I didn't explain to you why i don't consider their "disbelief" if you wanna call it that, genuine. I explained why they are incapable of disbelief, so they can't be atheist.
Are atheists allowed to be spiritual?
- Thread starter Chikombo
- Start date
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Lightbringer
Active member
Wow, you are desperate.
Even if you're trying to argue that Atheism holds multiple definitions, it doesn't nullify the fact that Atheism is still defined as someone without beliefs.
The definition you even cited "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." is synonymous with the definition I presented to you.
You contradicted yourself yet again.
I rest my case.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Fountain's problem is that he thinks atheism only exists as a willing and knowledgeable rejection of the idea of God, failing to realize that there are multiple ways that are considered valid for one to qualify as an atheist, including unknowingly disbeliefing in God, aka, not believing in God because one is either incapable of the belief, or isn't even aware the belief exists as a concept. Hard to believe he's taken the discussion this far.
The problem is they think belief or faith is only related to religion. That's why they're incapable of comprehending the very ideology they define themselves with is a faith because it is based on conviction. It's quite sad to see followers of a belief, which they don't know what it means. That's the result of being a sheep.
Lightbringer
Active member
I've never come across someone so incapable of being able to comprehend a simple definition and how words are made to have meanings attached to them in order to describe something.
And the word that describes an individual who possess no belief in a deity are called atheists, regardless if they have or do not have no knowledge of the concept.
Lightbringer
Active member
My thoughts exactly. You contradicted yourself 3 times and made a word-circus to try justify your contradiction and how your personal view of the word "atheist" is more accurate than the actual definition of it.
So yes, you are a wall. Go be ignorant on someone else's time.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Your own link disagrees with you.
"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4]" the very first sentence.
The link is a Link to Atheism as a whole. The definition of atheism is far beyond that than simply lack of belief. Again, stop cherry picking to reinforce the comical idea that everyone is born atheist. It's ridiculous. You seem like someone who knows better than this.
Lightbringer
Active member
@Bold: It's still a definition of atheism and that definition applies to anyone who doesn't have a belief.
There is no getting around that fact.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Isn't that what I told you? Read carefully next time. Atheism is more than just lacking belief, but still includes lacking belief. You are the only one here who's been incapable of understanding that atheism doesn't come about in just one way. Someone can be an atheist BOTH because they've consciously and willingly rejected God/gods, and because they have no concept of God/gods or lack the capacity to have such a concept in the first place.
We're just beating around the bush here aren't we?
To say that someone is atheist (a baby nonetheless) would also imply that they reject belief as it is also part of what defines atheism.
Last edited:
Lightbringer
Active member
Your fault, not ours. You're denying the definition of a word out of ego.
What you're doing is the equivalent of denying that 1+1=2 and instead trying to rationalize why 1+1=11.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
No, you fool. You don't have to consciously reject theism in order to be an atheist.
Also, I'm 99% positive, given the course of this discussion, that you meant to say "we're beating a dead horse" and not "we're beating around the bush," and you confused them because you don't know what either means.
Lightbringer
Active member
Wow, you really don't get it. Or maybe you're not listening. Here you are repeating the same bs i already know about. I expected you'd know better than Lightbringer. But i guess you're just another fool like him who just has to have the last word no matter what. If you didn't get the point by now should i continue with this ridiculous discussion?
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
You realize you're the one here who's missing the point right? You said that because babies haven't consciously rejected the idea of a deity, they cannot be atheistic. We pointed out that the definition of atheism includes an never knowing the concept of a deity in the first place. You said the definition includes conscious rejection, we said that you do not need to fulfill both methods to be an atheist, you can be an atheist through one method, which includes having no concept of god. YOU have to refute that.
You know why we've been repeating the same thing to you? Because you've been incapable of understanding this basic premise. YOU'RE the one stuck.
Because you think that i'm being dense like you or just want to have the last word, that's what i think. You keep repeating the same thing because you think, you're so convinced that because lack of belief is in the definition of atheism that it applies to a newborn or pretty much anything or anyone else, despite me telling you (on top of everything i've previously said) that it would also imply everything else that atheism stands for, as it is all part of what defines atheism.
That's why i copy-pasted a link to Atheism and said stop cherry picking to reinforce the idea of everyone being born atheist. I thought that'd be enough but i guess not.
Last edited: