Freethought Nation

LOL, thanks to your help you've already proved my case for me - you definitely were not "raised atheist" no matter how much to try to deny it. It's too late, you've already demonstrated in your very own posts in your very own words that you were not "raised atheist" and throwing temper tantrums over losing your 'atheist to Christian' sales gimmick won't help you at all - you've already lost this one. Move on.

The United States Constitution is commonly referred to as a "Secular Document," but never as an atheist document. Just because you weren't raised to be religious absolutely does NOT, in any sense, mean that you were "raised atheist" by default. Your mother making a few off-handed comments about organized religion from time to time does not in any sense constitute being "raised atheist," but rather, you were merely raised in a secular environment. Doubling down or tripling down or quadrupling down does not improve your argument at all - you've already lost this one and it's time to let it go. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point digging a deeper and deeper hole with every post.

If you want to retain any credibility with readers of your website you should make the necessary adjustments and stop lying to your readers by claiming you were "raised atheist" when you have demonstrated here the fact that you definitely were not. So, I would suggest changing your claim from "raised atheist" to "raised in a secular environment" as that would be far, far more accurate.


You must've left your comprehension skills elsewhere. Atheism has nothing to do with "belief" it's 'an absence of belief.' Attempting to define atheism as any sort of belief or denial comes from theists attempting to project their own selective definition upon those who simply do NOT believe, which is why they're often referred to as "non-believers." The thread given to you 3 times now explained all of that.

I'm not interested in having to re-cap all of that thread here. If you still can't comprehend that thread then you just prove how little you actually know about atheism and it's best that you just let it go at this point. Apparently, you didn't even read the first post:


The fact remains that when it comes to atheism you have no clue what the hell you're talking about inadvertently confirming that you were NOT 'raised atheist.' So, thanks for confirming it here repeatedly for us. Now, every single time you claim to be 'raised atheist' or a 'former atheist' we all know you're a lying sack of shit attempting to cash in on the 'from atheist to Christian' sales gimmick.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Because you're all over the place I want to hammer this thing down and see if you can possibly catch it David, because you clearly are not catching the point here:

The point is that it's the soft atheists that actually are ATHEISTS!!!!

You aren't getting it. The NEW ATHEISM is the positive belief and it's not an historical atheism at all and it's very questionable as to whether these strong atheists or new atheists even have the right to claim atheism in the first place. That is precisely the issue dealt with as of the first post on the atheism thread. Now look closely again:


Yes, exactly. The people who simply lack any belief at all in God are NOT anti-theistic. It's the people who do hold a positive belief that no God exists which are breaking ways with historical atheism and it's simply lack of belief and venturing into a NEW DOMAIN of positive belief that no God exists. The former are not agnostic, but rather real atheists. The latter, holding positive belief against the existence of God, are an ANTI-THEISM of sorts.


Of course it means that it isn't atheism! Because atheism is NOT about what you BELIEVE in. It's about what you lack belief in. Once you cross over into any type of BELIEF you have crossed a line.

You have demonstrated an utter lack of knoweldge concerning atheism, agnosticism, and an anti-theistic view. The one who is trying to push their own view as if it's true is you David. FTL is sticking to a very technical and well educated analysis of the historical meaning of atheism against newer versions which have tried to creep up in recent years and you have it all ass backwards thinking that the New Atheism is the historical, when the opposite is true. And you've been stubborn so far in accepting or acknowledging the folly on your part. That's probably because you haven't understood where the folly is to be found yet and so I'm trying to narrow it down for you so we can put this to rest and move on please....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

The issue is that I see atheism the way the rest of the world does, while you and FTL seem to want to redefine it to suit your own purposes. But it doesn't work that way. You don't get to redefine words and then declare everyone who uses it the more common way to be ignorant.



There are some "hard atheists" who are anti-theism (that is, they see theism as a bad thing and are trying to stop it), but many more are okay with theism, even see it as a good thing, but just believe it to be wrong. To label all "hard atheist" as "anti-theists" is something they would very much disagree with, since not all of them are opposed to theism.



Again, atheism can be about "lack of belief in Gods" or it can be about "belief in a lack of Gods". So, yes, atheism can be a belief, or a lack of belief. It's commonly understood either way. Those who believe God does not exist tend to call themselves "atheists", while those who lack belief one way or the other sometimes call themselves "atheists" and sometimes call themselves "agnostics".



No, I'm defining "atheism" the way atheists themselves define it, which is what makes the most sense.



I'm not concerned with "what's the historical", but how the term is commonly understood. And no one in their right mind would consider a "belief in a lack of God(s)" to be "anti-theism", since nothing about disbelieving in Gods implies that one is actually opposed to theism. There certainly are "anti-theists" out there, but most "hard atheists" would not consider themselves to be such, and would dislike being labeled as such, since it makes implications about them which are untrue. You and FTL are trying to re-define things in a way which clearly makes no sense, and which most "hard atheists" would find offensive. Your logic doesn't work, so the rest of the world won't play along with it.

This has been an excellent example and demonstration on how you process information David. This hints at why in previous pages you were given information which you readily rejected only to realize later that, no, you were actually wrong in the first place without realizing it. You aren't realizing where you're wrong right now at this very moment either. We're not redefining anything David.

A = not and Theism = God Belief.

The bottom line is that an atheist does NOT have God belief. And what has happened is that apologists will try and paint a picture of atheism as a positive belief as you're doing right now. They do this because they want to try and make atheists responsible for the burden of proof that no God exists. Pay attention, because this is a critical lesson boy. An atheist carries NO such burden of proof. Why? Because no POSITIVE claim has been made. Those idiots who deviate AWAY from atheism are then and therefore subject to the burden of proving that no God(s) exist, in the very same way that theists carry the burden of proving that God(s) do exist. Mommy didn't teach you that growing up, did she?

One more time David, if you were brought up believing that no God(s) exist then you were brought up in an ignorant and ill-conceived subset version of an otherwise irrefutable atheist worldview. The real atheist need only sit back and ask all others to provide the credible evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God whatever that may be - and that's why you think it sounds like agnosticism. And many atheists these days do speak up about this issue all the time. Just start trying to ask atheists out there to provide the burden proof that God does NOT exist and you'll be faced with a whole hell of a lot of what we've been trying to tell you here.

When many theist's cross over to atheism they are generally ignorant about what atheism is in the first place, and also agnosticism too which is simply a non-committal position. The atheist does commit to a lack of God belief, however. It's a committal position as opposed to a non-committal position like agnosticism. And so many theists crossing over bring along their positive assertion tendencies from theism and then try to apply them to atheism. And they're subject to getting called out on it, just as you've been called out here. What most people think about something doesn't necessarily make it so, David. The word "atheism" defines itself with no gray area as a negative, not a positive, regardless of what most naive people out there tend to think about it with no real education or experience on the matter.

Now look again, one more time:


What is untrue? A hard atheist is AGAINST the belief in God(s), they are in fact anti-theistic and completely opposed to God belief by stepping forward and holding the positive belief that no God(s) exist and therefore taking a type of God Belief, the No God Belief:

Theism = belief that God(s) do exist.
Anti-Theism = belief that God(s) do NOT exist.

A traditional atheist with antiquity on their side knows better than to do that David. You do NOT assert positive belief in God(s) one way or the other because it's a big "no, no" to the informed. So the radicals out there are in fact against theism, they are precisely against God belief and oppose it very aggressively as such, hence the term "strong" or "hard." The passive folk you speak of are not "strong" atheist's, by definition, but rather weak atheists which is really what basic atheism is. You have confused yourself to no end and trying to get you back down to earth seems near impossible at the moment.

Were you raised to believe that God(s) do not exist?

If so, then you were raised with a positive belief system by someone with no real understanding of what atheism is in the first place, which, is an extremely common scenario given all of the theism to atheism crossovers in recent years and an utter lack of proper knowledge on the part of these cross over theists to comprehend atheism in the first place before claiming it as their own....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

You're redefining "hard atheism" as "antitheism", which will require you to redefine "antitheism" as something else, since that refers to opposition to theism, and not just a belief that no Gods exist.



And as I pointed out in my original response, it could also be "athe-ism", that is "Athe = No God", "Ism = Belief". Thus atheism can also mean "Belief in No God".



No. As I've said repeatedly, atheism can be either "belief in a lack of God(s)" or "lack in a belief of God(s)". It's not exclusively a positive belief.



That depends on whether they're a "soft/negative" atheist or a "hard/positive" atheist. For the "soft" atheist, I agree that no positive claim has been made, and thus there's no burden of proof on them.



But they aren't "deviating away from atheism", but simply moving to "positive/hard" atheism. The problem is that if you want to come up with a new term to describe those who claim that no God(s) exist, you need a better term than "antitheist", since that term refers to those who are opposed to theism. You can't come up with a new term, if that term is already being used for something else. If we start referring to people who believe God doesn't exist as "antitheists", then what are we going to call those who are actively opposed to theism? Are we going to come up with a new term for them as well to keep them separated from those who believe no God(s) exist?

The fact is that it's not necessary to come up with a whole new term for those who believe no Gods exist, since we already have one - "hard atheists".



That would depend on whether I'm asking the "hard atheist" or the "soft atheist", wouldn't it? I agree that the soft atheist has no burden of proof, and I don't impose one on them.



Excuse me, but in my original answer, I clarified that atheists could be either those who don't believe there is a God, or those who believe there is no God. I never, at any point, assumed that all atheists were making positive assertions. I know enough atheists to know that while some make positive assertions, others do not. So I don't know what you think you've "called me out on" here.



Atheism does not "define itself", since it can mean either "lack of belief in God(s)" or "belief in a lack of God(s)", as I pointed out in my original response, and again up above.



No, a hard atheist is one who believes that no God(s) exist. That doesn't automatically mean that they are opposed to other people believing in God, or want those who do believe in God to stop believing. If you're going to call them anti-theists, then you are declaring on their behalf that they are actively opposed to theism, even if that's not the case, which it isn't for many of them. Not all hard atheists believe that religion is a bad thing, or that belief in God is a bad thing. Many agree that it makes the world a better place, but they still believe it isn't factual. Would you also say that those who believe Santa Claus doesn't exist are "anti-Santa"?



So not only do you redefine atheism, you also redefine anti-theism? Go to Google and type in "define: antitheism", and see if any of the hits you get define it as "belief that God(s) do not exist".
Wikipedia defines it as "active opposition to theism".
Skeptic's Dictionary defines it as "active and vocal opposition to belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity".
Urban Dictionary defines it as "A person who holds the view that organized religion when considered throughout the centuries has been a destructive force in society".
Rationalwiki defines it as "outspoken opposition to theism and religion".
This is essentially what antitheism has meant for about two centuries now (the term dates to 1833, maybe earlier), yet you want to redefine it to mean "belief that God(s) do not exist", when we already have a term for that, which is "hard atheism"? Why not just stick with what's working, rather than cause all of this confusion by redefining words and mixing groups together into a single definition, even if the two groups believe in different things?



So you're declaring that all of those who believe no God(s) exist are "against God belief" and "oppose it very aggressively"? All of them? Because I'll bet you I can find at least a dozen "hard atheists" who do not aggressively oppose belief in God.



What the heck are you talking about? In my original response, I clarified that many atheists were "soft atheists" who merely lack a belief in God. I don't know what you think I've confused myself about. What would be confusing is to redefine "hard atheism" as "antitheism", and then having to either redefine "antitheism", or declare that all of those who believe no Gods exist must also be aggressively opposed to religion, whether they are or not. It seems to me that referring to those who "lack belief in God" as "soft atheists", and those who "believe in a lack of Gods" as "hard atheists", and those who oppose belief in God as "anti-theists" makes everything very clear. Changing the definition of the second group to merge it with the third group sounds like it would cause great confusion for no good reason.

You should just stop talking about atheism because you don't know very much about that subject either. It's laughable that you claim to be "raised atheist" on your website proving once again that it's just a sales gimmick from another dishonest Christian apologist.

"Atheist" has NEVER had anything to do with "a belief no gods exist" nor a "denial." The root origin of the word has always been about an "absence of belief" or "lack of belief." You simply don't know what you're talking about. Atheists who adhere to the strong/positive view need to find a new word that best describes their position because "atheist" isn't it. The "strong" or "positive" views are an abuse and misuse of the word. There are loads of atheists out there that really have no idea about the origin of the word or its history and neither do you:

For the 5th time: Proper Definition & Meaning of "Atheist"

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Why haven't you answered the main question in all of this David?

Were you raised believing that no Gods exist (positive), or were you raised with an utter lack of belief in God (negative)? Because that's what this several pages long side track is about in the first place. Narrow it down for us please.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

^ Nah, this was about him explaining his claim on his website about what being "raised atheist" really meant. My post on page 19. KD8 believes that his mother making a few off-handed comments about organized religion from time to time means he was "raised atheist." Actually, he was raised in a secular environment. His mother most likely doesn't know any more about atheism than he does.

KD8 has already proven that he doesn't know squat about atheism so this case is over. He's just throwing a temper tantrum at this point because he got caught misleading the readers of his website again and he can't squirm out of it. I will not be surprised if KD8 comes back with some new load of BS though trying cover up what he's already said here in his own words. KD8 needs to just drop it, get over it, make the necessary changes to his website and move on and stop misleading people.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Oh, so that's what it was all about. He wasn't even raised with the negative or positive view in the first place? I suppose that makes this detour all the more worthless then. I thought that he was trying to defend the positive assertion because he was raised that way and doesn't want to loose his "I used to be atheist" scheme because the positives are not technically atheist at all. Hence having to change his website and fueling the fire of his obsession to force fit the positives into atheism by trying to bend the term into athe-ism....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

That's why there's "hard atheism" or "positive atheism". Those are the phrases used to describe their belief and differentiate it from "soft atheism" and "negative atheism". If you're saying that there should be another word for it, then feel free to come up with one and see if it makes sense. But "anti-theism" isn't it, since that means opposition to theism, and can apply just as well to "soft atheists" and "hard atheists", since either group could see theism as a bad thing. But until someone comes up with a word that makes sense and catches on with people, everyone but you will continue to call them "hard/positive atheists". I do agree with you that just calling them "atheists" can be misleading, which is why I separated the two types in my original response.



Yes, some use or imply that definition, while many more do not. Generally, atheism is divided into the two categories, hard and soft (or positive and negative). Those who positively believe that God does not exist are definitely called atheists, though. There's no other word that makes sense for describing them.



I read it, and still see no reason to refer to those who believe no Gods exist as "hard (or positive) atheists" in order to differentiate them from soft (or negative) atheists. Can you give me anything else I should be referring them to that makes sense?

My mom was a "positive atheist", and was raising me to be the same, though I ended up more of a "negative atheist".

Sorry, but "a few off-handed comments about organized religion from time to time" are your words, not mine, and are completely inaccurate about the way it was. You're obviously just saying things that you figure are probably incorrect in an attempt to get me to go deeper into my relationship with my mom here, and correcting you on this matter just isn't worth it to me. Continue to believe what you want. I don't mind you being wrong.

So...you believe what HE says about the way I was raised, even though it obviously conflicts with what I've said about the way I was raised? Why? Do you think he was there at the time, and I wasn't?

Well I guess that settles it then. I figured that you were arguing for keeping positive atheism in the loop because it's closely tied to your own personal upbringing and is essentially at the very heart of your claim to being raised "atheist" at your website.

If anything, I guess it would help if you explained that you were raised with a "hard atheist" world view believing that no Gods exist by a woman who did not like theism at all, due to certain abuses that she had experienced from theists in the past (questionably anti-theistic at that). Then later you changed your own personal position to a simple lack of God belief like any traditional atheist. And then entertained Deism for a while only to continue on to Monotheism.

It looks like you went on a straight line course from far left to far right, whereas I went from far right all the way to far left and then back stepped towards the middle and found my place more suited towards Pantheism.

anti-theism--atheism--natural pantheism--pantheism--panentheism--deisms--theisms

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

No, I'm arguing for keeping positive atheist in the loop because it's already in the loop. The most accurate term for those who believe no God(s) exist is "positive atheist" (note the word "atheist" in there). Even if we're defining atheism as "not believing in God(s)", positive atheists are still atheists. After all, if you believe no God(s) exist, then you don't believe God(s) exist, do you? If atheist means "not theist", then it would include "positive atheists", since hard atheists obviously aren't theists. So you're going to come up with a definition for "atheist" that includes soft atheists, but excludes hard atheists, you'd have to redefine "atheist" as something other than "don't believe Gods exist", since that doesn't exclude hard atheists. You'd basically have to redefine atheism to match agnosticism.



No, I never considered myself a "hard/positive" atheist. I never believed that God didn't exist, just didn't believe He did. I also didn't move from Deism to Monotheism, since when I was a Deist, I believed there was only one God, so I was already a Monotheist. So I really moved from "Soft Atheism" to "Deism" to "Christianity".