VyckRo - Questions?

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

VyckRo - I'm tired of you being able to lul and go to and fro on this forum without any accountability for anything you have said.
So, here we go. I have a few questions for you, which we will see if you get right or not. Think of this as a "Quiz" in which you will only be corrected once, and afterwards everyone has a fun topic to link to in case you magically forget!

I would much appreciate it if this was a mono-nu-mono ordeal. It would keep the confusion to a minimum.

So, please:

1) What is atheism?

2) What is the difference between a "hard" atheist (gnostic atheist) and a "soft" atheist (agnostic atheist)?

3) Does atheism have a core doctrine that is comparable to world religions? If so, please link to it with your answer.

4) Do all atheists agree with each other in regards to how religion should be handled?

5) What is the difference between Atheism and Religion?

Good luck!

 

[bluejatheist]

VyckRo - I'm tired of you being able to lul and go to and fro on this forum without any accountability for anything you have said.
So, here we go. I have a few questions for you, which we will see if you get right or not. Think of this as a "Quiz" in which you will only be corrected once, and afterwards everyone has a fun topic to link to in case you magically forget!

I would much appreciate it if this was a mono-nu-mono ordeal. It would keep the confusion to a minimum.

So, please:

1) What is atheism?

2) What is the difference between a "hard" atheist (gnostic atheist) and a "soft" atheist (agnostic atheist)?

3) Does atheism have a core doctrine that is comparable to world religions? If so, please link to it with your answer.

4) Do all atheists agree with each other in regards to how religion should be handled?

5) What is the difference between Atheism and Religion?

Good luck!

I'm sorry but, knowning Vyckro,

 

[VyckRo]

Let's take them one by one

1) What is atheism?

The word consists of two parts
A+theo where A is a negation, and theo the greek word for God, that was adopted by the Christian church, (as did the Jews with: Yahweh, Yahoweh, Iehova.) Teo (Θεο) was used for two thousand years to describes the God of the Bible.

For example Virgin Mary, she is called, Theotokos ( Θεοτόκος ) = Mother of God-Jesus.
New what are atheists? Theoretical atheist is one who do not recognize Teo (Θεο) as God!
-----
In contemporary terminology, atheist are persons who believe that there is no God.
Because atheists do not want to face the problem of "demonstrating a negative", that they consider it "impossible", they appeal to sophistry and special pleading. They try to present atheism as a "lack of belief", that is a philosophical mental masturbation.
There is nothing wrong in saying I believe in this until the opposite will be demonstrate, but not for atheists, they are too arrogant, to admit a possible error.
Their "lack of belief" is obviously a special pleading, and can not be applied in any other field.
more their attitude, to always and necessarily insult, humiliate, offend those who have the courage, to do not declare themselves atheists, clearly indicates that they believe that God do not exist. ( if for example, a child would boast, his father is the strongest bodybuilder and fighter, would you risk it to humiliates and insult him and his father by having only a "lack of belief" and not a "negative belief" that his father exist?

 

[australopithecus]

A lack of belief cannot be applied in any other field? Somebody call science, tell them the null hypothesis was just somebody's daydream! Medicine is going to be so pissed...

 

[VyckRo]

A lack of belief cannot be applied in any other field? Somebody call science, tell them the null hypothesis was just somebody's daydream! Medicine is going to be so pissed...

Therefore atheists argue that there is NO GOD?

my source:
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

And thus, VyckRo has demonstrated:

1.- Ignorance regarding what the word "atheism" means.
2.- Will to twist meanings to help his little tiny view of the evil atheists.
3.- A stereotype for atheists that he refuses to let go.


A lack of belief can be applied to any possible positive statement about anything.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Alright, Vyck.

I am a Pagan. I do not believe that your God exists.
Am I an Atheist, or a Pagan?

And, likewise, you deny that my set of Gods exist.
Are you an Atheist? Or are you a Christian?

 

[scalyblue]

 

[australopithecus]

A lack of belief cannot be applied in any other field? Somebody call science, tell them the null hypothesis was just somebody's daydream! Medicine is going to be so pissed...

Therefore atheists argue that there is NO GOD?

my source:
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis

Congratulations, you've missed the point. Again.

 

[Laurens]

In contemporary terminology, atheist are persons who believe that there is no God.

Hmmm well I'm an atheist and I don't believe that there is no God.

How does that fit into your scheme of things?

 

[ClockworkFox]

In contemporary terminology, atheist are persons who believe that there is no God.

Do you have anything to support that claim? If so, would you be so kind as to present it? Also, just to be clear, even if that is indeed the contemporary usage by most people, it still has no relevance to what atheists actually believe, so arguing based on the word's definition instead of a person's position is pointless.

 

[Dean]

VyckRo

["¦] The word consists of two parts
A+theo where A is a negation, and theo the greek word for God, that was adopted by the Christian church, (as did the Jews with: Yahweh, Yahoweh, Iehova.) Teo (Θεο) was used for two thousand years to describes the God of the Bible.

For example Virgin Mary, she is called, Theotokos ( Θεοτόκος ) = Mother of God-Jesus.
New what are atheists? Theoretical atheist is one who do not recognize Teo (Θεο) as God!
-----
In contemporary terminology, atheist are persons who believe that there is no God.
Because atheists do not want to face the problem of "demonstrating a negative", that they consider it "impossible", they appeal to sophistry and special pleading. They try to present atheism as a "lack of belief", that is a philosophical mental masturbation.
There is nothing wrong in saying I believe in this until the opposite will be demonstrate, but not for atheists, they are too arrogant, to admit a possible error.
Their "lack of belief" is obviously a special pleading, and can not be applied in any other field.
more their attitude, to always and necessarily insult, humiliate, offend those who have the courage, to do not declare themselves atheists, clearly indicates that they believe that God do not exist. ( if for example, a child would boast, his father is the strongest bodybuilder and fighter, would you risk it to humiliates and insult him and his father by having only a "lack of belief" and not a "negative belief" that his father exist?

Sigh.

No.

• a,·the,·ism/ˈāTHÄ“ËŒizÉ™m/
  1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
  2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The word has a range of two possible meanings. A-the-ist: can only mean A. A person who believes that there is no God, or B. A person who disbelieves that there is a god.

And )O( Hytegia )O(. you faill into neither one of them. I acknowledge that it is possible for atheism to have ideological consequences, at least theoretically, but VyckRo's own definition is rather contorted, and his phraseology is rather strange. From his grammatical errors, I have to assume that English is not his first language, but it does make it rather difficult to discern the meaning, because your (VyckRo) posts are vague and badly phrased much of the time, I fear.

And "lack of belief" just means that god(s) do not feature among the things an atheist under this definition believes to exist.

This is more of a fool's errand. VyckRo's post reminded me of what was said by TogetherForPeace, a.k.a. Jack, who , if you don't already know , is a member of the ever-disintegrating theoLOLgical community on YouTube. Sadly, he has set almost all of his old videos to private, but this response-vid to him (from PaulsEgo) may be of help:

• A LOLgical Burden
  

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Dean -

English is my first language. In fact, besides a few hit-on lines in several other languages, it's my only language.
You just don't seem to grasp the point of using someone's bullshit definition against them.

IF what VyckRo said was the correct definition, THEN that would place anyone in my situation to be in quite the limbo.

I have been properly schooled in the English Language, and I do know what Atheism means. Since you seem to be unable to grasp basic reading comprehension as to why someone is writing in a certain way as a response that seems uncanny, I'm not so sure that English is your first language either.

 

[Dean]

Dean -

English is my first language. In fact, besides a few hit-on lines in several other languages, it's my only language.
You just don't seem to grasp the point of using someone's bullshit definition against them.

IF what VyckRo said was the correct definition, THEN that would place anyone in my situation to be in quite the limbo.

I have been properly schooled in the English Language, and I do know what Atheism means. Since you seem to be unable to grasp basic reading comprehension as to why someone is writing in a certain way as a response that seems uncanny, I'm not so sure that English is your first language either.

Oh god. I'm sorry. I was referring to VyckRo, not you. I've edited that accordingly. I can see how my post might have been taken that way. but on the whole, my post was addressed to VyckRo, and not you. I only mentioned you to establish that you are not an "atheist" under this definition, since you've said that you are unsure of this. I wasn't accusing you of using English improperly.

If you will excuse that rather embarrassing error (admittedly ) then I can address one or two of your points ...

• "You just don't seem to grasp the point of using someone's bullshit definition against them."

Correct. I don't grasp that concept at all. You began this topic intended for VyckRo to provide answers to some questions you articulated, which he often fails to properly answer. And as I said, very little of what he says is clear. And by "clear", I don't just mean simple. I felt that his definition of "atheism" as the belief that no god(s) exist needed to be challenged, because it's not exactly true. Atheism has two meanings, as I understand it, e.g. the ones I listed. Now: you have identified as a Pagan in this topic as well, and on other discussions of this topic.

So as I understand it, you don't fit either one of those categories. I wasn't attempting to patronize you for "not understanding" what atheism means. I was pointing out the flaws in VyckRo's conception of it, of which there are many, as he has displayed both in this, and other threads. I'm sure you acknowledge the statement that I made perfectly well.

• "IF what VyckRo said was the correct definition, THEN that would place anyone in my situation to be in quite the limbo."

Indeed. But as you rightly pointed out, I don''t understand that mode of discussion. His definition is wrong. So why "If"? Perhaps I'm still not understanding you correctly, and if so, feel free to explain that to me.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Under VyckRo's definition, I would be an Atheist Pagan.

In fact, any person who's not exclusively from the Abrahamic Faiths are now Atheists.

 

[Dean]

Under VyckRo's definition, I would be an Atheist Pagan.

In fact, any person who's not exclusively from the Abrahamic Faiths are now Atheists.

Heh. Sounds like something a little older ...

Because, as it happens; centuries and millennia ago (probably not even that far), the word "atheist" didn't even mean anything to do with god(s) per se. It was used predominantly in older religions as a means of labelling people who may or may not have believed in gods, just not their particular gods. E.g. in Rome the Christians were branded "atheist" because they did not worship their gods.

Sort of weird "throw-back" don't you think? Hell, there's a lot of people even in countries like America today, who , upon hearing the word "atheist" , sometimes associate it with other stances that are completely different, e.g. Satanism is probably a very common one, I would wager. But the term "Atheist Pagan" is indeed, quite an oxymoron. Atheists are not Pagan, and Pagans are not atheists.

It might also be worth noting that "paganism" is a very, very broad term of course, because in it's historical sense at least, it refers to any indigenous religious traditions, with polytheistic premises. Just a few examples: The Ancient Greeks, Mayans, Romans, and Egyptians. And "neo"-paganism (i.e. present day) is just as diverse, I would imagine, but you know far more about that than I. All you can really say is that if you worship one or more gods, then you are at least some type of theist, e.g. since there is no such thing as a theist who doesn't believe in at least one god, and probably several, in your case.

"Non-Abrahamic = Atheist", sounds like a 19th century pejorative use of the word 'atheist'. For example, Thomas Eddison was called an "atheist" for his remarks surrounding what he described continuously as the "gods of religions". And he was called an atheist, but only in a pejorative sense. Not as an actual description of anything, really.

VyckRo: Do you concur with how I defined "atheist" in my earlier post?

 

[VyckRo]

Under VyckRo's definition, I would be an Atheist Pagan.

In fact, any person who's not exclusively from the Abrahamic Faiths are now Atheists.

In reality we speak of two definitions, none of them is "new".

1. theological definition - in accordance with it, Atheist is anyone who does not believe in the God of the Bible. I already explained what -Teo- is in Greek. I am not interested here, in the English word "theist" because it is a word that it recently appeared, and does not define ancient Greek.

2.modern definition - the person who denies the existence of God gods, and other elements of divine or supernatural. Today atheist, at the same time deny any attempt to legitimize theism.

From antiquity to modern times, all those, philosophers skeptics that today are cited as "atheist" did not denied the gods, but there mixture whit the world and people's lives.
some examples:
Xenophanes, Democritus, Prodikos, Heraclit, Euheneros, Kitias, Protagoras, Epicur, Lukian,

Heraclit,:
"This world that is the same for all, was not made ​​by any of the gods, it has always existed"

PS.
People who do not know or are unsure, enter in another category

 

[australopithecus]

So now you're redefining and cherry picking definitions of words in order to define anyone who doesn't share you faith an atheist, regardless of whether or not they believe in other gods?

Desperation, thy name is VyckRo.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

1) Is there any Atheist in this thread that believes that my vague entities annoted as "Gods" do not exist in terms of denial of their existance? This is a Yes or No question.

I'm sure you've all read my thread that I made when I first got here, so you have a splendid idea of what my current worldview is to know what you're addressing in terms of supernatural entities.

2) If YES then do you think that this is a personal position, or it is an inherit ideal of Atheism?
If NO then why do you hold this position?

For Vyck:
Oh, no questions right now. Let's just ask the Atheists what they believe or don't believe instead of telling them what they believe or don't believe, shall we?
:lol:

 

[VyckRo]

• A LOLgical Burden
  

"lack of belief"
It is a word that apparently works only in English,
faith can be a verb - something that I do.
faith can be a adverb - characteristics I'm a believer
Now how you can have a lack of a verb / adverb ?

I have a lack of I am walking down the street
I have a lack of I have brown hair

Obviously atheists fear the burden of proof, but this is not my problem. Atheist say that as would be my problem!
"I can not deny the existence of God because because I can not prove a negative" okkkkk so ... do not be an A-Theist then!! simple :lol: :lol: :lol:
And from where this story? that you can not prove a negative? all you have to do is to prove that it is logically impossible or self contradictory as a moving stopped meteorite.

invisible pink unicorn

An object can not be invisible and colored at the same time!
see? is simple