VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

Yeah...your definition is flawed however:
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Your definition of "someone who doesn't believe" is incorrect and flawed and only done in order to promote the great atheistic faith

Also even if you we use your (flawed) definition neither believing nor disbelieving != not believing

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
atheism

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, let's use your cherry-picked uncommon definition

Neither believing nor disbelieving != a lack of belief...
neither believing nor disbelieving = a lack of belief and disbelief

So it's still not the same as atheism at at all to any degree

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good, because that is not it's purpose. Here's the thing.. Most of us atheists will happily say that a god might exist, that there might be an ultimate power that has created or is in charge of everything. That might will always exist - because unless we search the entire universe we could never ultimately say otherwise.

What most atheists, (the ones I know of), don't get is why you believe in this specific being when it is unseen, unheard and unevidenced and yet do not give this other being the time of day when it lives in that same category. That is the analogy and question.

You believe in something that to the rest of us might as well be a leprechaun for all the evidence you can provide. This being is unseen, unheard and unevidenced. In saying, why do you believe in this one and not the others... There are millions of gods, why this one? Failing that, why not leprechauns or fairies.

Hopefully you can see that there is no ridicule there, from the outside it is a perfectly valid and rational question. Why believe in that specific being?

Maybe - in that instance it comes down to personal knowledge of the thing. But can you not honestly see how "no evidence, no way to gather evidence" is a problem? It's ok for you I suppose, but for me it's a problem. I cannot just accept something without evidence. My brother says he saw a ghost.. I wish I could honestly believe him but I can't. I wont lie to myself or you. I simply cannot do it - regardless to how adamant you are with your claim.

This is why your god must come to me, not vice versa. I would challenge you to think of something you don't believe in and then tell you that you have to believe in it to see it. It's one hell of a predicament and something that cannot ever feasibly be done.

Now the hard part...

I lack a belief in gods - any of them. That does not mean that I ultimately believe or state that they do not exist. They might. odin or yhwh or jesus or abellio might exist, but one can have no belief in something while having no specific belief against that something. This is atheism, not agnosticism although - because I don't care, you can call me anything you want. The term atheism shouldn't even exist. There are astronomers and those that are not astronomers.. It does not deserve its own title.

I can assure you I do. I have been debating theology for the best part of a decade, and at least 5 years here, I consider myself very logical - indeed I consider it an integral part of my profession and I do know some things.

Did you know the capital of Botswana is Gaborone? See, I know something.

Ok, I will accept that. Now all you need to do is explain what that X and Y is and why that gives rise to believing in it.

Ok, that's not the point of the analogy.

Afraid not.

Which is a long grasp from what you're espousing. Right now you don't believe in leprechauns. That doesn't mean leprechauns don't exist, it simply means you lack a belief in them. Guess what.. Tomorrow a load of evidence arrives suggesting that they do exist. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist yesterday, it simply means you did not have just cause to believe that they did.

It's all very simple really.

 

Lack of disbelief ? lol
Neither believing nor disbelieving = a lack of belief...

 

I think you mean neither believing nor disbelieving = doesn't exist, at least not in the sense that Vital describes it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Trust me, this won't be going anywhere.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm using the word correctly.
It is YOU who not only isn't using it correctly but blatantly refuses to accept that you are not, sticking to your own version of the words because you clearly DO NOT UNDERSTAND the words you are using.

I never said agnosticism = atheism.
There are a number of agnostic theists (those who believe due to Pascal's Wager, for example).

But many agnostics ARE ALSO ATHEIST.

You refuse to accept what countless people have told you. This puts you in the delusional category.

Atheist are ALL those who do not have an active belief that god exists.
I.e. ALL atheists LACK the belief that god exists.

Another way to look at it - IF YOU ARE NOT A THEIST THEN YOU ARE, BY DEFINITION, AN ATHEIST.