If I claim that you would pee in your pants at the sight of a gun that is not a clarification of a term..

people dont have to read (or know) Squat to defend why they dont believe in some imaginary friend.

like a whole bunch of atheists say: "hey nobody told me about him, i found out about that dude when i was 11, and decided not to believe in him because there's no reason to. he could be made up and theres no evidence."


define atheism please. cause it can mean different things. some believe strongly that there is no god, others simply lack of a believe that there is one.
if you dont get why these are different, dunno what can help.
this time its you who thinks "atheism" has an absolute meaning.

Yep, pretty much this. Atheism is not a thesis. It does not even have to be very logical. A person could be an atheist because he doesn't like salmon.

Besides I suspect the post you responded to was mostly namedropping. Very few who was well versed in those writers would write as poor arguments as those Shahrad employ.

I still suspect he is a gimmick account gone sour.

That pretty much destroys both believers and non believers. None of the believers have successfully returned either.

exactly.
only the big dude himself succeeded
and aaaall the believers are trying to imitate him

but no seriously - shahrads claim is that believers are invulnerable against pain/fear. not that they're immortal or anything.

apparently they never get it..

dunno if i wanna stay here only to find out after 5 years that we're not making Any progress..
yeah i know nobody's here bc he actually believes we can make progress but still ^^

sorry for triple post, too late to edit

found something interesting.

All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God.

-- Baron d'Holbach, defending the "weak" definition for the word atheist, in Good Sense (1772), quoted from George H Smith, "Defining Atheism," in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies

what a cool belief system they dont even know about.

this



and

classifying atheism as a belief system is like categorizing christianity as TWO beliefs systems: one for believing in Jesus, and an additional one for not-believing in Allah

DUCY?

Also OP can you (with all due respect) explain why this is or is not correct in your opinion? Just trying to grasp your conceptual argument.

It's one thing for new theist posters in this forum to make those kinds of statements (ie. "Atheism is a belief system"), it's completely another when theists who have posted here for years continuously make those kinds of statements. The veteran posters who repeatedly make those kinds of statements have been repeatedly shown by atheists why such statements are illogical, but they choose not to listen. They're either too stubborn to admit that they're wrong, or they get some kind of perverse kick out of trolling atheists.

There must be places on earth where there are atheist who aren't even aware that they are atheist. The concept may not even exist in their native tongue.

Good thing I believe in Odin. I needn't fear kamikaze bombers because I'll surely go to Valhalla when I die.

yup, we don't have a word in chinese for atheist. we would have to transcribe it.

thats cause the majority of us have been living without a religion(few buddhists) until they heard about christians -they went "jesus cli- who ? i thought buddha was in charge of us"

true story.

No I don't agree to that and have already explained my position why. If you'd like to do a linguistic survey, I will change my position if it comes back saying you can worship things that are not divine.

Nevertheless this would be true.

I don't know what you mean with same problem of death.

Look at this: You go back in time 4000 years before Chr. You tell people that electrons exist, they only should read this books and they will get it. They will say I don't need any books to explain why we don't have a belief in invisible men in robes living in the clouds.
What I want to say is that those people have been very intelligent people and we should assume that they would not have wasted their time for atheistic ideas, if the atheistic ideas were so easy to prove like you assume.

The difference is that we understand more about the world including how things happen that we used to blame on the gods we created to explain things we didn't understand.

Once again, one does not have to prove atheistic ideas since athiesm only means that one doesn't have a belief in god. Its not a proof nor does it pretend to be.

The difference with electrons is that they were theorized and then they have been found in experiments. They behave in ways we would expect and can measure.

most people who believe in god(s) rely on faith and imagination. It helps to have less education, because the more you learn about the world and understand it, the less likely you are to believe in gods. Why do you suppose that is? (rhetorical question, by the way)

Do you need to read a few volumes by philosophers to figure out that unicorns, dragons and werewolves don't exist? Of course not. For the same reason we can reasonably conclude that there is no god(s), at least not as described by most religious texts.

Kurto! What do you think about the following 4 claims:
1) If there is something that has live, it is impossible that everything has live, cause we are capable to recognize every kind of live.
2) If there is something that has conscious, than it is impossible that everything has a conscious, cause we are capable to recognize every kind of conscious.
3) If there is something that has live, it is impossible that everything is alive.
4) If there is something that has conscious, it is impossible that everything is concious.
This claims don't base on each other. Look at them as separate claims.

Dear atheists,

All-in

This doesn't translate well. Its not clear what you're saying.

Not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying what I think you're saying then your claim seems off. "than it is impossible that everything has a conscious"??? Says who? Who says we can recognize every kind of conscious? Sounds like you're making stuff up.

I assume you mean "if something has life"? I don't know if its impossible to say that everything is alive... I suppose that depends on how you define life.

Seriously... no offense intended, the english here is bad that I don't think you're getting across what you think you're getting across.

all 4 are false.

.

And nevertheless - calling it a clarification of terms would be false.

Either your comprehension is lacking or my written communication isn't effective. In any case I hope it's not your understanding that's lacking.

When you can't find evidence for certain things, let alone being unsure if it's possible to find such evidence, you take those things on faith. Whenever you make an assumption what you doing in effect is taking that on faith. That's how it works.

And you still find faith deplorable? I think you need to do some introspection and rethinking. You might dislike the phrase "taking it on faith", but no matter how you spin or twist it, fundamentally it remains the same.

What change of rules? What are you talking about? You're right that we use this type of evidence every day, except it's not called evidence. Can you name what it is? I'll give you a hint: if you've ever taken introductory physics, you do this all the time.