Jasin wrote on Oct 27^th, 2023 at 10:50pm:

I can see that anyone here who understands what atheism is,
or who is actually an atheist—as I have been for more than
sixty years—will never be able to get through JaSin's wall of
theological ignorance.

I note that he's yet to tell us what HIS definition of atheism
is in any precise terms—other than it allegedly doesn't exist per se.

Apparently he's unable to define it, but magically he's certain it
doesn't exist?  How does that work?

Finally (as seemingly he doesn't know!) atheist largely believe
in exactly the same things as theists do.  Humanitarianism,
democracy, the arts and sciences, ethics, charity, a free press and
education, altruism, clemency and benevolence, collaboration and
unity, independent jurisprudence, free speech, the right to property
ownership etc.

Quote:

Seriously?  This has to be one of the most utterly
illogical comments I think I've ever read on this site!

                   



 

Jasin wrote on Oct 28^th, 2023 at 10:45pm:


I know the feeling...

You still haven't explained why you think the lack of a belief in a god or gods cannot happen until the individual is "pro" or something else.

Again I offered my personal experience of the things I am "pro" but they're not linked to a lack of belief in god, but you sidestepped that anyway.

At best the only point you've attempted to make clear is that atheism is a chasm of nothingness.

And?

It was never meant to be anything, it's not a movement or a competing belief system.

It is a word that describes one or many people who don't believe in a god or gods.

You're trying to set this standard of what it should be, then claim it doesn't live up to that for your argument's sake.

It's like the other tactics you use over and over.  You flirt around changing the goalposts, and refuse to engage instead switching to personal attacks and death threats in the hopes that the person or people you are talking with will give up so you can then claim "see, you can't refute my claims therefore I'm right".

It's the debate tactics of someone who knows they've already lost but winning is all that matters.

But back to the point, for practically everyone else in the world, it's not a difficult concept to understand. 

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.  That's all it is.  It's not about being pro something else.

But you've decided to shift the goalposts and draw a line in the sand that for one to be atheist, they must be "pro" something else in the place of religion, right?

Then you demand that you're told what that is, and if nobody does that, it proves whatever convoluted point you're trying to make is correct.

But a single person can't speak on behalf of all atheists because they're not organised like a religion and since your question can't be answered (by your design) you'll claim that as proof of whatever claim you're trying to make is right and you've "won".

In reality, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not assume it's correct because you've put the burden on others to disprove you and then designed the criteria to make that impossible.

You're not engaging in good faith, as usual, and only care about the win.

I'd pity you if you hadn't suggested I kill myself.

Jasin wrote on Oct 29^th, 2023 at 9:26am:


Your choice, but you don't need to have a tantrum and run off.

I still can't understand why you have tied the notion of one not believing in one thing having to substitute it for another.

It doesn't necessarily follow that disbelief in god(s) causes a need to believe in alternative metaphysical propositions.

It also doesn't necessarily follow that belief in god(s) causes disbelief in alternative metaphysical propositions.

Theistic believers can hold other metaphysical beliefs - e.g. the Irish belief in Christianity alongside their belief in other metaphysical beings whose roots predate Irish Christianity.

Many Christians also practise forms of Buddhism.

Having said that, with regard to disbelief, it's true that the human instinct for believing in metaphysical propositions, that first manifests in childhood, usually dies hard, if at all.

Jasin wrote on Oct 29^th, 2023 at 9:26am:

So JaSin...

You must've missed my request that you define
exactly what you understand atheism to be, or
what it means to be an atheist.

You've asserted several times here that there's "no
such thing as atheism", so in order to make that
claim, we need to know what it is you're saying
doesn't exist, I.E. define it.

Jasin wrote on Oct 30^th, 2023 at 6:50pm:


So... does this mean you're unable to define exactly
what atheism is?  This sort of deflection would seem
to indicate you actually don't know.

So humour me, and give me at the least some sort of
idea of your definition.

Jasin wrote on Oct 30^th, 2023 at 8:41pm:


"I know but I'm not telling, because reasons?"

You realise we're just having a discussion, there's nothing to be scared of right?

This win at all costs mentality, to the point you've flipped the game board and won't play is childish at best.