You're wrong, according to the dictionary.

Here's what the word atheism actually means:

---

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

a·the·ism

–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

---

That's precisely how I've used the word throughout this discussion. The word "notion" is a synonym for "an opinon, view, or belief."


carmenjonze seems to be such a person, and it's in regard to him/her (and other religious or non-religious believers who wholeheartedly accept ideas without proof, as carmenjonze accepts, without proof, the idea that God does not exist) that I've been using what I think is an apt and accurately descriptive phrase, "fundamentalist atheist" (someone who, despite having no available proof, insists that there is 100% certainty that God does not exist).

Please don't be so rude as to inform others WHAT THEY ARE! It's MY job to define what I am--as it is Carmen's. I won't provide a definition for whatever you consider YOURself; please give me the same consideration.

Dictionaries are not up to the task of giving in-depth definitions for things as complex as philosophies. They are handy for giving thumbnails to get you in the ball park. Ask an atheist what an atheist is.

What "b.s. assertions?"

All I've said is you can't prove that God doesn't exist and I can't prove that God does exist.

I don't see any b.s. there.

Atheism is not "faith", just because that's the only way you can conceive of it.

I don't have anything to prove, one way or the other re: god.

You really ought to go and actually read what I've actually said: post 1076.

My conclusion is not that "I'm right." My conclusion is that atheism, like theism, is based on unprovable assumptions, in other words, is based on faith (i.e. belief without proof).

I'm still waiting for you to show which statement or inference in my argument is faulty. If, as you say, you have already done so, then I've missed that post, and ask you to give me the post number, so I can go and confirm what you're saying.

So far, I can't find any post in which you quote the words of my own argument and point out how something I've actually said in my argument is incorrect.

But then she would have to accept your definition of "atheist." Your definition is wrong--and that falsifies your entire argument.

Carmenjonze, female, does not give a damn whether or not "god exists", don'tcha get it?

I am not "an atheist", not according to your flawed definition and not according to how I define myself.

Sorry, the fundo label doesn't work, try as you might.

Thank you. This is getting to be extremely tedious.

lol I know. I'd already pointed that out to him once but he went ahead and attacked you.

Lol I'm just having fun with this absurd idea that because I don't accept anyone's truth claims about "god", that makes me a "fundamentalist athiest"

Check was I actually said.

I didn't say what carmenjonze "was." I said what I thought he seemed (to me) to be. I expressed my opinion, deliberately, in terms that indicated that I realized that I could be wrong. I've also expressed my opinion about the term (fundamentalist atheist) that I think most accurately described his behavior and attitude, as is my right to do.

I try very hard not to "pigeon hole" people (though I still do, unfortunately), but, realizing that my own limited human understanding could always be slightly or even entirely mistaken, I try to make clear the fact that I could be wrong, and in fact have made that admission more times that perhaps any other person writing in this thread.

In fact, my WHOLE POINT is that theists, but ALSO atheists, could be wrong, since no proof exists for either world view.

Does anyone still not understand that?

But so far, with the exception of Tyo, no atheist writing in this thread (at least no other one that I've seen) has admitted the obvious fact that it's possible that his/her opinion about the non-existence of god could be wrong.

That's all I'm trying to establish here, that no one really knows whether or not God exists, to counter what I perceived as rather self-righteous, hypocritical, and undeserved insults directed by carmenjonze toward a theist poster in this thread.

You of course have the same right to express what you feel is right and/or wrong, here, as well as do all members of this board (which is as it should be).


Which is why I've tried to distinguish between what I see as 1. self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, control-seeking fundamentalist theists and atheists and 2. less dogmatic theists and atheists who can actually bring themselves to admit that it's possible that, as imperfect human beings, their view of the world (i.e theistic or atheistic) might be wrong (i.e inaccurate). I am one such theist, for example; Tyo is one such atheist.

I've got no problem with the group 1, above; I do have a problem with group 2.

Then why do you insult people who believe in God ... if you don't "give a damn?"

Don'tcha get it?

If you don't give a damn, you certainly shouldn't be putting others down just because they believe in God and you don't.

Even if you do care, you shouldn't be insulting the sincerely held beliefs of others just because you don't hold the same beliefs, think you know the answer to an unanswerable question, and so that gives you the right to bully others and call their beliefs "utter nonsense," etc.

Ok, the term you want is "strong atheist" not "fundamentalist atheist." And I still maintain that those are a relatively small part of who are atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, etc. This may help your understanding:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Personally, I doubt anyone in this thread is a "strong atheist." I realize that some folk will make strong statements like "there is no god(s)." But if shoved against the wall with a sharp object would admit that what they are saying is, "THE OVERWHELMING LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE points to non-existence."

Arguing over your right to say someone can't prove there are no absinthe flavored, orange unicorns with a propensity for running up your credit card and being slothful is silly.

The definition is correct. Look it up. I've already posted it here more than a couple of times, for your reference.

Words have meanings. You don't get to redefine words at your whim. When that happens, the person in question becomes part of the neoconsevative "non-reality based" community. When that happens to any serious degree, usually the guys in white coats are called in.

carmenjonze called belief in God "utter nonsense." She apparently sees no possibility that God might exist. I've begun with that assumption in the argument I've written, she has yet to disprove any statements I made in the argument, and yet refuses to accept the validity of the argument.

That's called intellectual dishonesty (again, the comparison to neoconservatives like Palin, Bush, etc. seems apt, to me, here).

To disprove an argument, you actually have to quote the words used in the argument and show how those particular words contain falsehoods or that they do not necessarily lead to the stated conclusions.

All I'm saying is you can't be sure God doesn't exist (just as I can't be sure He does), and you certainly shouldn't be insulting others who hold beliefs different than yours.

Why? The odd are overwhelmingly in favor of non-existence...the default. If someone tells me they believe the sky is made of orange pudding and only looks blue because I don't believe, I'll probably end up insulting them. They just insulted my intelligence.

And once again, dictionaries do not make laws on meaning, people who are of a particular kind that they define themselves as are who get to define that "kind." The dictionary definition of "atheist" is not based on polling atheists--it's based mostly on how NON-atheists define the word.

As Carmen would say: f'em and she's not an atheist anyway.

Oh, and this may help:

"Nor are dictionaries authoritative because they do not fix the meaning of words, so much as they reflect their “common� usage in society. They are field guides; not rule books. In fact, they did not even exist before the 17th century. This accounts for why there are so many different dictionaries and why they must be frequently updated. Therefore, while dictionary definitions can be helpful, they do not “prove� anything about what a word “really� means."

http://goddisproved.com/DefiningBelief.html

"common usage" does not reflect how atheists feel about themselves.

I don't give a damn what you believe.

What does it matter what I say, I'm a disbeliever, remember?

Did not.

Well, now you've shifted your so-called argument, completely.

If it's that "insulting" to read that I don't believe in anyone's religious b.s. then skip over my posts.

I have NO problem insulting "beliefs" that insult the intelligence. I don't give a god damn america whose feelings it hurts.

It's wrong to insult others' sincerely held beliefs just because they're different from one's own ... which is what enufalrdy did, I felt, in post 1005.

Which is why I written what I've written here, to make the point that what's REALLY "silly" is for someone (in this case enufalrdy, an atheist) whose world view is unprovable to insult someone else for holding a different world view that's unprovable (in this case, saltlake28, a theist).

That's my entire purpose here ... to point out that such insults are unnecessary, at best, and unkind, arrogant, hypocritical and harmful, at worst.

---

NOTE: I may have said earlier in another post that it was a post written by carmenjonze that originally got me all fired up about this. Actually, it was post 1005, by enufalrdy, I've just realized. I apologize, carmenjonze, for the confusion and for any misattribution.

And as an atheist, I've been insulted, been rude to and even been threatened physically by theists all my life. Turn-about is fair play. Partial

Apology accepted. I was wondering where you were getting some of your argument from.

Let's just skip it.

Well, I won't argue that. Some folks like to argue and use a "Don Rickles" approach. Not my style but whatever floats their boat.

No, carmenjonze ... I'M NOT. That's EXACTLY what I've ALWAYS been saying, here.

Please, please, please actually read what I've said. I've made that very point repeatedly, over and over and over (and OVER) again!


I've never once called your atheistic beliefs "b.s.," and neither has any other theist here, as far as I remember ... yet you feel perfectly free to call others' religious beliefs "b.s." without even noticing (or caring) how insulting and condescending that is.

In fact, I've done you the respect of putting your atheistic beliefs on par with my own theistic beliefs, repeatedly (REPEATEDLY!!!) stressing that my theistic beliefs are no more or less certain or valid than your atheistic beliefs. I truly believe that. I could indeed be wrong. I have been wrong before (often I still am ... like twice a minute), and so have you, of course. So maybe you (representing atheists) could be wrong, and God does in fact exist. Or, maybe I (representing theists) could be wrong, and there is no God at all, in any way, shape or form.

I don't see any reason to call anyone's sincerely held world view b.s. -- as long as that person is not using said world view to attempt to hijack the freedom, rights, life, or livelihood (etc.) of others (as I think our old friend and former resident LDS totalitarian justamere10 in fact is doing, if perhaps unconsciously).

I think the completely unwarranted insults directed toward saltlake28 by enufalrdy and others have chased him away, and I think that's really too bad. He clearly was a liberal Mormon, a rare breed (believe me, I know), not a traditional orthodox LDS member in all ways, at least, and it would have been great to have his perspective in this thread, I feel. I think the insults were wrong, and they kind of pissed me off, frankly.

We "liberals" should be able to walk our talk and allow for a diversity of opinions and lifestyles without having to hurl unwarranted insults.

My opinion.

You keep saying "READ WHAT I SAID" or kindred. But you didn't read what SHE said:

I don't have "beliefs".

I'm not an athiest.

I don't care one whit if you think what I say is "b.s." or not. No, I do NOT respect beliefs that do not respect ME, and no, I'm NOT going to stop talking about it, nor am I going to change my manner regarding it.

It's that simple.

I am so sick of these prosteletizing christians and their bully/martyr complex.

Somebody on the internet rejects their precious "beliefs", the fits of rage start, immediately.

Sorry to take so long to answer your questions (maybe someone else already has, hopefully).

I and others have been engaged in a lively if perhaps slightly off-topic "discussion" of atheism versus theism, for the last little while, on this thread.

Anyway ...

1. LDS doctrine posits that Joseph Smith translated sets of metal plates by the power of God into what became the Book of Mormon. It's too bad the guy who started this thread, justamere10, isn't here any longer; he could give you a more complete explanation of the orthodox LDS teachings on this particular questions of yours (saltlake28 could probably give a much more detailed and accurate account of this than I could, also). I think it all did involve a hat, in some way, though I'm not sure how, exactly.

2. Ultra-faithful Mormon couples (only a man and wife, or several wives, can qualify for this) can progress to the state of godhood themselves, and as deities actually beget spirit-children and create worlds just as it is posited that God created our world. I'm not real clear if this means just a particular planet, a new universe of some kind, etc.

3. The women have a huge women's society called the "Relief Society," that is actually rather impressive. The women meet separately from the men for one hour of each Sunday's three hour church service, during which they ... well ... as I'm a man, I don't know exactly what they do there. The women go out in pairs to visit each active adult female member of the church each month (or they're supposed to do so ... they seem to do a much better job than the men, anyway). They do learn canning, emergency preparation and food storage (we've got a year's supply of emergency food stored in our garage, for example, as all Mormons are supposed to have in preparation for the difficulties to be encountered just before the Second Coming, or, in the meantime, for other more predictable emergencies like earthquakes, floods, etc.). The relationships formed among the women have always impressed me, as has the quality of the work they do for each other and for others.

To get more information, you could try reading the other (earlier) posts on this thread. You should definitely check out official LDS sites, but also other sites that are NOT official LDS sites, to get a more complete picture of what's real about the Mormon Church (the good, and the bad ... and there's plenty of both).

Here's the Wikipedia article on Mormonism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

Here's the official church web site:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0001f5e340aRCRD

Those links are good places to start researching the LDS church.

I'm a liberal Mormon (quite rare, nearly extinct, but we're rebounding, now), who was once very active in the church, but who became inactive after realizing the huge difference between the many laudable teachings of the LDS church and the OVERWHELMIMG enthusiastic support among church members and leaders in the U.S. for the neoconservative Republican Party that's been responsible for (what I perceive to be) such terribly and blatantly immoral, unethical, unAmerican, and unChristian behavior and policies these last several years.

Hope that helps answer your questions. Thanks for participating.

Yuh! And personally, I'd rather be insulted than be physically or mentally abused.

I represent no one but myself, and I'm not an "atheist". So stop trying to impose that label on me.

I don't care if your god "exists". Your god is as meaningless and empty to me as any one else's.

Please get it through your head.

You act like I'm attacking you, or something. Sheesh. Why the huge, abrasive chip on your shoulder?

In my view, it could hardly matter less if you believe the same things I do, or not. That's up to you. Please don't mistake me with justamere10 ...

Have you read any of my posts challenging justamere10 in this thread? If you had, you'd realize I'm about as adamant an opponent of religious fundamentalism as you're likely to meet.

I felt there has been bullying going on, so I spoke up about it. I don't understand why any liberal would have a problem with that. Now, one were a neoconservative, I'd completely understand why one would object to attempts to prevent bullying, since the right to bully and treat others disrespectfully and cruelly are central tenets of neoconservatism.

But I've never called anyone's sincerely beliefs "b.s.," and I don't understand why you feel the need to do that. Isn't that a little presumptuous of you?

Who made you so smart that you can discern between what's valid, right, and good for others to believe and what's "b.s." for them believe? Just becuase YOU think it's b.s., doesn't make it b.s. It's just your opinion, and not fact, that belief X is fabulous and belief Y is ridiculous.

You've got no more right or ability to judge what's valid for others to believe than they have to judge your views.

Again, I hope I haven't confused you with enufalrdy, or someone else here (this thread has gotten a bit frenetic and confusing, lately). I just really object to all the insults directly against theists on this thread, just because of their belief in God, just as I'd be (and have been) strongly against disrespect shown toward atheists just because of their lack of belief in God.

Let me just ask you, then, if you don't mind clarifying for me.

Do you think God exists? Doesn't exist? Who knows?

I know you've said you don't care, but just out of curiosity, what's your actual opinion on the question? (so I don't pigeon hole you any more than I already have ... though unintentionally, I assure you).

Honestly, I really don't care.

Not sure why I keep having to say this, but there it is again.

Lol, you've spent the past 2 pages having a cow because of something someone else said. I have NEVER said I'm an atheist, and I have said many many MANY times in this thread alone that I do not use that label.

Yet, as a believer from a prosteletizing tradition, your first impulse is to insist on imposing that label.

It's very predictable behavior, shoeshoe.



It's not about you.



Nope.

Stick around, watch me do it again.



Nobody "made" me.



Haven't done that; I'm not an evangelist or evangelical of ANY kind.



Who cares what they believe.

So what, there's nothing special about being a "believer".



I have every right to tell people who spew bullshit that they are full of crap. I have every right to reject religious wares and those who peddle them as "truth".

Too bad if you don't like it; it's a free country and the nonreligious have EVERY right to laugh at the religious.

Wow SS, I've been away for a while, but now that I'm checking posts here It's amazing how far off the deep end you've gone! You were rational and coherent until just recently, and I suspect that someone has kidnapped the real SS.



You are so wrong. Atheists do NOT have a belief system, no matter how strongly you assert that false claim. Atheism is simply without a deity belief.



There is no such thing as "fundamentalist Atheists. C'mon man, get it together and stop making crap up. It is the position of a branch of Atheism that god does not exist, namely Strong Atheism. They claim knowledge, despite less than 100% certainty. They use all of human knowledge, all science, commen sense, reason, logic and reality upon which to base their claim.



Un-friggin-believable. One can be as sure of the non-existance of your invisible friend as one can be. In the same vein as the FSM, IPU, fairies and trolls. Sorry, but your statement is ridiculous on its face.



No SS, you need to provide evidence for your sky-pixie. You have the burden of proof.

Complete BS shoeshoe. You have no reason to believe these fairy tales, and your belief in an invisible friend is about as far from 100% correct as possible. There is zero evidence. None. You are making it all up. It's a delusion that has warped your brain. Yes, you are wrong to the greatest extent possible.

You know very well SS that your "argument" is a bad joke. Every claim you have made to an invisible cloud being is all inj your head. Sorry, but you'll need to actually have a reasoned argument before anyone can respond.

Wrong. Atheism has nothing to do with faith and has no belief system. Individual persons may add to this as they choose. What happened to you SS? Please pay attention, Atheism is simply without a deity belief. You don't get to impose your ludicrous definitions so you can buttress your irrational deity beliefs.



This has nothing to do with Atheism. How life and the universe came into being is NOT Atheism. Quit changing the meaning of Atheism. Faith is reserved for the lunatic religionists.



Your new lack of understanding is laughable SS. There is no such thing as a fundamentalist Atheist. People can be fundamentalist, but not Atheism.

Of course you don't SS, because you hold a world view that IS, to use your own phrase, "b.s.". You see, certain beliefs, like religion, ARE harmful and do impact freedom.



Insults? Do you mean justified criticism of irrational delusions seeking approval? Again, initial respect is granted the person, but when that person's beliefs are shown to be ridiculous and harmful, then they are no longer worthy of respect and deserve mockery and ridicule. Just because it is "religious" does not give the babble a free pass from criticism.



Absolutely not. Ideas need to stand on their own. If they are harmful, all people, not just liberals, need to hold them accountable. Again, insults?

I brought this up in a different thread, but I think it's relevant here.

Atheists do have belief systems just like everyone else. Atheists can subscribe to all sorts of different philosophies. But like you say enufalrdy, atheism in and of itself is not a philosphy or belief system. People of faith seem to have a had time with that. Atheism influences whatever belief system an individual atheist might have only in that it rules out supernatural factors. Aside from that, it's wide open.

Look at the range of what an atheist might believe. Ayn Rand was an atheist. So was Mao. So, apparently, was Mother Teresa, at least part of the time. Atheists can be Christians in as much as they might accept and follow the teachings of Christ minus the miracles and pixie dust. But all that is something different from atheism. Atheism itself carries no moral connotations and is not a system of anything.

No, if the beliefs are nonsensical, harmful and irraqtional then they are unworthy of respect. Sorry, your silly notions of an invisible friend must be lambasted by every reasoning and reality-based person.



Sorry you can't accept that your deity beliefs are "silly" SS, but they are. No evidence for your superstitions. And Atheism is not a world view, despite your wanting it to be. Reminder: the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You are losing it SS. Correctly pointing out that your mormon quackery is a bad joke at best, is not arrogant or hypocritical, nor is it harmful.

Really? I tell you what is nonsensical and unworthy of respect, the fact that some people cling on to the belief that there is a missing link between humans and chimps despite having no fossil evidence to suggest such an unproven belief. Shouldn’t the archeological finds be teeming with transitional fossils? THAT is some nonsensical b/s there.

Or the belief that the univserse in all of its complexity is a product of chance based solely on what little bit of science we have that attempts toapprehend about 4% of existance that it is aware of...that's damn nonsensical and borderline blatant stupidity....at best the ultimate in presumption...



Atheism is PART of an atheist' worldview. It is how an atheist views the belief in a god or gods. AND BTW, Lack of belief in a deity is not congruent with "rationality" and "reality apprehension" neither is belief in a diety mutual exclusive from rationaility and reason.

Nice shot though...

No, people without faith have a hard time accepting the fact, that Atheism as a viewpoint on the BELIEF in god or gods IS a philisophy, by definition a THEOLOGY, (albeit a short one) that being: My view on God or gods is that I believe that God or gods do NOT exist.

Hate it or love it, it is what it is...

I guess not collecting stamps is a hobby, too.

Not believing in god is a choice, because unless you live somewhere where atheism is the norm (tell me where that is btw) at some point, someone will present the idea to you and you will determine if you accept it or reject it.

And if you are born in that society where belief in deities is the NOT norm, eventually, if you ever study world history, you will make a choice in deciding if you agree with the socoities and inidivudals who came before you who did in fact profess and practice such a belief; further, you will come into contatc with other societies that have these beliefs and will formulate a reason to why you reject those beliefs, even if that reason is: "I find the belief in a deity to be silly". THUS your philosophy on the belief in gods or God, maybe we can say it is a sociological theology.

But hey, who really cares? You don't believe in God, your business not my problem, you start trying to get all intellectually bigoted towards me because I believe in a "God" well generally I find that laughable, but it can be down right insulting because oft times the person leveling that charge can't keep up with me on a bad day...

Wow, you're kidding, right? The fact of Evolution is somehow a question in your "mind"? Missing link? Sheesh.... here's a good place to start your education on Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html, or http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03...itional_fos.php. There are many, many good sources.

The evidence is not in question by anyone other than delusional creationists.



Chance has nothing to do with it. Get back to your studies. Again, the Big Bang has been well established, and to insert some invisible sky-pixie into the mix is irrational.



Sorry, but your ignorance is showing. You see, Atheism is simply without a deity belief. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheism per se does not have a world view. Using reason and rational thought is critical to recognizing the emptiness and complete lack of reason used by creationists.

You're not even close to a nice try...can there really be people that still believe these Iron Age superstitions in the 21st century? Apparently so. Oh well, eventually this too shall pass.

Sorry again, but twisting the meaning and definition of Atheism to fit your nonsensical beliefs is certainly typical of the religionists. Atheism is without a deity belief.

lololol, you're kidding right, that shit is FAR from fact or should we say TRUTH. Basically, GOOD GUESS. Or should I say as YOU ALL SAY, PROVE THAT SHIT.




Really, either something happens by purpose and design or it happens outside of that. Try picking up a dictionary every now and then

Thou protest too much mortal, slow down, your fear of the unknown is starting to show, keep up the guess work though, maybe you might luck out

Nice phraseology, but still bullshit, Atheism is the Belief that God or gods do not exist, in spite of many beliefs to the contrary. Two can play that game...

Funny definition of choice you're using. It is a choice in the same way that not believing in fairies or trolls is a choice. Atheists are waiting for any evidence for your deity beliefs. Any. If and when evidence is presented, Atheists will follow. You see, it's all about reality, reason, logic and evidence. Not so for religionists.



WTF?



Blah, blah, blah. More nonsense from the deluded. Who cares you ask? All people who seek truth. You see, your supernatural beliefs are irrational. Sorry you're in denial, but they are. And simply because a rational light is being focused on your whacky beliefs, this is not intellectual bigotry. You expect to given a pass because your nonsense comes under the heading of religion? Nice try. Keeping up with you? What does that mean, throwing so much s_ _ _ on the wall that Freethinkers can't get ahead of the debunking? Nah, most posters here not only keep up with you, they recognize your fallacious arguments and have blow your ideas out of the water.