zumby has shown you numerous times that we're using the word as it's currently defined. You're using the incorrect colloquial definition (as with the 'quantum' and 'theory' examples).

Once again, you are failing to see the distinction between disbelief and non-belief. Imagine that you are at a gathering where someone says "Put your hand up if you believe Phil Mickelson will win the PGA tournament". As you have no opinion, you are not part of the group that actively believes the statement and therefore you don't put your hand up.


I think it's charming that you believe that me and adsf are desperate to claim you as one of our own, somehow implying that you'd be a huge asset to us



No-one is asking you to put an atheist bumper sticker on your car, but when RLK says that he thought you were an atheist and you respond by saying "I have no idea whether God exists or not" we are correct to point out that that is likely to be the reason RLK thought you were an atheist. Get a sense of perspective, put your tinfoil hat back in the cupboard and maybe buy a decent dictionary.

Sry, there's no topping Jesus Christ in my opinion.

He's so great groups that aren't even Christian try to claim him.

Peace out!

We are not scientists here, and "atheist" is a common term used colloquially. Your argument is like claiming that you should use the definition of "photograph" used by professional photographers when laymen discuss taking pictures.

NO! You learn to use the fricking language like a normal person, and stop calling people atheists who do not reject the notion of a god.

And again, it is inaccurate to say "I don't believe Phil Mickelson will win the PGA." I have no opinion on that issue, which is different from not believing it.

.

lol u mad

If I was in a photography forum....

I swear it's like talking to Alter2Ego's more intelligent uncle.

"It's just a theory!"

Playing fast and loose with the definition of intelligent there, old bean

Eh, lawdude has made numerous coherent posts on this forum...this particular thread just doesn't happen to display them.

No, I don't lack a belief that Phil Mickelson will win the PGA. I have no opinion.

"I lack a preference in the presidential election" is not the same thing as "I do not have the necessary informaton to determine whether I have a preference or whether I lack one".

I lack the information necessary to determine whether I have a belief in god or whether I lack it. Thus, I am not an atheist.

EDIT:

To be clear, even if I accepted your argument semantically (which I don't), it is still intentionally misleading. It is what lawyers call a "negative pregnant", exemplified by the famous question "when did you stop beating your wife".

In other words, I can just as easily make the statement "I lack the belief that there is no god". Because I do indeed. But when framed in that kind of a sentence, that makes it sound like I am a believer, which is not true.

Your phony, hyper-jargon definition of atheist trades a completely irrelevant question in place of the relevant one, in an attempt to mislead people about what I actually believe. That's a terrible way to use language.

Noted

This isn't a professional photography forum. This is a snapshot forum.

If you have no opinion on whether Phil Mickelson will win then, by definition, you lack the belief that he will win.

Non sequitur.

http://scottcgruber.hubpages.com/hub...the-Difference

This is a reasonable exposition of the words.

Whether lawdude will relent into a reasonable position or maintain his beliefs with the deep certitude of one whose mind is completely closed will remain an open question.

(FWIW - I agree with him that the majority of people still use atheist to mean one who denies the existence of God. I've brought this up several times myself. However, the undeniable reality -- well, undeniable to those who are willing to confront reality -- is that the language has been changing, and atheism is moving towards the more general definition.)

Edit: Also, a quote from Bertrand Russel (1947)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

This demonstrates a historical confusion over the words, and an acknowledgement of the "cultural" definition that favors "atheism" as a denial of God.

Agree completely.

This is a theology forum, therefore you should be using the accepted theological definitions of theological terms.

If you don't want to identify as an atheist it's totally fine and dandy. But to suggest an "agenda" or "lies" or "doucebag moves" is totally out of line given that your original statement is completely congruent with the definition of atheism held by every other person in this forum, regardless of their theological position.

I'm fine with refraining from referring to you as an atheist out of respect for your strong feelings about it. Just apologise for the childish name-calling and move on, imo.

By the way, I have decided that from now on, I will state my position as "I do not know whether I have a belief that there is a god or not".

I don't see how that can be labeled as atheist even under your definitions.

You still lack a belief that a God exists, so...apathetic agnostic weak atheist

I don't lack that belief. It is possible that I believe it. I am not sure.

Maybe at some point you will realize how arrogant and presumptuous it is to insist on this label to describe beliefs that are different from your own.

Well, until you make up your mind you lack the positive belief in a God. Therefore...

Yeah, comprehending a definition, how presumptuous!

That is not true. It is possible that I believe. I am unable to confirm that I lack the belief.