On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:34:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition, is
not believing.

I do not believe in any gods. That does not imply that I assert that no
gods exist.

So you want to have it both ways? Covering bases in case?

No, no, just being consistent.

He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized
there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there
wasn't an afterlife. -Douglas Adams


Repeating your claim does not make it true when your logic is not valid.
Yet you seem to think your does.

What claim, other than stating that I do not believe in any gods, do you
think I am making. My statement of nonbelief has no need of supporting
evidence.

The bottom line despite all of the semantics (including those of my
own) is that you have no way to prove that your lack of belief is any
more valid than any existing belief. Thus it is every bit as much of a
faith as any religion.

Where did you get this idea? You need to explain more clearly how you
arrive at this.

(actually from the view of the religious person it is probably a
braver one since if you are wrong you get to rot in whatever version of
hell is being used. If the religious person is wrong nothing happens and
he doesn't know about it after death.)

Afterlife doctrines are separate from doctrines about the existence of
gods.