Theism is the lack of belief in the non-existence of God.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
This is so childish by AJ777 it isn't even funny. The world isn't black and white. The world isn't just a place of opposites. the world isn't the way YOU want to define it. Atheism is not a belief....PERIOD. Now grow up!
Yes it is.
@Aj777
Yes WHAT is?
Atheism is a belief.
No, it is not AJ777.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. That is it period. You can't just make up shit and claim it to be a fact.
Yes it is, BTW we’ve just demonstrated the law of non contradiction, you say no I say yes. It’s one or the other.
There is no "law" of non contradiction.
The fact is that you believers have decided (because you are all apologist liars) to call atheism a "belief".
Atheism is NOT a belief.
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/why-atheism-isnt-a-belief/
You see AJ777 you are an apologist which means that you are a liar. You try to revise definitions that fit your narrative. Atheism is NOT a belief, not even close.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
Yes there is a law of non contradiction. And since you are blatantly wrong on this issue, you might want to consider it is possible you are wrong on other issues. If the law of non-contradiction is false, then your statement of denial must be both true and false. But if your denial is false, then the law of non-contradiction is true! By denying the law of non-contradiction, you have just affirmed it. The more you try to deny the law, the more you will affirm it. What is the law of non-contradiction? There are at least three ways to state it: A thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. A statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense.
AJ777 you got that shit off of the show Fargo. How fucking stupid. I am not wrong. The so-called law of "non-contradiction" doesn't apply in this case.
If A is B, and A is not B, that isn't what you wrote when you wrote: "Theism is the lack of belief in the non-existence of god". A formula for your OP statement would be:
-A is -B, -A is not B. Which makes NO FUCKING SENSE WHATSOEVER!
Also, you don't get to dictate what Atheism is. You don't get to just change definitions to fit your myth narrative.
I am so sick of goddamned religious apologists revising history, pseudo-science, changing definitions, applying faulty logic, spinning facts!
No it isn't, and you might want to consider how desperate apologetics appears when it denies basic dictionary definitions.
"This is so childish by AJ777 it isn't even funny. The world isn't black and white. The world isn't just a place of opposites. the world isn't the way YOU want to define it. Atheism is not a belief....PERIOD. Now grow up!"
Well it's either childish or it's cringeworthy and embarrassing. I cannot rule out the possibility he genuinely thinks this claim is logically sound. He seems to think the cosmological argument is a proof for a deity after all.
Gnostic Theist - I know that god exists
Agnostic Theist - I haven’t knowledge but believe god exists.
Gnostic Atheist - I know that no god exists
Agnostic Atheist - I haven’t knowledge but do not believe a god exists
Theism is the lack of belief in the non-existence of God.
The above statement is not only completely false but also grammatically incorrect. Double negative!
Lack=negative, without, the absence of.
non= negative.
The OP's statement is nonsensical, it lacks cognitive discourse, it displays the desperation of a failed narrative, is an exercise in reactive ignorance.
My Atheism is based on a lack of evidence that any god exist. If a god can be proven, then you have to prove which god it is that humans worship.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Wait, it's not. I don't know how many ways we need to explain it before it's understood. I'll attempt one more time.
There is a box. There are three people. None of them have seen the box before. The people approach the box. The first person says : "I believe the box contains an apple. " the second person says: " I don't know why you say that, but I have no reason to believe that there is an apple in the box. " and the third person says: "I believe that the box is empty. " the second person responds to the third saying: " I don't know why you say that, but I have no reason to believe that the box is empty. "
It is the position of the second person that most atheists take. While, it's also true that an atheist can be the third person, it is uncommon and not necessary.
If you don't get it now, then fuggetaboutit.
Pages