Atheism defination has evolved from "hold it false(disbelief) in the existence of God(s)" to "lacking belief in the existence of God(s)"

So, I am just trying to evaluate this newly evolved defination of atheism "lacking calling it true" as opposed to belief - call it true.

@Word may I suggest you first try to evaluate the use of autocorrect because your use of language is basically incomprehensible, rather than worrying about "definations"!

@Word No I think atheists have become Agnostics without even realizing it

@Storm1752 Theism is considered to be defined as a belief in the existence of taco eaters.

Or a theist to say, " I hold it a truth that taco eaters exist." This is considered a claim. For claims, people want evidence.

Where "A"theism would be defined as disbelief in the existence of taco eaters.

So, an atheist would say "I hold it not true(false) that taco eaters exist. " This is considered a claim. For claims, people want evidence.

Atheism cannot prove taco eaters do not exist, they cannot logically back up their claim.

NEW AGE ATHEISM wants to be more logical and agnostic does not say true or false because that would be a debatable claim.

Atheism wants to be defined like agnostic but hold onto the "atheist " label word.

Yes, there are the nes age atheist that realize the logic and push for the change in the definition of atheim to be a lack of belief or to say "I cannot hold it true that taco eaters exist".

So, I question, if you do not, or cannot hold it true, what are they doing with the information of the claim that taco eaters exist?

@Storm1752 and you/we care because.....?

@SenorRotten - All hail Eris! Malaclypse the Younger Lives! The original snub is remembered - Kallisti is the reply! Let the bunless hotdogs be eaten and Discordians know one another by their profound "meh, I've got better things to do"! Hail and Welcome!

That might work.

@Word - lol, then Mr. Rotten and I have failed.

If it works, we're gonna need to take a closer look at mucking it all up...

If you only knew. It's not easy to get 7 billion plus people motivated to stop whatever they are doing to make sure everyone on Earth has brick homes, businesses and property built by true masons free from mortgage. free from rent, free from taxation free from governmental terrorism and free from religious oppression and make sure there is an Educational institution on every street corner so all education can be free from tuition, free from loans and free from any fees so that ALL human animals can enjoy the fullness of intellectual capabilities freely and freely for everyone to enjoy the fullness of technology freely for everyone. And, ofcourse free medical because everyone would be able to be educated as doctors of every kind.

I just cannot seem to do this on my own, it's just not working out.

@Word I think you should get on the phone straight away and make that appointment before it get worse.

@Jolanta I have no money for my commercial drivers license medical exam. That's why I am here at company shop turning in truck waiting for dispatch to buy me a ticket south to Warmr weather. I would prefer live under bridge in south than this subfreezing Chicago.

@Jolanta it is in large part with this strict elog system that restricts driving. My high blood pressure goes does if I get off the road, I have gone to homeless shelters before for a while but those are not any good places to stay. But my blood pressure goes down so I can pass medical but I am ju just not interested in this newly started elog system. Just need a way to hurry up and make a million billion trillion dollars of unlimited money so me and everyone on Earth will not be forced to keep doing this capitalism wage slave labor as an issue to to have money in life.

@Aurora62 I've gotten out of driving for now. I am on train to new Orleans now. Doing a snow bird sort of thing for the winter. I don't expect to do commercial driving any more, not saying it is totally ruled out.

No, you Cannot spell it, must be numbers. 42

@Word
Can you prove that?

@Haemish1 nothing to prove, just a rule. Numerals not words.

@Word
I believe that rule is invalid.

@Haemish1 twenty seven times five equals one hundred and thirty five. Then, one hundred and thirty five minus nine equals one hundred and twenty six. Lastly, one hundred twenty six divided by three equals forty two.

Why is rule of numerals invalid?

27x5=135. 135-9=126. 126/3=42

@Word
You just proved it’s lack of validity with your reply.

@Haemish1 not lacking validity, rule didn't say word equation wasn't possible. Rule just makes for simplicity of numerals for faster writing.

@Word It is not a rule at all. You can make stuff up and call it a rule but if you expect anyone else to acknowledge it as a real rule, much less follow it, you are bound to be disappointed. In this case there is no such rule. It is true that in textual writing (as opposed to, say, charts) one should, for consistency's sake, write out numerals from zero through nine and then use actual numerals from 10 on, but that is a stylistic rule, not a mathematical one, and there are exceptions: the first word of a sentence is spelled out even if it is a number, numbers in quotes are spelled out and in scripts, dialogue is always spelled out, including numbers. Again, that is stylistic, not mathematical. The "forty-two" to which you objected actually followed the stylistic rules i mentioned.

g

@genessa you say "It is not a rule at all. You can make stuff up and call it a rule but if you expect anyone else to acknowledge it as a real rule, much less follow it, you are bound to be disappointed."

Yes, rules very well can be arbitrary and a rule that is "made up" as a rule is still infact a rule. As you say to anyone else following or as to my ability to enforce the rule is circumstantial or what ever, but it wouldnt change it from being a made up rule, that is then once made up a rule. Just because a rule is made, does not mean it is followed or enforced. So, it is a real rule, sorry to disappoint you. No, I really do care if you followed it or not.

@Word Oh here we go -- if i know you are wrong then i didn't follow, or get it, or i missed your point. Right. Sorry to have disturbed your ego. Too bad that ego is resting upon other people's acceptance of your nonsense. Therefore, to save said ego, any disagreement means the disagreer just didn't understand. Oh poor misunderstood you. That, my dear, is illogical. And now, other far more fascinating activities than talking to the wall you have turned out yo be await me. Have a nice life.

g

I am communicating in English. What I typed was a thought conversation I had with my thoughts. Questioning and stating different sides of the conversation. I did not distinguish between the 2 sides because they were both my thoughts. It was not specifically written to be an "easy" read, it would take intelligence to see or figure out what was going on in the text.

@Word You're playing mind games, not for a second seriously suggesting the reader should be expected to decipher what are in essence simple and simplistic notions. You're being deliberately obtuse. Do you know what 'obtuse' means? Slow and unintelligent.
Not that you ARE dull-witted; just that you pretend to be as a form of mockery.
I'm only responding to your nonsensical response to me, because I resent your insensitivity...we are serious (usually) and are sincerely trying to explore each other's ideas and points of view. YOU seem to think this all a big joke. Well, I hope you're enjoying yourself; I won't be replying to any further to your childishness.

@Storm1752 appologies if you take it the wrong way. I do at times try my humor in somethings but as humor can go, someone might get butt hurt. I don't know what is going to butt hurt anyone when I open post things until someone says ouch. Otherwise, I do not see it as mind games, but exploring the mind. And yes, there are things I take seriously too. Thank you for your last of replies. Perhaps someday you might stumble across something that you think is worth while, but if not I won't get butt hurt.

It was a moon over Upper Klamath lake near klamath Falls, Oregon.

Heres my Alien glasses from area 51.

I am kind of conversating with my self. From one sentence/question I respond with the next statement. So, no I didn't distinguish that this was a thought of me thinking from both sides of the conversation.

Does that help clear up how to read it?

My thought started out as evaluation of atheist lacking. Then finished up with agnostic just admitting I don't know.

So, what am I saying? It is better to truthfully say I don't know than some rigamrow of atheism.

@Word What you've described could be basic agnosticism, but it also fits negative atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods; the former is negative atheism (also called soft or weak atheism), and the latter is positive atheism (also called hard or strong atheism). There's some overlap between negative atheism and agnosticism, though. The distinction for me comes down to not accepting unsubstantiated claims for God or gods (negative atheism) and acknowledging that I don't know whether it might be true (agnosticism) — but I don't treat it as a 50-50 proposition, because the original claim is itself made by those without convincing reason or knowledge. Without evidence beyond the claim, I give it no more credence than I do to claims for Sasquatch or leprechauns or unicorns. I don't know that these things don't exist, but I feel no compulsion to give them any serious consideration. I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

@resserts Christopher Hitchens who said, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

What if the assertion is the evidence, so to dismiss the assertion would be dismissing asserted evidence with out evidence.

@Word Ah, I see you're just trolling. Good day to you.

@resserts typical illogical atheist illogical response. I know, illogical atheist don't like their illogicalness pointed out for what it is, illogical. It's not trolling. A basic definition of trolling - starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,

I am not here to start quarrels or upset anyone. The facts are what upsets people because the would rather be called something like atheist that to have a more honest label as agnostic. So, it's not that it's my intent to argue, that is what illogical atheist always want to do is debate and argue. I am just here to educate.

@Word You think calling atheists illogical on a site largely frequented by atheists isn't trolling?

g

@genessa a duck is a duck. If I say, "here ducky, ducky. Quack. Quack" do you think I am calling cows to feed? Just because ducks are in a pasture with a heard of cows doesn't mean I am calling cows. Illogical atheist are free to frequent this site and think freely. I attack no one, I troll no one. If someone chooses to love this illogical title "atheist" then it is not me trolling them personally. They just choose in their illogicalness to take it personal.

@Word Your opinion that atheists are illogical is indeed an opinion -- one to which you are entitled but an opinion nonetheless, and one with which i disagree, and which you have supported with nothing but mumbo jumbo. I do not take it "personal" (i don't even take your misuse of an adjective in place of an adverb personally). Your perception of how i am taking your nonsense is also nonsensical. I am actually not taking your nonsense at all. I am dismissing it as the nonsense it is.

g

@genessa ok, thanks. But it is not my opinion it is known fact that atheism by defination and premise is illogical. If you are unaware of this fact it doesn't change the fact. My opinion on the matter doesn't matter.

@Word The only true thing you just said is that yiur opinion does not matter. It is odd of course that you assert that atheism is illogical because it claims to know something is true, and yet you insist that this unsupported assertion is true, much more illogically.

g

@genessa assertion of atheism being illogical is just making a statement of fact. I created Taco God. As I created taco God, taco God really exist. Atheism by defination and premise is wrong in asserting no gods exist because at least 1 god does infact exist. Many people have eaten a taco. Tacos are real, people are real and people really eat tacos. Atheism illogical.

I have not heard much of what Trump has said. Maybe in his time of presidency I have heard him say 10 sentences worth and it hasn't been at the same time. Occassions of walking past a television set turned on with it blaring his talking. Otherwise, I don't subscribe to the Trump channel.

God damn words.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and was God.

Science believes in their big bang myth that the word in the beginning was bang, and they theorize it was a big word.

@Word - a bang of universal proportion. When the girlfriend gets home I'm hoping to participate in one of similar scale.

I say the truth is the fact that I posted. As to the content posted, it could be discussed, questioned, clarified, or corrected if need be for finding of erroneous content.

@Word Why bother? It is nonsense, and badly expressed at that.

g

So you want a supernatural goo substance as evidence? Like the goo substance as shown in old movie Ghost busters. Supernatural goo substance would purportedly defy all know chemistry and physics of elements, compounds and molecules. Is this the evidence you would expect if evidence were to be found?

That's your 'evidence'? Goo from a fictional comedy movie with 'purported' characteristics? Color me disappointed. This isn't a serious discussion let alone interesting.

@RichCC no, no. No. I am not saying that is my evidence, I am asking you, is that the evidence you expect?

@Word What makes you think rich expects evidence?

g

Why should I specify up front what evidence is allowed? I will say that if anyone wants to convince me with their claim, they should provide convincing evidence and explanations.

I left 'let's pretend' games behind before I entered grade school many years ago.
I enjoy fantasy for the time waster that it up front is and I enjoyed the Ghostbusters movies. I'm an avid reader but I like to think I mostly understand the differences between reality and make believe.

For example, I very much enjoyed James Blish's 'Cities In Flight' novels and I gave him a pass with his dated worldview because it fit the story.
When he said 'there would never be electronics on Jupiter because the pressure is too great to allow a vacuum for tubes' I was ok with that as part of the fantasy.

It's only when people try to talk about the real world that I expect them to make sense -- both with analysis and evidence. It's up to them to convince me rather than it being up to me to try to anticipate their proposition.