OOO
Cxxxx said: I cannot discus atheism with you, tried before and got fed up of bang my head on the wall.
But FYI, atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby
Magenta ^
isn’t it a dogmatic/apologetic/oft-repeated response of the Atheism people , please?
The next time, will one be seeing a flying kettle in the sky, perhaps, please?
Right friend, please/
Regards
![[IMG]](https://www.religiousforums.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi328.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl348%2Fluis_o_m_dantas%2Fpaar4_zpsnto2ictv.png&hash=b034a4e428dc6f4c48e07c888321b47b)
OOO
Vxxxx said: What does atheism proclaim? What is its position?
Atheism, per se, is a default, not a position. We’re born atheist. Subsequent theological beliefs are enculturated. Theology is learned.
A blank slate proclaims nothing.
“atheism”
- congregation
- denomination
- faith
- religion
- sect
- society
- affiliation
- body
- chapter
- communion
- connection
- creed
- cult
- doctrine
- faction
- gathering
- order
- persuasion
- schism
* noun
a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice:
Synonyms of ism | Thesaurus.com
Right ?
Regards
OOO
PureX said: ↑Then you are clearly quite confused. Being confused does not make you an atheist. It just makes you undetermined.
None of this is about what anyone can prove. Proof is not a requirement for theism, atheism, or agnosticism.
Only magenta ^.
For Atheism just being ignorant is more than enough, I understand, please. Right?
Regards
OOO
mxxxx said: Do all atheists use reason, logic and evidence?
Only magenta ^.
They don’t have it so they cannot stop a bigfoot or an elephant entering their garages else the kettles in their kitchens start flying in the sky and some of them having leisure time may start not-collecting stamps as their hobbies, they are afraid of , I figure. Right?
Regards
OOO
Pxxx said: To hold and express a position logically calls for justification. Atheism expressed, is a position. And so calls for justification.
Reason bade them goodbye long time ago , their recent “Pope Dawkins” and one recent “Bishop Hitchens” told them in their congregational “Atheist-Church” service only to deride and ridicule and they are following it very “religiously” rather than “Atheistically”, I understand, so they can’t justify, please. Right?
Regards
OOO
lxxxx said: Atheism means without theism, so no distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice. Right?
Then just say “Athe”, I figure, as adding ism to it has to be as per post #225, if it makes it meaningless, then, when there was meaning in it since inception, please? Right?
Regards
OOO
Mxxxx said: Meaningless?
It most certainly has meaning for you.
Otherwise you would not be going on an on about it, right?
Then just tell me as to what does mean “Athe” without adding ism to it, please. Right?
Regards
OOO
Vxxxx said: It’s from Greek. “A” means without. “Theo” means “God,” with the “o” dropped for a smooth liaison with “ism” since it starts with a vowel.
So one accepts , as is evident/evidenced from one’s above expressions that:
- belief in God is the primary or default position and
- non-belief is a superficial position,
- and belief in God is a positive position
- and non-belief is a dependent one and hence
- is expression of negativity
- and is fallen from the original/basic or default one.
Right?
Regards
OOO
Willamena said: ↑Except among atheists.
And they had always been an (unreasonable) minority perspective with no methodology.
Regards
OOO
Willamena said: ↑Technically, you are discussing etymology. So, from “one’s above expressions,” all that can be concluded is that one understands a word (or fails to) the same way another does.
They always start like that so this time I thought I should go deep into it. If I am right then one may support it or else correct where I am wrong.
Regards
OOO
Kxxx said: What do you understand by revelations?
I am referring to the people claiming to be prophets that were able get a message from God. As long as the prophet is alive it is not a subjective matter since there is a living central authority over how to interpret the message.
But what we have is purported prophets contradicting each other and no way to ascertain who is speaking the truth.
One could do it with the Religious Method and Atheism have no Methodology of their own, I understand.
Regards
OOO
paarsurrey said: ↑And they had always been an (unreasonable) minority perspective with no methodology.
Regards
It’s entirely the case that methodology is not required by atheists, but then it’s not required by theists either–just like Trump supporters are not required to know what government is about, or to know the text of the Constitution, only to know that they love him.
OOO
Willamena said: ↑It’s enitrely the case that methodology is not required by atheists, but then it’s not required by theists either–just like Trump supporters are not required to know what government is about, or to know the text of the Constitution, only to know that they love him.
I had to take on them, don’t they bully all the time the believers on such petty points as if they are champions, please? Right?
Regards
paarsurrey said: ↑I had to take on them, don’t they bully all the time the believers on such petty points as if they are champions, please? Right?
Regards
right.
OOO
Mxxxxx said: The state or acknowledgement of existence without deities or without belief in deities. Alternatively, it directly refers to those who actively or passively disbelieve in deities.
Origin: Greece, 1565–75; áthe(os): godless
Source
Then always just write athe without (os) and without ism. Right?
Even then all points of my post #351 will apply here also.
Regards
lukethethird said: ↑Favourite Atheist arguments
Theist: There’s an invisible God out there.
Atheist: Stop feeding it and it will go away.
It is the Pauline-Christianity who are the breeding ground of the Atheism and the like , I understand.
Right?
_________________
The six countries in the world with the most ‘convinced atheists’
The six countries in the world that believe in God the least
#381paarsurrey, Feb 15, 2021
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
http://atheistenglishman.wordpress.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-34
paarsurrey on May 21, 2014 at 4:07 pm said:
Atheism is not the default position.
http://atheistenglishman.wordpress.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-37
AtheistEnglishman on May 21, 2014 at 4:30 pm said:
Care to provide any proof of your assertion? Given the fact that believes are predominantly likely to believe the religion of their parents (or a subtle variant of the same) it is abundantly clear that we are not born with a religion, but that our parents surrender us to a religion, their religion.
http://atheistenglishman.wordpress.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-40
paarsurrey on May 21, 2014 at 7:35 pm said:
I think there would be only few or a negligible minority of people in the world who would have Atheism as a default position or the original position reasonably. Only those of them could claim Atheism as their default position whose parents were Atheists and hence they need to be helped by the Theists to provide reasonable arguments.
The majority of the Atheists, I think cannot claim Atheism as their default or original position. They belonged to a position of one of the religions in the world; and then they thought it to be convenient to get converted to Atheism (Skepticism, Agnosticism etc) without being convinced with evidences or proofs which they demand from the believers so often.
Atheism is a position of doubt and ignorance, not of certainty. Had they got converted to Atheism with evidences and proofs; they would have them ready to present them to believers?
They just demand evidences and proofs from the believers.
Regards
Tags: Agnosticism, atheism, Atheism as a default position, Atheism is not the default position, default position, evidences and proofs, Favorite Atheist arguments, negligible minority, not of certainty, original position, position of doubt and ignorance, skepticism
paarsurrey 
Leave a Reply