DIYbanter - View Single Post

Free Lunch

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:20:51 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:27:52 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

Why would they be? You seem to assume that atheists have beliefs. I'm
not certain which beliefs you think atheists have. Could you identify an
atheist belief and explain why any atheist would get upset if you
question it?

The belief is that there is no God.

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.

Which is the belief that there is no god.

No. "I do not know if there are any gods" is also a perfectly good
subset of "I do not believe in any gods."

You believe it so strongly
that you *must* convert others, like any fervent theist. An agnostic
doesn't know (,does care, or doesn't care to argue the unprovable).

No, an agnostic says that it is impossible to know whether any gods
exist. It is a very strong statement about knowledge.

As to why, probably be same as
others because other people have the audacity to not believe what they
do. You my friend are serving nicely as the poster child.

How so? You misrepresent atheism, I correct you.

Nope. He is not wrong. You can redefine words any way you want but
it doesn't help communication.

I am not the one doing the redefinition.

I tend to think that people get upset when you question a belief that
has been arrived at without evidence or logic so the belief is
indefensible. Is that what you have in mind?

Your belief is no more provable (and only mildly more logical) than most
religious people. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist. But

Let's go back to the valid definition of atheism, the lack of belief in
any gods. Where does that require evidence that any particular god does
not exist?

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Are you done trying to redefine words to mislead others?