Alright, i got a good question.

[neo-x]

as to what atheist believe.
Ken

What do you mean by, "Atheists believe"?

[PaulSacramento]

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

The point ken was that the past atheist believed in only what was able to be verified by the 5 senses and nothing more.
They believed that what could not be seen, for example, didn't exist.

Where are you getting this stuff? You obviously haven’t spoken to any “ancient atheists” so what makes you think there is any merit to this claim?

The modern atheist knows that is not the case BUT still only believes in what can be proven by verifiable scientific methods BUT also accepts what is POSTULATED and THEORIZED but can NOT be proven by direct observation because science "tell him so" ( an example would be climate change and it's causes).

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

The modern atheist knows there is more than what can be proven by the 5 senses, that reality is ever changing ( even if they don't admit it to themselves at times).

No offence intended, but if you honestly believe this stuff you are saying, you need to speak to more atheists my friend, because you haven’t a clue as to what atheist believe.

Ken

This is based on what the write, what I have read historically AND speaking and debating quite a few of them over the years.
Of course by your responses it is clear that you have no idea what I am talking about, so...

The fact that you say this:

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

After I state an analogy to a point, shows that you either can't grasp the argument or don't want to, either way, this thread has run its course for me.
Good luck.

[Kenny]

as to what atheist believe.
Ken

What do you mean by, "Atheists believe"?

What atheists believe generally has nothing to do with non-belief in God. As an atheist, I have beliefs when it comes to morality, various conspiracy theories, politics, and a host of other things along with my beliefs concerning various religions and God. The only belief I have that is associated with my atheism is my belief concerning God and the religions associated with him, all of the other beliefs have nothing to do with my atheism; as a matter of fact many theists will share my views in all the other areas of beliefs.

It seems many theists seem to make the mistake of assuming atheism to an atheist is the same as various religions are to those who practice it. I suspect the person I was discussing with made this mistake as well.

Ken

[Kenny]

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

The point ken was that the past atheist believed in only what was able to be verified by the 5 senses and nothing more.
They believed that what could not be seen, for example, didn't exist.

Where are you getting this stuff? You obviously haven’t spoken to any “ancient atheists” so what makes you think there is any merit to this claim?

The modern atheist knows that is not the case BUT still only believes in what can be proven by verifiable scientific methods BUT also accepts what is POSTULATED and THEORIZED but can NOT be proven by direct observation because science "tell him so" ( an example would be climate change and it's causes).

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

The modern atheist knows there is more than what can be proven by the 5 senses, that reality is ever changing ( even if they don't admit it to themselves at times).

No offence intended, but if you honestly believe this stuff you are saying, you need to speak to more atheists my friend, because you haven’t a clue as to what atheist believe.

Ken

This is based on what the write, what I have read historically AND speaking and debating quite a few of them over the years.
Of course by your responses it is clear that you have no idea what I am talking about, so...

The fact that you say this:

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

After I state an analogy to a point, shows that you either can't grasp the argument or don't want to, either way, this thread has run its course for me.
Good luck.

You seem to be making the argument that atheists of the 17th century were different than atheists of today, that atheists of today put much stock in what science says.
But everybody puts much stock in what science says; even christians! Christians believe in evolution, they believe what science says about black holes, planets that can’t be seen with the naked eye, even climate change.
It just seems much of what you are saying about the modern atheist can be applied to the modern christian as well.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

The point ken was that the past atheist believed in only what was able to be verified by the 5 senses and nothing more.
They believed that what could not be seen, for example, didn't exist.

Where are you getting this stuff? You obviously haven’t spoken to any “ancient atheists” so what makes you think there is any merit to this claim?

The modern atheist knows that is not the case BUT still only believes in what can be proven by verifiable scientific methods BUT also accepts what is POSTULATED and THEORIZED but can NOT be proven by direct observation because science "tell him so" ( an example would be climate change and it's causes).

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

The modern atheist knows there is more than what can be proven by the 5 senses, that reality is ever changing ( even if they don't admit it to themselves at times).

No offence intended, but if you honestly believe this stuff you are saying, you need to speak to more atheists my friend, because you haven’t a clue as to what atheist believe.

Ken

This is based on what the write, what I have read historically AND speaking and debating quite a few of them over the years.
Of course by your responses it is clear that you have no idea what I am talking about, so...

The fact that you say this:

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

After I state an analogy to a point, shows that you either can't grasp the argument or don't want to, either way, this thread has run its course for me.
Good luck.

You seem to be making the argument that atheists of the 17th century were different than atheists of today, that atheists of today put much stock in what science says.
But everybody puts much stock in what science says; even christians! Christians believe in evolution, they believe what science says about black holes, planets that can’t be seen with the naked eye, even climate change.
It just seems much of what you are saying about the modern atheist can be applied to the modern christian as well.

Ken

But the thing about atheism is they have no proof atheism is true and they exclude themselves from needing any while expecting proof God is real.
Qoute: "To one who has faith,no explanation is necessary.To one without faith,no explanation is possible." - St Thomas Aquinas

[edwardmurphy]

What atheists believe generally has nothing to do with non-belief in God. As an atheist, I have beliefs when it comes to morality, various conspiracy theories, politics, and a host of other things along with my beliefs concerning various religions and God. The only belief I have that is associated with my atheism is my belief concerning God and the religions associated with him, all of the other beliefs have nothing to do with my atheism; as a matter of fact many theists will share my views in all the other areas of beliefs.

It seems many theists seem to make the mistake of assuming atheism to an atheist is the same as various religions are to those who practice it.

This is true. And some of them never understand the difference, no matter how carefully you explain it to them.

But the thing about atheism is they have no proof atheism is true and they exclude themselves from needing any while expecting proof God is real.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I think he sums it up well.

[Kenny]

The point ken was that the past atheist believed in only what was able to be verified by the 5 senses and nothing more.
They believed that what could not be seen, for example, didn't exist.

Where are you getting this stuff? You obviously haven’t spoken to any “ancient atheists” so what makes you think there is any merit to this claim?

The modern atheist knows that is not the case BUT still only believes in what can be proven by verifiable scientific methods BUT also accepts what is POSTULATED and THEORIZED but can NOT be proven by direct observation because science "tell him so" ( an example would be climate change and it's causes).

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

The modern atheist knows there is more than what can be proven by the 5 senses, that reality is ever changing ( even if they don't admit it to themselves at times).

No offence intended, but if you honestly believe this stuff you are saying, you need to speak to more atheists my friend, because you haven’t a clue as to what atheist believe.

Ken

This is based on what the write, what I have read historically AND speaking and debating quite a few of them over the years.
Of course by your responses it is clear that you have no idea what I am talking about, so...

The fact that you say this:

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

After I state an analogy to a point, shows that you either can't grasp the argument or don't want to, either way, this thread has run its course for me.
Good luck.

You seem to be making the argument that atheists of the 17th century were different than atheists of today, that atheists of today put much stock in what science says.
But everybody puts much stock in what science says; even christians! Christians believe in evolution, they believe what science says about black holes, planets that can’t be seen with the naked eye, even climate change.
It just seems much of what you are saying about the modern atheist can be applied to the modern christian as well.

Ken

But the thing about atheism is they have no proof atheism is true and they exclude themselves from needing any while expecting proof God is real.

When proof is required, it is required by the one making the claim. Theism is a claim; atheism is usually the default position.

Qoute: "To one who has faith,no explanation is necessary.To one without faith,no explanation is possible." - St Thomas Aquinas

Do you actually believe faith is necessary in order to explain things? If so, perhaps you can name a scientific theory that is based upon, or that required faith.

Ken

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
When proof is required, it is required by the one making the claim. Theism is a claim; atheism is usually the default position.

That's just not true Kenny.

As you have been told many times before, atheism is the belief that God(or gods)
Doesn't exist.

It is an assertion, when atheists claim God doesn't exist. But instead of standing by their belief system, and defending it, they change atheism to mean "lack of belief in God". That way they can claim it's the duty of the theist to back up the theist's claim, instead of the atheist backing his claim. It's a pretty dishonest way to have a discussion.

And before you say that some atheists really do lack a belief in God, no Kenny, those people are agnostic.

Once again Kenny, you have shown that you are incapable or unwilling to understand the topic at hand.

And we are going around in circles.

Kenny,

Obviously, you are too obtuse. If you are not here to learn something, what is your purpose here?

And before you ignore this post as you have with all my other posts to you since I temporarily banned you, know that I am asking this question as a moderator. Ignore me this time, and you will be banned again.

You have been shown more grace than anyone else who has been going against this forums purpose and rules.

[edwardmurphy]

As you have been told many times before, atheism is the belief that God(or gods)
Doesn't exist.

It is an assertion, when atheists claim God doesn't exist. But instead of standing by their belief system, and defending it, they change atheism to mean "lack of belief in God". That way they can claim it's the duty of the theist to back up the theist's claim, instead of the atheist backing his claim. It's a pretty dishonest way to have a discussion.

If that's the case then the very first conversation about gods went like this:

Person #1: Gods do not exist.
Person #2: Huh? What's a god? Where did that come from? We were talking about hunting...

It didn't. You can't reject a claim until it's been made. Therefore theists have always had the burden of proof. It's never been the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove any untested claim, and there's no special exception for gods.

Are you seriously going to ban a guy because he won't accept a loaded definition of "atheism" written by theists to make atheists seem irrational?

[RickD]

As you have been told many times before, atheism is the belief that God(or gods)
Doesn't exist.

It is an assertion, when atheists claim God doesn't exist. But instead of standing by their belief system, and defending it, they change atheism to mean "lack of belief in God". That way they can claim it's the duty of the theist to back up the theist's claim, instead of the atheist backing his claim. It's a pretty dishonest way to have a discussion.

If that's the case then the very first conversation about gods went like this:

Person #1: Gods do not exist.
Person #2: Huh? What's a god? Where did that come from? We were talking about hunting...

It didn't. You can't reject a claim until it's been made. Therefore theists have always had the burden of proof. It's never been the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove any untested claim, and there's no special exception for gods.

Are you seriously going to ban a guy because he won't accept a loaded definition of "atheism" written by theists to make atheists seem irrational?

Of course theists have a burden of proof. I never said they didn't. But for atheists to claim they have no burden of proof, is just dishonest. Atheism is as much of a belief system, as theism.

As far as the discussions here, theism is the belief in God. Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

The existence of God can be proven by metaphysics. So your stupid teacup example fails. Science deals with the physical and natural world. God is not part of the natural world, because He transcends it. Looking for scientific proof of God, will not work.

Kenny doesn't understand that, but you Ed, seem intelligent enough to understand.

And, atheism isn't irrational because theists made up a loaded definition. Atheism is irrational because God exists. Like I said, metaphysics proves the existence of God. Science offers overwhelming evidence of His existence, but not scientific proof.

And Ed, if you have an issue with my moderating or anyone else's, take it up via pm. Please keep it off of the boards.

[abelcainsbrother]

What atheists believe generally has nothing to do with non-belief in God. As an atheist, I have beliefs when it comes to morality, various conspiracy theories, politics, and a host of other things along with my beliefs concerning various religions and God. The only belief I have that is associated with my atheism is my belief concerning God and the religions associated with him, all of the other beliefs have nothing to do with my atheism; as a matter of fact many theists will share my views in all the other areas of beliefs.

It seems many theists seem to make the mistake of assuming atheism to an atheist is the same as various religions are to those who practice it.

This is true. And some of them never understand the difference, no matter how carefully you explain it to them.

But the thing about atheism is they have no proof atheism is true and they exclude themselves from needing any while expecting proof God is real.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I think he sums it up well.

He does'nt sum up anything. Just like St Thomas Aquinas said "To one who has faith,no explanation is necessary.To one who has no faith no explanation is possible." Since the 14th century you will never have an explanation for atheism just like the quote you posted states. Atheists did'nt have an explanation in the 14th century and they still don't today.

[abelcainsbrother]

As you have been told many times before, atheism is the belief that God(or gods)
Doesn't exist.

It is an assertion, when atheists claim God doesn't exist. But instead of standing by their belief system, and defending it, they change atheism to mean "lack of belief in God". That way they can claim it's the duty of the theist to back up the theist's claim, instead of the atheist backing his claim. It's a pretty dishonest way to have a discussion.

If that's the case then the very first conversation about gods went like this:

Person #1: Gods do not exist.
Person #2: Huh? What's a god? Where did that come from? We were talking about hunting...

It didn't. You can't reject a claim until it's been made. Therefore theists have always had the burden of proof. It's never been the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove any untested claim, and there's no special exception for gods.

Are you seriously going to ban a guy because he won't accept a loaded definition of "atheism" written by theists to make atheists seem irrational?

It is dishonest for you or anybody to expect proof of God while adopting a world-view that has absolutely no evidence behind it at all and then exclude yourself from needing any proof when you don't even have any evidence at all atheism is true. I know alot of the atheists exclude themselves from needing evidence as you have reiterated here quite well however I'm not falling for atheists intellectually dishonest games and I'm just giving them back a taste of their own tactics.

If you want to hide behind atheism defending the atheist rhetoric about not needing evidence because atheists are excused then go ahead,but I don't agree or go along with the idea that atheists get a pass when it comes to proof and evidence,noboby or any world-view including agnostic gets a pass when it comes to evidence for their world view. it is everybodies responsibility to make sure that what they believe is the truth and you won't find any evidence atheism is true. I really think you need to think about this even if you don't believe in God now. You should want to know that your world-view is true.

It seemed to anger you when I point out atheism has no evidence behind it yet I was'nt trying to anger you or Kenny I was trying to get you to think about what you are accepting which is atheism with absolutely no evidence it is true. Even false religions have more evidence behind them than atheism does so I think you should think about it,especially if you expect proof God is real. You need to be consistant in your thinking.

[Kenny]

As you have been told many times before, atheism is the belief that God(or gods)
Doesn't exist.

It is an assertion, when atheists claim God doesn't exist. But instead of standing by their belief system, and defending it, they change atheism to mean "lack of belief in God". That way they can claim it's the duty of the theist to back up the theist's claim, instead of the atheist backing his claim. It's a pretty dishonest way to have a discussion.

If that's the case then the very first conversation about gods went like this:

Person #1: Gods do not exist.
Person #2: Huh? What's a god? Where did that come from? We were talking about hunting...

It didn't. You can't reject a claim until it's been made. Therefore theists have always had the burden of proof. It's never been the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove any untested claim, and there's no special exception for gods.

Are you seriously going to ban a guy because he won't accept a loaded definition of "atheism" written by theists to make atheists seem irrational?

It is dishonest for you or anybody to expect proof of God while adopting a world-view that has absolutely no evidence behind it at all and then exclude yourself from needing any proof when you don't even have any evidence at all atheism is true. I know alot of the atheists exclude themselves from needing evidence as you have reiterated here quite well however I'm not falling for atheists intellectually dishonest games and I'm just giving them back a taste of their own tactics.

I doubt most atheists are asking for absolute proof of the existence of God, just as strong of evidence for his existence (empirical) as science provides for the claims we do accept. I know,you say God is defined in a way that makes it impossible for him to be known via empirical evidence, and that is why we reject him and anything else that can’t be experienced that way; we’ve been over this already, and I think this is a bit of a different argument than the one at hand.

So let me see if I can understand what you are asking for here. If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe in order for a person to be an atheist, he can’t just lack belief in God, he must assert and claim to have evidence that God doesn’t exist; is this correct? Not just your God, but Allah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Dionsyus, and all the other Gods men have worshipped through out history; is this correct? If I am wrong here, please explain; if I am right, then according to your definition of an Atheist, it is impossible for anyone to become an atheist because they would have to become knowledgable of each of the hundreds of different Gods mankind has worshipped over the years to the extent of being able to provide evidence that they do not exist!
Do you really believe when people were first called atheists, they were claiming to have accomplished this? I don’t think so, but if that is the definition you want to accept, that’s fine but recognize not everybody is going to agree with you.

My niece believes in Zombies. Not really the traditional kind; dead people going around killing people; but people contacting some type of disease that causes them to go around in a trance killing and eating people (I think she watches too much TV and movies). Wouldn’t it be absurd for her to claim I would have to provide proof that these type of zombies don’t exist in order for me to not believe her? The same could be said for Santa, Easter Bunny, and a host of other fictional characters.

In previous conversations I’ve had with you (at least I believe it was you) I’ve maintained atheism shouldn’t even be a word. No where (that I know of) do we assign a label to the default position. There is no name for those who don’t believe in Zombies, Santa, Easter Bunny etc. because those who believe in those characters don’t have enough power and effluence in society to label those who don’t in those things. But those who believe in God do! The vast majority of society have always believed in some type or God so the majority labels the minority with the pejorative “atheist”. But if they were consistent they wouldn’t do this, atheism would not even be a word.
But it is a word and the problem with it being a word is theists will often mistake atheism as an alternative to theism. You seem to be making this mistake also, I notice you implied atheism as a world view. Theists will often base their beliefs, their perceptions, and the way they view the world in their God belief, so they assume Atheists base their beliefs, perceptions, and the way they view the world in their belief that God doesn’t exist! (sounds absurd doesn’t it?)The reality is, non belief in God (for me at least) is no more of an issue than my non belief in zombies, santa, or easter bunny. What ever world view an atheist might have, it has nothing to do with God, or non belief in God.

Anyway, that’s all for now; excuse my long wind and thanks for listening. I suspect you will have an objection or two (understatement) so I will be looking foreword to your reply

Ken

PS A hypothetical:
If a person recognizes what you call God exist, but they don’t call him God; (perhaps they are convinced he is an evolved being from another planet who visited earth and people called him God and embellished stories about him over the years) what would you call this guy? Seems to me you can’t call him agnostic because he may claim he knows weather or not God exist, you can’t call him theist because he doesn’t believe a being he would call God exist!

[abelcainsbrother]

As you have been told many times before, atheism is the belief that God(or gods)
Doesn't exist.

It is an assertion, when atheists claim God doesn't exist. But instead of standing by their belief system, and defending it, they change atheism to mean "lack of belief in God". That way they can claim it's the duty of the theist to back up the theist's claim, instead of the atheist backing his claim. It's a pretty dishonest way to have a discussion.

If that's the case then the very first conversation about gods went like this:

Person #1: Gods do not exist.
Person #2: Huh? What's a god? Where did that come from? We were talking about hunting...

It didn't. You can't reject a claim until it's been made. Therefore theists have always had the burden of proof. It's never been the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove any untested claim, and there's no special exception for gods.

Are you seriously going to ban a guy because he won't accept a loaded definition of "atheism" written by theists to make atheists seem irrational?

It is dishonest for you or anybody to expect proof of God while adopting a world-view that has absolutely no evidence behind it at all and then exclude yourself from needing any proof when you don't even have any evidence at all atheism is true. I know alot of the atheists exclude themselves from needing evidence as you have reiterated here quite well however I'm not falling for atheists intellectually dishonest games and I'm just giving them back a taste of their own tactics.

I doubt most atheists are asking for absolute proof of the existence of God, just as strong of evidence for his existence (empirical) as science provides for the claims we do accept. I know,you say God is defined in a way that makes it impossible for him to be known via empirical evidence, and that is why we reject him and anything else that can’t be experienced that way; we’ve been over this already, and I think this is a bit of a different argument than the one at hand.

So let me see if I can understand what you are asking for here. If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe in order for a person to be an atheist, he can’t just lack belief in God, he must assert and claim to have evidence that God doesn’t exist; is this correct? Not just your God, but Allah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Dionsyus, and all the other Gods men have worshipped through out history; is this correct? If I am wrong here, please explain; if I am right, then according to your definition of an Atheist, it is impossible for anyone to become an atheist because they would have to become knowledgable of each of the hundreds of different Gods mankind has worshipped over the years to the extent of being able to provide evidence that they do not exist!
Do you really believe when people were first called atheists, they were claiming to have accomplished this? I don’t think so, but if that is the definition you want to accept, that’s fine but recognize not everybody is going to agree with you.

My niece believes in Zombies. Not really the traditional kind; dead people going around killing people; but people contacting some type of disease that causes them to go around in a trance killing and eating people (I think she watches too much TV and movies). Wouldn’t it be absurd for her to claim I would have to provide proof that these type of zombies don’t exist in order for me to not believe her? The same could be said for Santa, Easter Bunny, and a host of other fictional characters.

In previous conversations I’ve had with you (at least I believe it was you) I’ve maintained atheism shouldn’t even be a word. No where (that I know of) do we assign a label to the default position. There is no name for those who don’t believe in Zombies, Santa, Easter Bunny etc. because those who believe in those characters don’t have enough power and effluence in society to label those who don’t in those things. But those who believe in God do! The vast majority of society have always believed in some type or God so the majority labels the minority with the pejorative “atheist”. But if they were consistent they wouldn’t do this, atheism would not even be a word.
But it is a word and the problem with it being a word is theists will often mistake atheism as an alternative to theism. You seem to be making this mistake also, I notice you implied atheism as a world view. Theists will often base their beliefs, their perceptions, and the way they view the world in their God belief, so they assume Atheists base their beliefs, perceptions, and the way they view the world in their belief that God doesn’t exist! (sounds absurd doesn’t it?)The reality is, non belief in God (for me at least) is no more of an issue than my non belief in zombies, santa, or easter bunny. What ever world view an atheist might have, it has nothing to do with God, or non belief in God.

Anyway, that’s all for now; excuse my long wind and thanks for listening. I suspect you will have an objection or two (understatement) so I will be looking foreword to your reply

Ken

PS A hypothetical:
If a person recognizes what you call God exist, but they don’t call him God; (perhaps they are convinced he is an evolved being from another planet who visited earth and people called him God and embellished stories about him over the years) what would you call this guy? Seems to me you can’t call him agnostic because he may claim he knows weather or not God exist, you can’t call him theist because he doesn’t believe a being he would call God exist!

I've heard all of that from atheists before and you did a good job explaining it again just like Ed however I don't buy it. How come you don't want to know if you are right about your atheism? Why is it not important to you to want to know you're right? I cannot think like this,it is totally a cop-out imo that you can just decide to be an atheist and yet not care if its true or not. It is just hiding behind labels to me.

To your last question it matters not who it is or what they believe.I want to see their evidence behind what they are believing. Nobody gets a pass with me,labels don't matter, no matter who it is they should have evidence if its true. I'd even like them to put their evidence up against biblical evidence to see who has the most and who does'nt. So it does not matter to me who it is I like to see their evidence behind what they are believing.

[Kenny]

As you have been told many times before, atheism is the belief that God(or gods)
Doesn't exist.

It is an assertion, when atheists claim God doesn't exist. But instead of standing by their belief system, and defending it, they change atheism to mean "lack of belief in God". That way they can claim it's the duty of the theist to back up the theist's claim, instead of the atheist backing his claim. It's a pretty dishonest way to have a discussion.

If that's the case then the very first conversation about gods went like this:

Person #1: Gods do not exist.
Person #2: Huh? What's a god? Where did that come from? We were talking about hunting...

It didn't. You can't reject a claim until it's been made. Therefore theists have always had the burden of proof. It's never been the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove any untested claim, and there's no special exception for gods.

Are you seriously going to ban a guy because he won't accept a loaded definition of "atheism" written by theists to make atheists seem irrational?

It is dishonest for you or anybody to expect proof of God while adopting a world-view that has absolutely no evidence behind it at all and then exclude yourself from needing any proof when you don't even have any evidence at all atheism is true. I know alot of the atheists exclude themselves from needing evidence as you have reiterated here quite well however I'm not falling for atheists intellectually dishonest games and I'm just giving them back a taste of their own tactics.

I doubt most atheists are asking for absolute proof of the existence of God, just as strong of evidence for his existence (empirical) as science provides for the claims we do accept. I know,you say God is defined in a way that makes it impossible for him to be known via empirical evidence, and that is why we reject him and anything else that can’t be experienced that way; we’ve been over this already, and I think this is a bit of a different argument than the one at hand.

So let me see if I can understand what you are asking for here. If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe in order for a person to be an atheist, he can’t just lack belief in God, he must assert and claim to have evidence that God doesn’t exist; is this correct? Not just your God, but Allah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Dionsyus, and all the other Gods men have worshipped through out history; is this correct? If I am wrong here, please explain; if I am right, then according to your definition of an Atheist, it is impossible for anyone to become an atheist because they would have to become knowledgable of each of the hundreds of different Gods mankind has worshipped over the years to the extent of being able to provide evidence that they do not exist!
Do you really believe when people were first called atheists, they were claiming to have accomplished this? I don’t think so, but if that is the definition you want to accept, that’s fine but recognize not everybody is going to agree with you.

My niece believes in Zombies. Not really the traditional kind; dead people going around killing people; but people contacting some type of disease that causes them to go around in a trance killing and eating people (I think she watches too much TV and movies). Wouldn’t it be absurd for her to claim I would have to provide proof that these type of zombies don’t exist in order for me to not believe her? The same could be said for Santa, Easter Bunny, and a host of other fictional characters.

In previous conversations I’ve had with you (at least I believe it was you) I’ve maintained atheism shouldn’t even be a word. No where (that I know of) do we assign a label to the default position. There is no name for those who don’t believe in Zombies, Santa, Easter Bunny etc. because those who believe in those characters don’t have enough power and effluence in society to label those who don’t in those things. But those who believe in God do! The vast majority of society have always believed in some type or God so the majority labels the minority with the pejorative “atheist”. But if they were consistent they wouldn’t do this, atheism would not even be a word.
But it is a word and the problem with it being a word is theists will often mistake atheism as an alternative to theism. You seem to be making this mistake also, I notice you implied atheism as a world view. Theists will often base their beliefs, their perceptions, and the way they view the world in their God belief, so they assume Atheists base their beliefs, perceptions, and the way they view the world in their belief that God doesn’t exist! (sounds absurd doesn’t it?)The reality is, non belief in God (for me at least) is no more of an issue than my non belief in zombies, santa, or easter bunny. What ever world view an atheist might have, it has nothing to do with God, or non belief in God.

Anyway, that’s all for now; excuse my long wind and thanks for listening. I suspect you will have an objection or two (understatement) so I will be looking foreword to your reply

Ken

PS A hypothetical:
If a person recognizes what you call God exist, but they don’t call him God; (perhaps they are convinced he is an evolved being from another planet who visited earth and people called him God and embellished stories about him over the years) what would you call this guy? Seems to me you can’t call him agnostic because he may claim he knows weather or not God exist, you can’t call him theist because he doesn’t believe a being he would call God exist!

I've heard all of that from atheists before and you did a good job explaining it again just like Ed however I don't buy it. How come you don't want to know if you are right about your atheism? Why is it not important to you to want to know you're right? I cannot think like this,it is totally a cop-out imo that you can just decide to be an atheist and yet not care if its true or not. It is just hiding behind labels to me.

To your last question it matters not who it is or what they believe.I want to see their evidence behind what they are believing. Nobody gets a pass with me,labels don't matter, no matter who it is they should have evidence if its true. I'd even like them to put their evidence up against biblical evidence to see who has the most and who does'nt. So it does not matter to me who it is I like to see their evidence behind what they are believing.

Would you mind answering the questions I asked?

Ken