Will atheism cease to exist in this reality?

I never said anything else. What a redundant comment.

Yes, they are mutually exclusive.

There are also people who believe that no Gods exist, i.e. atheists. That's not the same as lacking belief.

No. There is a difference between the two. Atheists disbelief.

No he's not. Atheists have a position regarding God.

@themajormayor: Your definition of atheism is narrower than mine. I've given you my definition, but you are free not to take it. That being said, I don't really think we're really discussing anything anymore...I'm telling you I'm an atheist because I don't have a belief in God; you are telling me I'm not an atheist...can't help you there =) Agree to disagree, I guess.

Well, where were the people who could have helped all those starving, murdered, etc. people? Blaming everything wrong on God is as stupid as blaming everything wrong on Obama. People are responsible for their own actions. Murderers will murder regardless of a god. Murderers kill because they feel like it. Drunk drivers kill because of irresponsibility and shit just happens. Even if God did come down and stopped things from happening, you think people would still be happy? Of course not, people would claim that there is no freedom and that we're being controlled by a god. After reading about so many deaths on the news, I just started hating the root of the problem which is not any god, but people themselves.

@-paranorman-: That's why even if god is real he is basically useless. At best, at worst he's a cosmic sicko.

That kind of depends. What is more sickening? The fact that people have free will and are in control of their own destiny or if people did not have free will and were living a life planned out by someone else?

The problem with your definition of various positions is that they're either redundant or not all encompassing.

I never said that you said otherwise. You should ask yourself that question.

My definition of an atheist is someone who either doesn't believe or disbelieves, yours is that it's only the latter and my definitions are the ones that are not all encompassing?

Sorry, I meant the opposite of all encompassing. Why use the same word for two different positions when there already exists two words for them?

@-paranorman-: Ideally it would be great if people could have all the free will but without evil ever been created as a choice. In biblical terms; when god created stuff he could have skipped the part where he decides to **** things by allowing the possibility of evil.

But this is just crazy talk IMO. I don't think there's a god, and am 100% sure that there's no biblical god. That's almost at Santa Claus level.

No you don't.

It's none of your business what I chose to pick up or not.

This is from your own sources:

1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

I guess they are. And it turns out I was right.

@themajormayor: Because being agnostic and being atheist are 2 different things but you can still be both. Just like Catholics and Protestants are both Christian. Telling you I'm agnostic doesn't tell you whether I'm an atheist or vice-versa. Telling you I'm agnostic is telling you I'm aware I'm not sure of God's existence (or non-existence); telling you I'm an atheist tells you I do not have a belief in a God. In any case I see myself as an apatheist (thanks to Greg for teaching me the word =D); I couldn't care less if God exists.

That's the most interesting argument though. People call a lot of things evil when things just happen by chance. Take natural disasters such as earth quakes, tornadoes, tsunamis and volcano eruptions for example. These natural disasters have high death counts and people blame it on a god and claim that the god is evil for letting that happen. What you say about evil not being created, that would have been great and you are 100% correct about that but, what is evil in the real world? Murder? Rape? Those are still acts of free will. Evil can't exist without good so, evil would always exist in one way or another.

@-paranorman-: I don't believe in good or evil. I mean, I have my personal notions of good and evil but they hold no universal value outside me.

But when we talk of good and evil in a biblical sense things are not like that and in any way good has to have evil as it's opposite. As god created everything, he also created that dualistic concept, as before god there was nothing. If he was a cool god he could have created a universe were only good existed. Or a universe where only good, better and awesome existed, and evil would be a completely unknown concept. So the existence of evil was a decision made by god. It was god's decision to punish Adam and Eve. Or otherwise we have to accept on a religious level that even god has to obey universal laws instead of creating them.

But in reality humans created good and tried to accommodate in it's nature the human nature. It was a way to create (useful) laws that could be applied under the protection of an untouchable source.

TC in a nutshell

Then explain how a brain injury can change an entire personality. If personality is extant after brain death then brain injury should have no effect on such.

Now if you're talking radiance, such as in broadcasting or reception, you're going to have to suggest a gauge boson carrier before this conversation can continue.

Atheism will never cease to exist. And is only gaining momentum. And while I am at it, newborn babies are atheist,

How so? I'm not going to force anything on her and it's completely up to her what she wants to believe.

Since everyone is aware of not knowing whether there is a God or not, that word then becomes very redundant. Fortunately, that's not the definition in this context.

So how do you tell me that you believe there is no God?

That's simply not true. There are many people (in fact, most fervent devout people in my experience) who claim to be absolutely sure God exists...whether they are right or not is another discussion; it their mind they KNOW.

Also, how would I tell you if I believed no God existed? In exactly those words. Which is not my case; I simply don't believe God exists. I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with the concept that people with 2 different views can be part of the same group.

As we can see from multiple definitions you posted, it is not enough to believe in a God to be an atheist:

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

I understand that perfectly well. I never claimed that it was the only correct definition of the word.

Ok, but claiming something doesn't mean that they know it, which they don't. So it's definitely redundant.

Ok, but there is a word for it, which is why we have labels such as this. What if I asked you what you are in that sense? I don't have any trouble with that whatsoever. People who believes there is no God and those who lacks belief in God are not both atheists however.

But the definition pertains to the CLAIM to knowledge, which anyone is free to have. I can claim I'm sure you're a blonde woman...doesn't mean I'm right.

As for the rest, let's go slow. Do you agree that a theist is someone who believes in the existence of God?

^^

No, that's not enough, as we can see from the multiple definitions posted.

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

I'm not thinking that at all. I never said that that definition is inaccurate.

That's a terrible analogy. In any case, it doesn't contradict anything I said. If an atheist is defined as "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings", he can, by definition, not only lack a belief in God.

Ok, let's say that's the case. Why is it of value to label this?

Yeah.

In my opinion? None. Just like there's no point in labeling anything related to religion, you are what you are and nobody has anything to do with it. But if the terms exist, someone somewhere deemed it important. I'm not said person so I cannot say =)

Ok, good. We're finding some common ground.

Do you also agree that the prefix a- is a variation of the prefix an-, meaning "not" or "without"?

There will always be atheists, unless there's a ruler that forces everyone to believe in a god or gods, and well, we all know how that went.

Yes. However, that does not mean I agree with your next point. Because I don't agree with pineapples being apples that grow on pines.

@themajormayor: So basically you agree that the word has a meaning and the prefix has a meaning but if when applied together the new word's meaning does not please you you will not recognise it? Then that's on you =)

I never claimed anything else. However, If an atheist is defined as "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings", he can, by definition, not only lack a belief in God. That's what the definition says. Straight out of the dictionary.

It's a terrible analogy. I never tried to argue that one definition is incorrect.

So you think pineapples are apples that grow on pines? The definition of a word is not necessarily dependent on its etymology. It has not only to do with pleasing me (although it has to some extent as having the labels atheism, agnosticism, theism separated is simpler, while at the same time more descriptive) but with the actual definition of the word.

@themajormayor: I've given you my definitions, now please give me yours. Since you don't like using the same label on different positions please label these:

-a man who claims he is not sure of God's existence but believes a God exists

-a man who claims he is not sure of God's existence but believes a God does not exist

-a man who claims he is sure of God's existence and believes a God exists

-a man who claims he is sure of God's existence and believes a God does not exist

For me 2 of these people are agnostic and 2 are atheist, also 2 of them are gnostic and 2 are theists. That doesn't mean there are 8 people...

I never said that that definition is inaccurate.

Roughly: Theist=believes in a God, Agnostic=Doesn't believe in a God but doesn't believe there is no God, Atheist=Believes there is no God.

- Theist

- Atheist

- Theist

- Atheist

Whether they claim to know for sure or not is not interesting since we know anyway that it is not true.

I would never claim there are 8 people.

Great, we're agreeing so far. So now what would you call these 2:

-a man who claims he is not sure of God's existence but does not believe a God exist

-a man who claims he is sure of God's existence but believes a God does not exist (you already answered this one as atheist)

- Agnostic, provided he doesn't believe there is no God. Then that would be a subset called atheists.

- Atheist.

@themajormayor: Neither agnostic or atheist are subsets of each other, though. You are just using a word as you see fit...the word gnostic relates to knowledge, not belief. You could call lack of belief "rainbow socks" if you wish but that doesn't mean the words have the meaning what you want them to have. Not to mention you said that gnostic and agnostic are useless definitions since nobody knows for sure, regardless of whether they think they do but it's perfectly ok to use that same word if you give it another definition?

I think I'm going to bow out here...we've been at this the whole day and you refuse to try and understand the definitions I gave you, the definitions Greg posted, to do your own research and realise you are misusing the word...if you want to call a subset of atheists agnostics while ignoring the real definition of agnostic so that it doesn't mess up your view of things then by all means call me agnostic (which I am) when you want to refer to the fact that I'm an atheist. I don't mind =)

The fact is that I don't have a belief in a God while not denying the possibility that a God (or several) may exist. What you choose to call it makes little difference and will not change the meaning of the words.

Thank you for the chat and snort a yellow toast (which means have a nice day because I just decided that's what those words mean now).