Not really. I'm not asking for any context, I'm asking for a simple yes or no.

It's a flawed question. Firstly you would have to define what you mean by God. If you said do you believe in God (as a deity) then no, I do not. Either way it's a question lacking definition.

You say there is no context required but what are my limitations on what can be defined as a God and what is your definition of a God?

Edited by benelsmore: 19/1/2013 04:12:56 PM

This is what I was going to get to once you'd actually given an answer one way or another.

You don't believe in a Christian god. Your belief is that a Christian god does not exist. But their interpretation you'd be an atheist.

You're not quite right with your logic there, I don't think Christians see Muslims as atheists.

This is what I was going to get to once you'd actually given an answer one way or another.

You don't believe in a Christian god. Your belief is that a Christian god does not exist. But their interpretation you'd be an atheist.

So what you're saying is that there's no such thing as atheism.

You finally got it. If there is such a thing as atheism, then you have to create an 'action' for all 'non-beliefs', such as non-belief in astrology, leprechunism, tooth fairyism, Santa Clausism, etc, etc

We have a word for killing your mother (matricide) but we don't have a word for killing your aunt's second husband - that doesn't mean that nobody does it.

So, there IS a god?

If there's no such thing as atheism, then how do you know what I'm talking about?/

The reason we don't have words for those other things is that it's not common enough.

We have a word for killing your mother (matricide) but we don't have a word for killing your aunt's second husband - that doesn't mean that nobody does it.

Yes. They do have a belief. They believe that there is no god, that is their faith. In essence they categorically believe that there is no god and subsequently that all religion is unequivocally wrong.

If you are an atheist, it is YOUR BELIEF that there IS NO GOD. That is all there is to it.

Ok, to paraphrase what you're saying:
"I don't believe in god. I don't not believe there is no god"

If you're asked "do you believe in god" you answer "No, I don't believe in god", therefore your belief is that there is no god.

This is still a system of belief.

Atheism, as defined by the Oxford dictionary is a "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." - it is a belief by name and definition.

So if I asked you "do you believe there is no god?" you would answer "no". Because you don't have any belief. Therefore one could conclude that you are open to the concept of a god. Thus you are agnostic, not an atheist.

The statement "there is no god" you accept that this is true. Therefore it is a belief.

By definition you are agnostic, not athetist then. ](*,)

Go and actually read up on the terms you're using, lest you look like notorganic.

You were identifying yourself with the definitions you were giving #-o

Like I said, if you accept it as the truth that there is no god, this is BY DEFINITION, a belief (see: the definition of the word 'belief').

An atheist is a person who accepts it as the truth that there is no god. Therefore, this is a system for BELIEF as much as anything else.

If you do not believe anything one way or another, you are NOT an Atheist. By the very cut and dry definitions of the words, this is the end of this argument.

However, I will humour you further. You then went on to compare 'belief' with scientific principles. This is NOT the same. You're comparing accepting something with no physical evidence as the truth with scientific observation with matching physical confirmation. That's just absurd.

You accuse me of "strawman" arguments, when you've turned a debate about the definition of Atheism into your strawman argument about the varying scales of grey that is 'belief'.

So back to the topic at hand: you accept it as true that there is no such thing as deities. ATHEISM IS A BELIEF.

/argument

THANK YOU!

Atheist: from the greek "a-" meaning 'without' and "theos" meaning 'god'.

Don't you and notorganic have a circle-jerk to get to?

benelsmore has caught notorganic fever. Has no rebuttal for anything else I've said and keeps repeating the same flawed question over and over like he's "winning" the argument.

A hobby is different, it doesn't govern how you live your life. And you either DO or DON'T have a hobby, you don't "maybe" have a hobby.

antitheism is just a branch of atheism, like catholicism being a branch of christianity. It's defined as "opposing belief in the existence of a god", rather than the clearly defined not believing in god which we spoke about before. Linguistically it applies to the third party instead of the individual as Atheism does.

Serious question, does it make any difference?

You argue exactly the same way notorganic does.
"You didn't answer my irrelevant question"
*points a, b and c*
"But you didn't answer my irrelevant question"
*points d, e and f*
"But you still haven't answered my irrelevant question"
*points h, i and j*
"You don't know what you're on about fuckface, you're a moron and you still haven't answered my question, clearly I win"
*repeat points a through j while pointing out how ridiculous your question is*
"I'm going to repeat my first point over again".

That's like saying "football is not a sport. If it weren't for man's invention of balls, the game of football wouldn't exist". What a stupid statement.

It's "antiastrology". How did you manage to combine 'athism' and 'astrology' together and come out with that drivel? You're smarter than that, champ! Go back and read what I said about the etymology of 'atheism'.
And there are even books about antiastrology. And a quick google will disprove your assertion.

benelsmore, do you believe in god?

It was a yes or no question buddy.

Do you believe in god?

I'm talking hypothetically. Not as accepted practice.

You really need to get over this obsession with me, champ.

You really need to get over this obsession with me, champ.

Obsession, huh.
How many times did you mention me during my sabbatical exactly?

So you gonna spam the forum with "OK" again to prove how much of a superior specimen you are? You're one big fallacy. You accuse people of making "strawman" arguments and spouting fallacies to hide the fact that you can't put together a genuine contention of your own that doesn't read like it was written by an eighth grade know-it-all.

It's a bit rich, a guy who makes fun of people's occupations telling people they're "low".