ant wrote: Atheism at the start was defined as a religion. Because it would be unable to maintain political activity and influence, largely because of the separation of church and state, it quickly adjusted and softened it's definitions accordingly.

It was a smart tactic.
But the arguments are all the same.

He who controls the definitions wins.

I ain't buying it.

What ain't you buying? That atheism is pretending not to be a religion? You've cooked up quite a fantasy for yourself. Where can I read about this secret history of atheism? Am I and others here members of The Organization?

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: Atheism at the start was defined as a religion. Because it would be unable to maintain political activity and influence, largely because of the separation of church and state, it quickly adjusted and softened it's definitions accordingly.

It was a smart tactic.
But the arguments are all the same.

He who controls the definitions wins.

I ain't buying it.

What ain't you buying? That atheism is pretending not to be a religion? You've cooked up quite a fantasy for yourself. Where can I read about this secret history of atheism? Am I and others here members of The Organization?

It's not a secret.
Ask Interbane.

God never fails to draw you out, Dexter.

I have said before that the purpose of education is to prepare people with an understanding of the way the world really works so that they can plan and predict accordingly. It is utterly of no use to seed them with expectations of miraculous intervention by magical beings when we know for certain that that does not happen.

This is utter gibberish.

As if every theist neither knows or is interested in "how the world really works"

Thinking that all there is to "belief" is the idea of miraculous intervention is just as silly as the gibberish that preceded that silly comment.


This is "new atheism theology' at its very best.

ant wrote:
It's not a secret.
Ask Interbane.

God never fails to draw you out, Dexter.

I must secretly believe and have daddy issues.

I see you're still confused. When you are going to provide proof of nonexistence for all the things you don't believe in?

geo wrote:It's easy for atheists to get frustrated with the idea of God because belief seems to require a great deal of dissonance. It's an emotional response to be sure. I can't think of a song that better expresses this.

A great song from a great band.

Dear God - XTC

Hi Geo. For sure life presents us with stark contrasts in our world. It's not all bad either.
I don't know about XTC, but I would have thought that if anyone could have cause for complaint it was the abused black slaves on the sweltering plantations. Yet they produced amazing spiritual songs to God.
I guess it's just that old opiate then? Sometimes you can't win.
Paddy Mc Aloon of Prefab Sprout wrote a similar in sentiment song as XTC's some years ago called;The sound of crying.
One line was; "Who am I to tell you(God) how to run your business,when you could strike me blind?"
By a strange coincidence some years later he suffered from a condition which rendered him blind for a few months, I think.While not reading too much into that, he does seem to have had some sort of transformed view of God.
It's hard to imagine that the same person who wrote the earlier song also wrote this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gxHcNtzFrU
And even those who see the bleak realities don't necessarily think that it rules out God. This from a recent Leonard Cohen album. Almost like the blues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WMDKBpDz0

Paddy Mc Aloon of Prefab Sprout wrote a similar in sentiment song as XTC's some years ago called;The sound of crying.
One line was; "Who am I to tell you(God) how to run your business,when you could strike me blind?"
By a strange coincidence some years later he suffered from a condition which rendered him blind for a few months, I think.While not reading too much into that, he does seem to have had some sort of transformed view of God.

look out blasphemers your 20/20 vision is in danger

the boogeyman's gonna gitcha.

sorry Flann but if dissing the God of christian orthodoxy was dangerous i'd be in deep doo doo

fact is i've never felt better, mind forged manacles were never strong enough to hold this boy for long...

as hendrix said

women here women there try to keep me in a plastic cage
but they dont realise that it's so easy to break out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBJAp3rzl0g

as deep purple sing

you've got me locked in a paper cage
you think i'm chained up but i'm just tied down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgmjLHy7gmQ

the truth will set you free.

BTW: Blackmore's solos are off the hook

one of my favourite hymns

I'm a wheel, I'm a wheel
I can roll, I can feel
And you can't stop me turning
Cause I'm the sun, I'm the sun
I can move, I can run
But you'll never stop me burning
Come down with fire
Lift my spirit higher
Someone's screaming my name
Come and make me holy again

I'm the man on the silver mountain

I'm the day, I'm the day
I can show you the way
And look I'm right beside you
I'm the night, I'm the night
I'm the dark and the light
With eyes that see inside you
Come down with fire
Lift my spirit higher
Someone's screaming my name
Come and make me holy again

I'm the man on the silver mountain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgu9wKJVbc

ant wrote:

I've written quite a lot about god while being fairly convinced that nothing of the sort exists. Why expend the effort? While god doesn't exist adherents to magical thinking certainly do.

It doesn't follow that because you've "written quite a lot about god (small 'g')" that a God (cap 'G') does not exist.

Tell us more about this God with a capital 'G.' Do you believe in this God? What do you know about Him/Her/It?

ant wrote:What occurs here frequently with the core atheists on booktalk is a twinkle-toe dance along the aforementioned border.
The burden of proof for the proposition "God does not exist" is avoided by dancing on that border.

I'm not dancing. I can state my position pretty straightforwardly and I will always be forthcoming and honest about my position. I will always answer whatever questions you may have. The problem is, if you can't define God, how can I possible tell you if I believe in it?

You do persist on rejecting what actual atheists are telling you what their nonbelief means in favor of what you think atheism means. Both Chris and Johnson took time to explain their positions, and your response is only belligerence.

Someone is dancing here. I've never been very clear on what exactly you believe and I'm pretty sure if I ask you, you will be evasive. But here goes anyway. Do you believe in God? What is this God like? Please define what it is. I really want to know what your position is, Ant.

ant wrote:It makes zero rational sense and is a horrendous attempt at cognitive consonance for an atheist to author an entire song, poem, or other lamentation to an entity they are convinced does not exist simply because there is no evidence (a fallacy) for its existence.

I sing about a one eyed petrified flying purple people eater. The purpose is entertainment. Lack of evidence isn't a fallacy either, in all cases where we should reasonably expect evidence.

ant wrote:Atheism at the start was defined as a religion. Because it would be unable to maintain political activity and influence, largely because of the separation of church and state, it quickly adjusted and softened it's definitions accordingly.

It was a smart tactic.
But the arguments are all the same.

He who controls the definitions wins.

I think we should use the definitions of words as they are used. Robert Tulip brought up a good point that we refer to atheism as a movement in one connotation, and as the lack of belief in a deity in another connotation. There is baggage with the atheist movement, just as there is baggage with any movement. The point here is that we should be clear which connotation we're attacking, and which we're defending. I don't agree that being an atheist means you're part of the atheism movement, because there are parts of the movement that many individual atheists disagree with. I don't think this distinction is something many atheists are aware of, so unless you spell it out clearly you're bound to get a volatile reaction. If I had to pick a label from the table and stick it to my chest, I'd choose Humanist rather than Atheist movements, because Humanism is more clearly defined and I agree with the manifesto.

ant wrote:It's when an "absence of belief" mutates into an assertion that God does not exist is where I draw a line in the sand.

True; conceptions of atheism vary, ranging from absence of belief in deities, to explicit A-theism (theism is untrue because God does not exist.

What occurs here frequently with the core atheists on booktalk is a twinkle-toe dance along the aforementioned border.
The burden of proof for the proposition "God does not exist" is avoided by dancing on that border.

The absence of belief mutates into a positive assertion of disbelief whenever the definition of god changes. This is a long dead horse.

I'm an atheist towards some definitions, such as the one that is the topic of this thread, namely the god that possesses the 3 O's. But if you're talking about a different definition of god, such as a naturalistic deity, then I don't have enough information. I don't know if such a deity exists. For the sake of this thread, we're talking about a personal god that has the 3 O's. If this point isn't clarified in every post made by atheists here, it may seems as if they're dancing on that border. But if we apply some intellectual empathy we can rightly assume they're referring to specific definitions.

ant wrote:This is utter gibberish.

As if every theist neither knows or is interested in "how the world really works"

I don't think johnson was talking about every theist. He was talking about larger trends, such as young earth creationists. Their number isn't the entirety, but they are a very large group, and their false worldview is destructive. I think johnson has a valid point.