What is an atheist?

A negative is claimed thereafter a postive claim. For you to claim there is no dog in your bathroom someone would have to claim there is a dog in your bathroom. It would be up to them to prove that claim, not you. If yopu opened the door and they still claimed the dog is there but invisible it would still be the positive claim that needs to show proof or evidence. Also we know dog exists. Claiming something we already know exists (is not in a certain place) is not a negative claim.

 

How? If one doesn't believe 99% of the stuff, how does a claim make it actual?
It is not impossible, just ask. How can one believe jesus is the christ and not believe christ is part of a god, or a god itself?

 

Actually I just reread what you said and that's exactly what you said.

 

First, Jehovah's witnesses don't believe Christ is God.

But you can't know what people put in their hearts. And it isn't your, or my place to tell them.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I know what I said. Thank you.

 

I would never ask you to prove that Leprechauns exist.

 

yeah right, sure you wouldn't. not even if you were expected to venerate the belief in leprechauns, or tolerate people telling your kids the leprechauns will kill them if they're don't worship, and not minding if leprechaunists attempted (sometimes successfully) to influence legislation and education, etc etc.

 

Neither would I. If he wants to believe in Leprechauns, his choice.

Where I draw the line is when someone insists on forcing me, physically, mentally, legally or an any other manner or form, to believe as they do. This includes the Richard Dawkins' militant atheist bullying advice to mock those who believe.

http://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2...ichard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/

 

exactly!

 

I'd be interested to know if you would apply that same sentiment to someone who publicly declared they believed the same things about leprechauns, and insisted that those who don't will be tortured for eternity, and are necessarily 'bad' people, and who attempted to impose their leprechaunism on you at the dinner table, in schools, on the street, on your doorstep, in government, in media, in public buildings, etc etc.

Or how about someone's belief that it's natural and right for grown men to have romantic relationships with young boys (see the MBL movement)?

 

As I've clearly stated before, I'm against all, theist and atheist alike, who seek to impose their unproven beliefs upon others.



- - - Updated - - -

Children and animals cannot consent no matter how much you want to believe it is true.

 

good to know you're not of the "beliefs must be respected" school, and that your natural ethics supersede any indoctrination you might have experienced.

 

Once again, one does not prove a negative.
Would it be reasonable to ask someone to "prove" there are no unicorns?

 

So someone claiming that "God" exists and using the Bible as evidence then has to demonstrate that the Bible is a valid source without engaging in circular reasoning, correct?

 

Once again, a belief cannot be proven. What's with some of you people?

 

I hate it when my logic pushes you people off the edge..........NOT!!!

 

You appear to be enjoying a private joke. Good luck to you

 

Beliefs are not random, they are based on information. The validity of that information can be evaluated, proving the accuracy for the basis of belief. Why is that so complicated?

 

because the last thing many believers want is evaluation of the information.Even talking about it is bad medicine, apparently.

 

Belief is central to religion and, since we have freedom of religion in America, people are free to believe without your 'evaluation' whatever that means. I have no problem talking about it but apparently some Atheists do.

 

'Validity' is not a requirement for belief. You are trying to apply scientific method to religious belief which, as I have said over and over, is either disingenuous or plain ignorant.

 

Belief is central to all spiritual positions including atheism. They believe there is nothing outside or beyond the physical universe despite a lack of evidence for or against. Despite the fact no one knows the factors relating to causing the Big Bang, only the aftermath.

 

Of course a belief can be proven. What's with some of you people?

 

Atheism is lack of belief in the existence of god which also infers a lack of belief in religious dogma - and nothing more.

any atheist who claims to definitively know that there is no god is as dogmatic as any theist.

I am an agnostic atheist.
I cannot categorically claim to know there is no god, but the dearth of supporting evidence of its existence and an empiricist perspective motivate my BELIEF that no god or creator exists and my rejection of religious dogma.

 

No...a hypothesis can be proven through experimentation. That is science NOT religious belief.

 

Agreed, which is why Richard Dawkins hedged his bets on his own belief scale with a 6.9 (even though he later stated he was a 7).

Sorry, man, but that makes a much sense as saying "I am an agnostic theistic". There are a lot of grays in the world. It's not as black and white as many people want to make it. Nonetheless, there are some things that are clearly defined such as either one believes in a spiritual existence, one disbelieves such a thing or one doesn't know but admits to the possibility.