He already did. He claimed to be an atheist. He is considered an atheist by other people in this forum--both atheists and theists. He pointed out that he doesn't reject the possibility that God exists. Thus your criteria of what it means to be an atheist fails to accurately describe atheism.

I'll note that in fact no one believes that atheism means what you claim it means. I could conclusively prove that God does not exist and believe that God does not exist but yet still coherently think it is possible that God exist.

I'll also note that if atheism has the implication that you think it does, and theism is a mirror term, then it is reasonable to think that in order to be a theist you have to think it is impossible that God doesn't exist, and if you don't then you are an agnostic. So let me ask you, are you really and truly a theist?

No it doesn't.

Edit: Too late. Also: *head asplodes*

Which is why lew was correct in his post. I consider AIF an atheist, he considers himself an atheist. But if he is going to claim that he doesn't reject the possibility that God exists, then he is not qualified to be an atheist.

I know 100% God exists.

Yes it does. How doesn't it?

I don't reject the possibility that god exists. However, I do think the chances are pathetically low and I reject your claim that god exists. So am I an atheist?

That's the biggest difference between your belief system (some might call it arrogance) and atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief. I am more certain of some things than others, but I don't claim 100% certainty about anything.

You cannot have it both ways.
Well do you reject or don't you?

Atheism is not the lack of belief, it is the rejection of the belief.

I was going to link to one of the many threads on the distinction between atheism/agnosticism or on the meaning of atheism. But then I noticed that you were already posting in the most recent of them.

So whatever--if you don't want to call us atheists, then don't. But realize that your own beliefs about atheists do not then apply to those of us on this forum just because we call ourselves atheists. Also, for the sake of consistency, you should probably not complain when someone gives an inaccurate description of your own beliefs or belief system.

If you are open minded, you are not either.

Is 99% vs 1% different then 49% vs 51%?

If so what % do you need to be to be qualified as a theist or an atheist?

$50. I prove you wrong, you pay. I fail to prove you wrong, I pay.

Terms of the bet:

'Atheist' refers solely to one who excludes the possibility that one or more deities exist.

I prove this statement false, you pay. I fail to prove this statement false, I pay.

Bet? 'Yes' or 'No' please, no idle speculations as to motives, etc. Should be an easy fiddy for you, right?

I just thought it was interesting. I don't know if he was afraid or not. He could be of course. Having an amazing intellect does not make him immune to all human emotion.

This is not funny, nor convincing.

This seems like a difficult bet to settle either way. In response to some of the debate on this point I have looked at a lot of dictionary definitions and they are not clean and clear on this point imo. Never did check an OUD though which I suppose could be considered the final reference. Anyone have one?

Its intention is neither to amuse nor to persuade (that part comes when you accept the bet).

It's very simple, Gunth. You either do or do not have the courage of your convictions, the cojones, the dare-I-say-it integrity to take the bet, or, failing that, to say 'OK, I guess I was wrong about what it means to be an atheist,' - which will cost you nothing, at least not in dollars.

So are you a man or a mouse?

If the bet was whether or not any sense of 'atheist' connotes or requires disbelief in or denial of the possibility of deities, I'd agree. But the bet is whether or not that is the sole sense of the term. Which is an absolute slice from where I'm sitting.

It is very simple. I will not wager on anything that is in regards to God. I will not even wager on something so concrete like that the Bible says Christ rose from the dead. If you cannot respect this, then that is your issue, not mine.

Chicken. The bet has nothing to do with god.

The attempt to hide behind your religion is contemptible. All you need to do is say 'I was wrong' and the problem disappears.

I am not hiding behind my religion. I am sorry it appears that way. It appears to me though that you are hiding behind money.

Why would i say i was wrong if i believe i am right? That would be lying.

Fair enough Hainesy....

However, let me emphasize that I did not mean to say that there is a necessary road to be taken here (i.e from theism to atheism); all I argued was that if there is a choice in this issue (which may be doubtful, by the way) then that choice depended more on psychological factors than reason or rationality, which people, rather irrationally I have to say, obsess about.

As you correctly stated, there may as well be people "who are strong and who never "chose" to believe anything" etc. But, following Nietzsche, I happen to believe that for those people who experienced that "great liberation" (in Nietzsche's words) from a well-defined faith to atheism in their lives, the meaning and contours of the debate between faith and atheism would be significantly more dramatic than for those lucky souls who never felt the urge to believe in anything.

Cheers

Fair enough. With that wording I would agree.

So do you still maintain this: ?

Yes i do.

And now?



What about now?



Still?



But surely not now?

So now absence of belief and rejection of belief are both classified as the same thing. Great...

Can you explain the logic in that?

But that is the thing, it is not absent. You claim to hold an open belief, that it is possible, but very unlikely. Just because someone is not all there, doesn't mean that person is not there.

If you are open, even 1%, that 1% is belief in God.

you have to believe in god.. even if he doesn't exists. to live a happy enjoyable life.. you just have to

Oh, sure, no problem. You flip a coin, and it lands somewhere neither of us can see it. You tell me it came up heads. I tell you that I 'do not believe' it came up heads, meaning that I 'have no belief' that it came up heads. You insist vociferously that this means I must believe it came up tails, and I tell you that No, it doesn't mean that. See? Very, very simple.

I never said it was 'unlikely'. I don't feel comfortable assigning degrees of 'likelihood' to unknowables.

Yeah, Stu Pidasso tried that schtick, too. Didn't play (on account of its being transparent nonsense). There are no 'percentages' involved; I don't X% believe and Y% not believe. In answer to the question 'Do you believe in a god?' I answer 'No,' and in answer to the question 'Do you believe there is no god?' I likewise answer 'No.'

Okay AIF, i guess my next question would be, if you just don't know, why do you try to push evolution on people? You do realize that is one of the main reasons why so many people think they evolved from apes, because of the amount of people and resources pushing the idea.


I think you have to qualify yourself as an agnostic, since you just don't know. You believe that God is possible, that is why you can answer no to this question:

Which disqualifies you from being an atheist.