Are there any "true" atheists?

[Unknown Soldier]

Again, you're thinking in terms of absolutes and in particular that word definitions are absolutes. Contrary to what you assert here, words do work that way which is to say you can use words--including definitions--any way you choose. For example, your definition for "atheism" disagrees with what The Oxford English Dictionary says the word means:

atheism, n.​

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

Who's right? Who's wrong? Who knows? I just keep an open mind.

To be clear, keeping an open mind would mean fearing the repercussions of many many gods, not just the one you are familiar with. And not of gods too, and embracing Buddhism and the like.

I didn't mean to keep an open mind about gods but to keep an open mind regarding differences in how people define the word "atheism."

I only have enough time on this world to deal with actual definitions, not made up ones.

We both know that

1. all definitions are made up, and
2. I didn't make up any definitions.

So why accuse me of something I didn't do?

I'm seeing a lot of dogmatism on this thread regarding the meaning of atheism.

I don't think you understand what dogma is.

I don't insult you, and I'd like the same respect in return. Let's stick with the issues please.

Which really betrays you allegedly being open-minded, ie, you are just a theist pretending to be open-minded.

Why is that an issue?

It'd be an observation, not as much an issue. Though it would reduce your contribution regarding atheism and doubt if you were just a theist with doubt.

What you posted is an ad hominem fallacy. Even if I was a theist, theists can be right.

I could be the most narrow-minded religious fanatic ever and still be right about everything I've posted on this thread.

That'd be impossible as you've wandered all over the place with your claims in this thread, from acute claims to broad brushed ones, to even contradictory ones.

Please cite what I've said using direct quotations, and then we can see if what you're saying about my posts is true.

Let me conclude this post by saying that I will no longer identify as an "atheist." I'm ashamed of atheism as it is practiced and from now on I will distance myself from it. That doesn't mean I will worship any Gods or stop arguing against their existence. It just means that I won't lie doing it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

For example, your definition for "atheism" disagrees with what The Oxford English Dictionary says the word means:

Those definitions are consistent.

Disbelief means this:
"Refusal to believe; absence of belief."

The second portion "absence of belief" is equivalent to Rhea's "without a belief" and "lacking belief."

The definition of disbelief I'm familiar with is not mere unbelief but refusal to believe. In any case, from the Oxford Reference:

atheism​

Subject: Religion


The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Is that definition different enough to prove my point that definitions are not absolute?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For example, your definition for "atheism" disagrees with what The Oxford English Dictionary says the word means:

Those definitions are consistent.

Disbelief means this:
"Refusal to believe; absence of belief."

The second portion "absence of belief" is equivalent to Rhea's "without a belief" and "lacking belief."

The definition of disbelief I'm familiar with is not mere unbelief but refusal to believe. In any case, from the Oxford Reference:

atheism​

Subject: Religion


The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Is that definition different enough to prove my point that definitions are not absolute?

Can you please define "absolute" and "definition".

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think you missed his point rather whooshingly.

I'm wondering how you know what he meant...

The correct question for a "truth seeker" like you to ask is, "How did I not understand? Maybe I should go look again and figure that out...".

Rhea understood because other people's minds are not infuriatingly opaque for her like they are for you, and probably she reads to understand first instead of going straight to the fault-finding.

It's really nice for you to ride in to save the day for Rhea. I'm glad I don't need to be saved.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It seems like in an effort to denigrate atheists, you want to allow for a definition in which “atheist” can be consistent with a belief in gods.

How is understanding atheism as not absolute rejection of belief in God(s) denigrating atheists? I recognize that theists believe in Gods, but I don't see that as denigrating them. Whatever our beliefs, we are loathe to admit what we find embarrassing.

You are doing this by asserting that it is dogmatic to assign a single definition to a word.

The problem with assigning definitions is that doing so can be used to cover up truths. For example, we've seen on this thread the definition that atheism means lack of belief in God. That definition rules out my position that atheists can possibly believe in God. In other words, my opponents attempt to win the debate with a definition that makes their position true!

And then, when showing that there may be a different definition for atheism that includes belief in gods, it must then negate the definition of atheism that does not include belief in gods.

Other definitions for atheism don't necessarily disprove what you believe. I won't cheat by playing the definition card.

It’s like I might say (and I did) that “married” means having a legally-sanctioned marriage certificate with another person and “bachelor” means not being in a marriage. And thus no married bachelors exist. But then you come along and say “well, some people say that they are married to their jobs, so obviously the word ‘married’ has more than one meaning and thus it is possible to have married bachelors”.

Where did I say that? My argument regarding married bachelors is that actual married bachelors cannot and do not exist, but imaginary married bachelors can exist within the mind. In the same way atheism and theism can exist within the mind.

You just can’t seem to accept that there are genuinely people who just simply don’t believe in or hold out hope for the existence of gods. And it seems to be based primarily on your personal experience, which can be quite different than that of others here.

I've already conceded that "pure" atheists can exist. I can't rule them out. But I cannot wisely accept as true the mere words of those who insist they have no beliefs in God(s) at all. I gave up believing everything I was told when I was a theist!

 

[Shadowy Man]

It seems like in an effort to denigrate atheists, you want to allow for a definition in which “atheist” can be consistent with a belief in gods.

How is understanding atheism as not absolute rejection of belief in God(s) denigrating atheists? I recognize that theists believe in Gods, but I don't see that as denigrating them. Whatever our beliefs, we are loathe to admit what we find embarrassing.

It comes across as denigrating when you ask if atheists exist and several atheists say yes then we end up with pages and pages of a thread with you trying to imply that they are wrong and are just playing with definitions.

You are doing this by asserting that it is dogmatic to assign a single definition to a word.

The problem with assigning definitions is that doing so can be used to cover up truths. For example, we've seen on this thread the definition that atheism means lack of belief in God. That definition rules out my position that atheists can possibly believe in God. In other words, my opponents attempt to win the debate with a definition that makes their position true!

Well, if that is the definition of the word for them then it is fitting, isn’t it? Are you implying they are choosing their conclusion first and then defining the word to match? It seems you are, which is also a way to disrespect the atheists here.

And then, when showing that there may be a different definition for atheism that includes belief in gods, it must then negate the definition of atheism that does not include belief in gods.

Other definitions for atheism don't necessarily disprove what you believe. I won't cheat by playing the definition card.

So. You agree that there are true atheists who don’t believe in gods and therefore can rightly call themselves “atheists” because the word can mean not believing in gods? Then what the hell are we all arguing about?

It’s like I might say (and I did) that “married” means having a legally-sanctioned marriage certificate with another person and “bachelor” means not being in a marriage. And thus no married bachelors exist. But then you come along and say “well, some people say that they are married to their jobs, so obviously the word ‘married’ has more than one meaning and thus it is possible to have married bachelors”.

Where did I say that?

It was a bit figurative…not literal.

My argument regarding married bachelors is that actual married bachelors cannot and do not exist, but imaginary married bachelors can exist within the mind. In the same way atheism and theism can exist within the mind.

Married bachelors may exist in your mind somehow. But don’t assume that others routinely imagine things that are logically contradictory, as someone else mentioned square circles.

My point was that in the definitions I was using for “married” and “bachelor” there is no way for me to imagine a married bachelor, at least not without modifying the definitions as it seems you are wont to do.

You just can’t seem to accept that there are genuinely people who just simply don’t believe in or hold out hope for the existence of gods. And it seems to be based primarily on your personal experience, which can be quite different than that of others here.

I've already conceded that "pure" atheists can exist. I can't rule them out. But I cannot wisely accept as true the mere words of those who insist they have no beliefs in God(s) at all. I gave up believing everything I was told when I was a theist!

Well, nobody can help you there. If you cannot believe what people are telling you that would be your problem not theirs. I don’t believe it is “wise” to assume one’s own personal experience should be the sole basis for determining truth.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For example, your definition for "atheism" disagrees with what The Oxford English Dictionary says the word means:

Those definitions are consistent.

Disbelief means this:
"Refusal to believe; absence of belief."

The second portion "absence of belief" is equivalent to Rhea's "without a belief" and "lacking belief."

The definition of disbelief I'm familiar with is not mere unbelief but refusal to believe. In any case, from the Oxford Reference:

atheism​

Subject: Religion


The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Is that definition different enough to prove my point that definitions are not absolute?

On the one hand, if you go to that page and search for atheism, you can see the Oxford Dictionary defines atheism as this:

atheism, Noun​

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.​

Yet, on the page you looked at from Oxford Reference, you have "The theory or belief that God does not exist."

Anyone who has spent time reading online dictionaries would know you see variants in definitions and you have to examine what is essential across them to get a feel for the intersection and span of word usage.

That said, you didn't properly identify your PRIMARY source which is actually the Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.

Additionally, at least in this case it seems like the author had a bit of an Abrahamic bias--modern day Norse mythology believers would be atheists under this definition. You'd have to fit some square pegs into round holes to push the idea of polytheistic and some non-Abrahamic religions into this definition as well.

The definition is clearly flawed and at a minimum ought to be "The theory of belief that God or a god does not exist." Next, one ought to wonder is it a belief? Is a disbelief a belief? Or is a lack of belief a belief? More generally, if I have a belief that NOT blah, do I disbelieve blah? And if I disbelieve blah, do I have a belief that NOT blah?

What I can say to that is that the problem is that you are looking up words online getting single sentences or phrases for definitions. I used to go to an old Oxford English Dictionary in the public library, having volumes and volumes and no word in the dictionary was EVER that simple. That's why if you look online you better do a bang up job trying to piece together what is essential and what the different usages are.

There's a thing called weak atheism which is more or less lack of belief in a god. Then, there's a thing called strong atheism which is more or less a belief in no god. Both weak and strong atheism lack a belief in a god. So atheism is lacking a belief in a god. It is the superset of both.

Here is a more comprehensive source for you, also from Oxford:

atheism

"atheism" published on by Oxford University Press.

www.oxfordreference.com

Note this:

A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence.

By substitution, this is saying atheism is strong atheism, or (more broadly) weak atheism.

Further, go here:

...). Sometimes referred to as negative atheism or non-theism ( 1 ) , or less commonly weak or soft atheism . 2. Belief that there is no God or gods. Arguably the most popular current usage, atheism here signifies disbelief in the existence of a God or gods, and is distinguished from both theism and agnosticism. In common speech, the term is often understood to imply a degree of conviction or certainty ( see also anti-theism ). Sometimes referred to as positive atheism , or less commonly strong or hard atheism . 3. Belief in the falsity of a specific...

Oxford Dictionary of Atheism goes on comprehensively beyond this, but one can observe that the authors at the time of the dictionary stated that strong atheism (2) was the most popular usage of the term atheism and weak atheism (1) was then less common in usage, but still it continued to (3) and beyond.... If strong atheism is so popular in usage then that would explain why a single one-liner definition might only stick to the most common usage, but then as already explained above the more broad view of atheism as a lack of belief captures more atheism. And it is a superset.

 

[Rhea]

Let me conclude this post by saying that I will no longer identify as an "atheist." I'm ashamed of atheism as it is practiced and from now on I will distance myself from it. That doesn't mean I will worship any Gods or stop arguing against their existence. It just means that I won't lie doing it.

Unlike who? Who is lying?
Your post implies that we are. So are you just here to denigrate us?

I've already conceded that "pure" atheists can exist. I can't rule them out. But I cannot wisely accept as true the mere words of those who insist they have no beliefs in God(s) at all. I gave up believing everything I was told when I was a theist!

So you ask us a question about our beliefs and then spend pages saying we don’t know our own beliefs and are deluded. So are you just here to try to denigrate others?

How is understanding atheism as not absolute rejection of belief in God(s) denigrating atheists? I recognize that theists believe in Gods, but I don't see that as denigrating them. Whatever our beliefs, we are loathe to admit what we find embarrassing.

I am not embarassed a bit. Not one single iota.
Because I am an atheist, and I know this, and your attempts to try to denigrate me and convince me I need you to unlock the keys to my deep harbored inner thoughts shows me that you are not here to seek truth in good faith. You’re preaching, trying to bolster against your own inner doubts.

I’m not going to take over your doubts for you.

You’ve met (here) a true atheist.
I’m not lying when I say it, I’m not hiding embarassment about not being it, and it’s truth does not rest on whether you have the sense to have an honest discussion about it.


I can see that you seem to have a really deep problem with atheism existing. You need to know that’s a problem with you, not a problem with atheism.


I do not have any belief in any kinds of god(dess)(es).

 

[DBT]

Social and religious conditioning burrows deep.

 

[hyzer]

Hats off to Rhea for working so hard in this thread to make the conversation worthwhile. I think that I've been here about the same length of time and while the number of threads about the definition of atheism have dropped off over the years, they tend to be very frustrating and while I read them, I don't post much in them, mostly because I really detest argument by dictionary or argument by claiming to know what is in the heart/mind of the atheists here more than they do. Every single person here who identifies as an atheist has a back story and every single one of them has, as I have learned, come to their atheism for very considered reasons.

Once in a previous thread, a Christian, accused me of "shutting the door to God". I responded that based on the totality of my personal experiences, reading, studying, debates, and observations of those that believe in their own God, that I am completely comfortable stating that I am an atheist*, that I don't believe in any supernatural gods, and further I acknowledged that my belief is not proof or necessarily definitive. And finally, I added: "You are right, I have closed the door to your concept of God and to all concepts of a supernatural being interacting with nature. But it is a door after all, and if a god-being did show up and knocked on the door in a scientifically testable way, then I would have to reconsider my atheism."

*I will note with deep deep frustration that I rarely openly state my atheism publicly as I have been secretly and overtly ostracized for my position.

 

[Jarhyn]

OP Question: “Are there any True Atheists”?
Unanimous answer, with proven examples: “Yes.”

There’s your logic.

I'm willing to concede that there are at least some true atheists who completely lack theistic beliefs, but the word of some obviously biased anonymous people on an internet forum who say they are "totally atheistic" isn't what I would call proof or logic. What's been asserted on this thread against the possibility of atheist-theist hybrids has been very dogmatic and even involves the rejection of scientific evidence to the contrary (e.g. cognitive dissonance as a means by which a person believes in God and disbelieves in God).

Has anybody else here noted the irony of professed atheists acting like theists to prove that atheists aren't theists?

Anyway, what are compelling reasons to conclude that some people have no belief at all in any Gods? Some people may not be able to believe in God due to cognitive limitations like brain damage. (And I am tempted to offer some real-life examples!) Others may simply have never been exposed to the idea of a deity and therefore never seriously entertained the idea.

I gave you exactly the proof you offered,.of someone with zero beliefs in God.

I'd cite the general tenor of those on this thread who cannot tolerate the idea of an atheist believing in God.

Oh, gosh, I know what you mean! It’s like the irony of those who cannot tolerate the idea of a circle having corners. CRAZY, innit?

People can think of circles with four corners. You just did so.

And to you that means I “believe in them”?
By the way I did not imagine a circle with 4 corners.
I imagined the DEFINITION OF A CIRCLE and juxtaposed it with something that does not reside in its definition (a single corner, or 40,) to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to assert that adding a modifier that breaks the definition is coherent.

Because that’’s not how words work.

Atheism was definied long before you came on the scene.
And it means without a belief in god(dess)(es). Lacking belief.

And you have in this thread met people who lack a belief in god(dess)(es), which answers your original question.

Yes, I exist.

Yeah I don't get what's so hard about this. Contradictory statements exist, but this is not an acknowledgement that the contradictions that have been stated are capable of existing as the contradiction describes.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier

I don't believe in gods but I am not going to call myself atheist. So what?

A basic principle in western liberal democracies is the right of self determination. Make a up a name for yourself. As the saying goes if yio get someone to align with you, you have a movement.

I think all of us non theists around hear support your right to believe and say what you want. You are not likely to offend anyone here.

How about secular?

1. denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
"secular buildings"
2. Christian Church
(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

Synonyms for atheist

ATHEIST Synonyms: 8 Synonyms & Antonyms for ATHEIST | Thesaurus.com

Find 8 ways to say ATHEIST, along with antonyms, related words, and example sentences at Thesaurus.com, the world's most trusted free thesaurus.

www.thesaurus.com

agnostic
doubting Thomas
skeptic
unbeliever
heathen
infidel
irreligionist

Heathen and irreligionist sound way cool, especially at parties. irreligionist has n air of coolness.

irreligious
indifferent or hostile to religion, or having no religious beliefs.
"an irreligious world"
heathen
a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.
"my brother and I were raised, as my grandma puts it, as heathens"

Soldier The Heathen has a ring to it.

 

[TomC]

I think all of us non theists around hear support your right to believe and say what you want.

This is so important. The term "non theist" in particular. I like it because it's suitably vague. So it describes a huge range of human thought and worldviews.

If someone wants more details about another person's thoughts and views it is easy enough to ask. But asking is the only way to learn about an individual, because nearly none of the words, concepts, or definitions can really describe a thoughtful and nuanced view.
Tom

 

[EricH]

For example, we've seen on this thread the definition that atheism means lack of belief in God. That definition rules out my position that atheists can possibly believe in God.

If a person believes in god, by definition, they are not an atheist. Most people here appear to understand what the word atheist means, and how they define their own position in the matter of their personal lack of belief in god, but you seem determined to not listen to them and run with the script playing in your own head. A script that is apparently based in an alternate reality where up means down and atheist means theist.

In other words, my opponents attempt to win the debate with a definition that makes their position true!

There is no winning a debate in which one party refuses to accept commonly accepted definitions of words.

I've already conceded that "pure" atheists can exist. I can't rule them out. But I cannot wisely accept as true the mere words of those who insist they have no beliefs in God(s) at all. I gave up believing everything I was told when I was a theist!

The fact that you choose to not believe what people keep telling you about their personal convictions speaks more about you than it does them. you appear to be using this thread as some sort of misdirected rant where you flail around and make a public scene as you try to work through your own complex on this subject. I would suggest getting professional help to work through this complex. While this forum might be free, people here are not professional therapists, and are probably not looking at your posts as a therapist would in a one-on-one counseling session.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

For example, we've seen on this thread the definition that atheism means lack of belief in God. That definition rules out my position that atheists can possibly believe in God.

If a person believes in god, by definition, they are not an atheist.

If you choose to define an atheist as a person who does not believe in God, then you arrive at your preconceived destination. Ruling out other definitions ensures that you get to where you want to go.

Most people here appear to understand what the word atheist means, and how they define their own position in the matter of their personal lack of belief in god, but you seem determined to not listen to them and run with the script playing in your own head. A script that is apparently based in an alternate reality where up means down and atheist means theist.

But why don't you accuse those who disagree with me of doing the same? You could just as easily assert that they don't define atheism properly and that they have scripts based in "alternate realities."

In other words, my opponents attempt to win the debate with a definition that makes their position true!

There is no winning a debate in which one party refuses to accept commonly accepted definitions of words.

But there is more than one commonly accepted definition of atheism as I have documented on this thread. You are oversimplifying. I say keep an open mind and be willing to accept disagreement. I had enough of narrow, dogmatic, exclusionary thinking when I was a theist, and it's no more acceptable to me when it comes from atheists.

I've already conceded that "pure" atheists can exist. I can't rule them out. But I cannot wisely accept as true the mere words of those who insist they have no beliefs in God(s) at all. I gave up believing everything I was told when I was a theist!

The fact that you choose to not believe what people keep telling you about their personal convictions...

I made no such choice. I don't have all the facts regarding what I was told, so for now I reserve judgment.

speaks more about you than it does them.

Why am I an issue here? You're engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

you appear to be using this thread as some sort of misdirected rant where you flail around and make a public scene as you try to work through your own complex on this subject.

If you don't like the thread, or you don't like me, then you can leave the thread any time. Just don't ruin it for others.

I would suggest getting professional help to work through this complex.

I see doctors as needed, and I work diligently to maintain my health. After all, if I don't do so, then who else will inject some reason into an otherwise unreasonable forum?

While this forum might be free, people here are not professional therapists, and are probably not looking at your posts as a therapist would in a one-on-one counseling session.

They appear to me to be working hard to hold on to their pet ideas and finding ways to eliminate all doubters.

Which takes us full circle: Theists do that too when their beliefs are being scrutinized.

 

[TomC]

They appear to me to be working hard to hold on to their pet ideas and finding ways to eliminate all doubters.

Speaking for myself, that looks a lot more like you.

Near everyone else has been quite clear about their own personal views. Eliminating doubters just doesn't register as important to us.

You started this thread and have dodged and squirmed and resorted to the dictionary, rather than recognize that there are lots of us atheists.

And we don't really care much what you think. We're mostly just humoring you, the OP. Denigrating us isn't likely to get us to choose new answers that you'd prefer to hear.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Given that he already conceded, I am not even sure what the point of the thread is anymore. Except maybe to say "Nyaaa."

 

[Shadowy Man]

For example, we've seen on this thread the definition that atheism means lack of belief in God. That definition rules out my position that atheists can possibly believe in God.

If a person believes in god, by definition, they are not an atheist.

If you choose to define an atheist as a person who does not believe in God, then you arrive at your preconceived destination. Ruling out other definitions ensures that you get to where you want to go.

if we want to be understood when we speak to others with a minimum of confusion we should keep our definitions as exact as possible. Considering other definitions to a word that pretty much everyone here agrees has a specific meaning will only make mutual understanding less likely, as evidenced in this thread.

I really don’t understand the comment that “choosing” a definition for a word that reflects the actual understanding of the meaning of the word by the people using the word is somehow a logical fallacy.

At this point it’s hard to give you the benefit of the doubt but if I were to I would guess that there’s some subtlety in what you’re saying that my poor reading comprehension isn’t getting. Sorry.

 

[EricH]

For example, we've seen on this thread the definition that atheism means lack of belief in God. That definition rules out my position that atheists can possibly believe in God.

If a person believes in god, by definition, they are not an atheist.

If you choose to define an atheist as a person who does not believe in God, then you arrive at your preconceived destination. Ruling out other definitions ensures that you get to where you want to go.

I think you are missing the point. Several people in this thread, including I have told you that they don't believe in a god, and that they call themselves atheists based on this lack of belief. At the end of the day, it is their worldview, their lack of belief in god that is important, not necessarily what they choose to call themselves.

Most people here appear to understand what the word atheist means, and how they define their own position in the matter of their personal lack of belief in god, but you seem determined to not listen to them and run with the script playing in your own head. A script that is apparently based in an alternate reality where up means down and atheist means theist.

But why don't you accuse those who disagree with me of doing the same? You could just as easily assert that they don't define atheism properly and that they have scripts based in "alternate realities."

I have read the thread, and what I see is a lack of communication, and I place most of the fault for this lack of communication with you. I, and others have told you that we don't believe that gods exist, but you keep insisting that they do believe, that their word is not to be trusted. You have also told us that it is appropriate for people who do believe in gods to call themselves atheists. The point of language is communication, and you don't seem to be good at it. That is my observation.

In other words, my opponents attempt to win the debate with a definition that makes their position true!

There is no winning a debate in which one party refuses to accept commonly accepted definitions of words.

But there is more than one commonly accepted definition of atheism as I have documented on this thread. You are oversimplifying. I say keep an open mind and be willing to accept disagreement. I had enough of narrow, dogmatic, exclusionary thinking when I was a theist, and it's no more acceptable to me when it comes from atheists.

People who believe in gods do not call themselves atheists. At least that has been my experience. And people who don't believe in gods and call themselves atheists are not being dogmatic when they insist that they don't believe.

I've already conceded that "pure" atheists can exist. I can't rule them out. But I cannot wisely accept as true the mere words of those who insist they have no beliefs in God(s) at all. I gave up believing everything I was told when I was a theist!

The fact that you choose to not believe what people keep telling you about their personal convictions...

I made no such choice. I don't have all the facts regarding what I was told, so for now I reserve judgment.

You have made a choice. You have chosen to believe that many of the people telling you that they don't believe in gods may be lying. And I suggest that says more about your state of mind than those you choose not to believe.

speaks more about you than it does them.

Why am I an issue here? You're engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

you appear to be using this thread as some sort of misdirected rant where you flail around and make a public scene as you try to work through your own complex on this subject.

If you don't like the thread, or you don't like me, then you can leave the thread any time. Just don't ruin it for others.

I would suggest getting professional help to work through this complex.

I see doctors as needed, and I work diligently to maintain my health. After all, if I don't do so, then who else will inject some reason into an otherwise unreasonable forum?

While this forum might be free, people here are not professional therapists, and are probably not looking at your posts as a therapist would in a one-on-one counseling session.

They appear to me to be working hard to hold on to their pet ideas and finding ways to eliminate all doubters.

Which takes us full circle: Theists do that too when their beliefs are being scrutinized.

Telling a self-professed atheist that he may be lying and that he is being dogmatic simply because he insists that the statement is true is not scrutiny, its just a way to be contrary and call people liars. Especially when multiple people are telling you the same thing. Like I said, a plain reading of this thread has led me to believe that you are conflicted about your own worldview, and keep projecting this conflict on to others. It is also possible that you are being contrary for the fun of it - I can't say for sure.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They appear to me to be working hard to hold on to their pet ideas and finding ways to eliminate all doubters.

Speaking for myself, that looks a lot more like you.

Get that ad hominem fallacy in there, Tom! Your post just isn't complete without a logical error.

Near everyone else has been quite clear about their own personal views.

Yes. I've read their posts. Have you read mine? If so, are my posts any less clear than their posts?

Eliminating doubters just doesn't register as important to us.

Uh, OK. Then I'm left wondering why everybody here keeps trying to eliminate me. It appears that the idea of theism in an atheist is a very unsettling and unacceptable idea to the atheists here. It's very reminiscent of theists angrily denying that they really don't believe their doctrines.

You started this thread...

That is my sin.

...and have dodged and squirmed and resorted to the dictionary...

A heretical text. Beware information!

...rather than recognize that there are lots of us atheists.

I surely do recognize the large number of atheists here.

And we don't really care much what you think.

Then I'll make sure to let you all know what I think.

We're mostly just humoring you, the OP.

It's working. Your posts are laughably bad.

Denigrating us isn't likely to get us to choose new answers that you'd prefer to hear.
Tom

Feeling denigrated should have no bearing on the truth.

So if we may actually get back to the topic now that you've gotten out your frustrations on me, I should point out that this post of yours is great evidence that avowed atheists do have some theism in them. It differs only from the reactions I get from theists in the terms used. There is a God of atheism whose sacred word is only denied upon the pain of the IIDB inquisition.