Is there an argument For atheism

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between that, and the vernacular definition I provided?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I believe there is no god.

2) I do not have a belief that God exists.

These are different statements. Look closely.

[/ QUOTE ]

My Vernacular:

[ QUOTE ]
Vernacular: Someone who believes there is no god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weak Atheist:

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who takes the position that they do not have a belief that God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of these fit under your first definition. Neither fits under your second (note that my technical/obsolete definition on the other hand would have).

So I ask again... what's the difference?

Note that by taking a position, you are actively pursuing the belief, therefore it is different from my technical definition.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's go! Make the cube on my desk get up and hover!

You can't do that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I already responded to that with this,

[ QUOTE ]
Or you may have chosen the wrong prayer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not communicating. You are just ranting.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Versions of Weak Athiest:

ZeeJustin -
[ QUOTE ]
Technical (and obsolete): Someone who is without the belief that a god exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard -
[ QUOTE ]
Someone who takes the position that they do not have a belief that God exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

These are different.

Your definition does not "fit" mine. Yours would allow for hamsters. Mine would not. Hamsters do not take a position.

PairTheBoard

[ZeeJustin]

Pair, you are comparing the wrong definitions.

I said my Vernacular was the same as your weak atheist.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Pair, you are comparing the wrong definitions.

I said my Vernacular was the same as your weak atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZeeJustin -
[ QUOTE ]
Atheist:
Vernacular: Someone who believes there is no god.


[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard - (Weak Atheist)
[ QUOTE ]
Someone who takes the position that they do not have a belief that God exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those are most Certainly different. Yours is a belief that there is no God. The position in mine is a lack of the belief that there is a God. It does not imply a belief that there is no God.

I refer you back to my original post which was a response to yours. Also, to my next post which elaborates further.

PairTheBoard

[jogsxyz]

ZeeJustin
[ QUOTE ]
Pair, you are comparing the wrong definitions.

I said my Vernacular was the same as your weak atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said a baby is an (weak) atheist. A baby does not actively reject god. He is just unaware that there may be a god.

[afadeyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think what you're describing is agnosticism. "I don't know therefore I can't believe one way or the other". The athiest says, "I definitely believe there is no God".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I definitely do not believe there is a god.
2) I definitely believe there is no god.

are two different statements.
Both are atheistic statements, although 2 is a tough position to defend.

It's possible to be a (1) because of agnosticism of various forms or through normals 'lack of evidence' channels.

That aside, I'm trying to test my view that there isn't a meaningful argument 'for' atheism. Atheism is a defense of the nul position, the default, any arguments made are merely counters to pro-theism ones.
For there to be an atheist argument, then we could prove 2, which seems unlikely, but that's why I posted.

If I tell you, "there is a gold ring around the moon a foot thick that is undetectable" your response should be an a-ringist one..."prove it".
Your position is "I don't believe there is an undetectable gold ring."
You'd be pretty hard pressed to prove youl a-ringist stance .. it's undetectable remember.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

may i ask your religion? i guess it doesnt matter because if you were born in the middle east you'd probably be muslim, thailand maybe buddhist and in india probably a hindu. i guess since all these are the same religion there is an absolute and his name must be god.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
ZeeJustin
[ QUOTE ]
Pair, you are comparing the wrong definitions.

I said my Vernacular was the same as your weak atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said a baby is an (weak) atheist. A baby does not actively reject god. He is just unaware that there may be a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZJ said that about his definition of a weak atheist. It is not true for my definition of a weak atheist and my definition of weak atheist is not the same as ZJ's Strong Atheist definition, or what he asserts is the vernacular.

My definition of weak atheist is, Someone who takes the position that they do not have a belief that God exists.
A baby does not "take a position" so a baby does not qualify as a weak atheist under my definition. Also, I think the phrase, "actively reject God" is a loaded one. I don't think the Weak Atheist "actively rejects God". I think the Weak Atheist does actively reject something though. I think the Weak Atheist actively rejects the notion of Belief based on Subjective Experience and Faith. I think this seperates him from the pure Agnostic who I think is Agnostic on the question of God's existence - says he does not know - and mute on the notion of Belief based on Subjective Experience and Faith.

PairTheBoard

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
ZeeJustin
[ QUOTE ]
Pair, you are comparing the wrong definitions.

I said my Vernacular was the same as your weak atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said a baby is an (weak) atheist. A baby does not actively reject god. He is just unaware that there may be a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A baby only fits into my technical/obsolete definition.

[ZeeJustin]

Pair,

So most agnostic people would fit under your weak atheist definition, right?