You didn't.

You proved your own ignorance..that's all.

Well I suppose you'd even debate that your spelling of loser is correct.
Or is "looser" correct on faith also?

I brought this over from the other thread. Tallowood, your comment about the drunken orgies - were they directed at cargo cults, and would you agree that cargo cults are theistic cults? 

tallowood wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:49pm:


Most Cargo cults are not atheist. The Prince Phillip and John Frum cults worship human beings as gods, similar to Christianity. Those are theist cults.

By the way, I have never disputed that some atheists follow a religion. Not all religions involve a god or gods. I use the broad definition of atheist as 'one who lacks a belief in gods'.

As you have no doubt gathered, that particular definition is not fully compatible with the one that involves denial of the existence of God.

As Freediver pointed out, you need to know about the concept of gods in order to deny them. Such a person would be agnostic according to FD. To me, anyone who doesn't believe in gods is atheist.

I tried to ask this question before, but it was ignored:

Is any theist here prepared to say that they deny the existence of Ganesh?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 3:33pm:


Most atheist are agnostics.  The cynic in me would have me believe that the misnoma, that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, is only so widespread so that the religious can fight straw men instead of atheists.

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2007 at 2:11pm:


Utter BS.

Before I start, I'd like to point out your monotheistic chauvinism.  'are no gods' would be a better way to put it.

Not having a belief in something does not require to you believe in its non-existence.

Atheism is a belief like baldness is a hairstyle... or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The Australian Atheist Foundation defines atheism as "the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural".

What people don't seem to understand is that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.  Agnosticism is the opposite of Gnosticism.  Both come from the greek word gnosis which means knowledge.

Agnosticism is therefore the absence of knowledge.

Atheism and theism both pertain to belief.  An atheist does not have a belief in any gods while a theist does have a belief in at least one god.

It is perfectly reasonable to say I don't know if any gods exist due to the absence of evidence.  It is also perfectly reasonable to say I don't believe any gods exist due to the lack of evidence.

Now lets look at mainstream dictionary definitions...

From: www.dictionary.com
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


I've highlighted definition 2 in this context.  Before you get too excited check out the definition of 'disbelieve' in the same dictionary...

From www.dictionary.com
–verb (used with object)
1.to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
–verb (used without object)
2.to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

Soren wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 9:11pm:


Atheism doesn't speak about anything.  It is a philosophical position.  It doesn't say anything about how one came to that position.   Scientific skepticism, naturalism, materialism & humanism say things.  Atheism does not.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:47pm:


http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Bible-Illustrious-Collection-Irreverent/dp/006134...

http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

Didn't you know?   Couldn't resist  

If you really want to piss off a militant atheist, just tell him that atheism is a religion.  Previous posters have taken great delight in it, and militant atheists just go plugging on totally oblivious to the fact that it's all a pisstaking exercise.