have some supporting justification of their faith, as in rituals, church hierarchy and even the Bible.

By definition, faith can no longer be faith if there is justification supporting the belief behind the faith. Rather it should be faith that is behind the belief. Those who claim justification of their faith are those he called the fundamentalists and the definition still holds today.

So Nubby, are you a fundamentalist, that MUST PROVE (justify) your beliefs? Or would you agree that the best faith, the only faith that an all powerful, all loving God would require is pure “devotional” faith?

Actually Nubby I've argued for your semantic position before, and will continue to do so in the future.

However, my argument is purely subjective and I fully understand that.

You do not.

I too perfer to think of athesim as a believe that there is no God.

That would be the 'positive affirmation' that you demanding.

However, everyone doesn't take the word to mean that. And they don't need to.

Theism is a believe in a theology.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in theology.

Those are VALID meanings of the words.

Arguing semantics is futile.

You can't for semantics on anyone. Words are NOT that well-defined.

The only way you could do that is if you mutually agree ahead of time on a specific dictionary to be used for all your speech. But that would be extremely restrictive for anyone.

The bottom line is that if you can't even see the difference between an arguments of semantics and the actual points being made then you're not even close to being debate material.

Like Bushiobilly points out, there is no way that a theist can claim to be on the same logical level as an atheist.

An atheist has no need to prove anything.

The theist is the one who's claiming that something exists which there is no evidence for.

You're semantic definition of the word Atheism (meaning to claim to have proof that there is no God) simply isn't what people mean when they say that they are atheists.

So to argue for that semantic meaning is silly.

Well it's about time. Geesh, thank you Krisma, you just helped me to define myself. I just realized I am not an atheist, at least right now, I am actually an agnostic until further notice.. grin! Right now I just don't know. Though I do know that I can not accept the god of the bible, period.

I like the idea of the pantheism, I could easily believe in that but have to read more about it..

Hi boo2u,

Just keep following Abra around for awhile. He's got some great ideas about pantheism. You may not find all of his ideas in your research, but you will certainly be able to relate his ideas to the whole picture. If there has to be some kind of spiritual evolution in the way of beliefs, I think my vote would be cast for the pantheistic view.

I really can't understand why it didn't evolve to be right up there in the running with the worlds major religions.

Maybe it's because the Americas were so isolated that many of the Indian tribes here were still pantheistc at the time the pilgrims moved in. For many tribes, nature was the 'Absolute' and all of nature and anything it created was to be honored and treated with dignity because nature was interconnected and interdependent and therefore, made up the whole of the 'Absolute'.

Today, many would call that idealistic, monotheists would call it heresey, and politicians would call it communism or socialism, and capitalist would simply segregate it as if it were a contagion to be feared and scorned.

Belief is a tricky thing for people. It is a positive concept, however belief and acceptance are shades of gray there is no objective quantity required to establish such a thing, it differs in amounts of evidence or reason to persuade different people, we call this credulity.

However given that to accept something as true there is a tipping point even if it is different for each person none the less it exists. At this point from the time a person hears, or learns about an idea to the time that they accept it as true they gather information then reach a point when it is enough to accept the idea as being true.

The point from the time the person does not accept the idea as true to the point that they do accept it as true would define the difference between belief and non belief.

All things before belief of god are atheist, regardless of your opinion on the capability to know this thing you either accept it as true, or do not.

"And then man created god in his own image..." -Mahan Mahan

Thanks Red, I started a topic on pantheism and asked a question..

Thanks Bushido, not sure I understood you, but will reread it later when I am fully awake.. grin!

Pantheism makes perfect sense to me although I dont consider myself a full blown subscriber to this understanding of god. Pantheism also seems to fall in line with Deist beliefs to some degree.

Deism-Deism is the belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian, Islamic and Judaic teachings.


In other words, a Deist says "I dont need no stinkin bible. Take it away!"

They also say I don't need no stinking magic, which to my mind is refreshingly simple. I can respect it.

So we have Xians, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists and Pagans, anyone else? Reminds me of that song National Brotherhood Week. Perhaps we should start off by referring to each other in the way that we wished to be referred as: for example, I am not an Atheist, I am an Asshole.

Yes you are right. They wanted NO mysticism at tall. There is a funny story about Thomas Jefferson taking a copy of his bible and cutting out with scissors EVERY passage in which it speculated or spoke about spooky stuff or mysticism. He wanted no part of that. He was Deist.

I am an atheist asshole.