Positive proof?

[Forty Two]

they've ventured far beyond the pale when they decided to add their own scriptures to the body of belief

Um, half the Pauline epistles were written after Paul's death.

[Svartalf]

Catholics were there before proties, they set the standard for the wider umbrella (with the Orthodox and Ethiopians who are roughly as old and have yet more books)

[Hermit]

I put chretinity at the fixation of the modern Catholic babble... proties choose to use less, but no additions allowed
what you're pointing out is that primitive chretinity was a different kettle of fish

What you call primitive Christianity is actually original Christianity. And that has been added to.

[Svartalf]

Original christianity did not dominate the West, Modern, as in medieval catholicism, christianity did that.

[Seth]

I was not aware that he was whining about it.

Anyone who condemns people to an intinity of burny torture for not believing in them is a pretty whiny cunt in my book.

And you know that this is what God does how, exactly? You are once again falling into the Atheist's Fallacy line of reasoning.

But you're sort of right. You're not aware he is whining about it. Or anything else about him for that matter. Just like, seemingly, every other cunt.

And your rigorous scientific evidence showing that no other "cunt" knows anything about god is...??

[Seth]

Interesting that the most rapidly growing system of religious belief is atheism. I guess humanity is finally growing up.

Of the various systems of religious belief out there, Atheism is one of the least rational ones in my opinion.

Oh! The one which doesn't make grandiose claims about gods and what they want and desire from us is the least rational one?

I guess this shows exactly how worthless your opinion is.

Except that Atheists do in fact make grandiose claims about gods and what they want and desire from us. Every time they criticize some theist's doctrinal beliefs and/or writings they are making the grandiose claim that those beliefs and/or writings are false...without a single shred of objective scientific evidence that what they claim is true. The reason that they are less rational than theists is because Atheist doctrine insists that they have superior abilities of reason and logic that allow them to see the "truth" about god-claims when in point of fact their religious beliefs about the non-existence of God fly squarely in the face of reason and logic because they have not a shred of the sort of evidence they demand from theists to support their assertions.

In other words, Atheists think they are smarter, more rational and more logical than theists, but they actually aren't because they cannot even recognize the fundamental failures in logic and reason they commit when they say anything other than "I don't know" in response to a theistic god-claim.

[Seth]

Atheism is not a system of religious belief.

Yes, it is. Or at least it can be and is in many cases.

However, I note that you have capitalized the term. If you would define it, such that we can know the attributes of the system of religious belief which you denote as Atheism, then we can evaluate whether we agree or disagree with you.

Small "a" atheism is certainly not a system of religious belief.

I have discussed this in detail many times, but I'll hit the high points for you. There are only two types of small-a atheists, also known as implicit atheists. These two groups are comprised of persons who have either never, in any way, been exposed to any sort of theistic concept and are thus ignorant of the meaning of the word "theism", and those who are mentally incapable of comprehending theistic concepts at all, meaning the mentally deficient and children too young to understand the concepts.

Everyone else, which is to say anyone who has been exposed to the concept of God (theism) is an "explicit atheist" or, as I define a sub-group of them, big-A Atheists, who are quite often members of the group of religious believers called Atheists because they act and argue in ways that are consistent with at least one standard definition of "religion." In most cases the applicable definition from among several is highlighted in red below, and to a lesser extent definitions 2 and 3 below.

[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

Source: religion. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion (accessed: June 23, 2015).

[Seth]

NOOOOO!!! Don't go there!!

Too late. Eat it, Atheist!

[Seth]

Atheims isn't a belief system for the exact same reasons theism isn't a belief system. There are theistic beliefs systems, and there are atheistic belief systems (like A+ fools), but neither are one thing you can point to.
Saying"atheism" is a belief system, whether you capitalise it or not, (and "theism" is never capitalised), simply doesn't make sense.

Sure it does, because the actions of the members of that class meet the standards in one of the definitions of "religion" and I have proven time and again that their assertions with respect to god-claims are in fact beliefs and systematic beliefs at that.

[Seth]

I would have thought theism is a belief system. It's a belief in something taken entirely on faith.

No it's not. Theism is a generic or umbrella term. Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are all theistic belief systems, but they are not the same thing.

Correct. One uses the lower-case when describing the umbrella term "atheism" and "theism." One uses the capitalized case when referring to a specific group or set of beliefs that fall under either umbrella term. Thus it's Christian theism, Catholic theism, Hindu theism etc., and it's Atheist atheism. We could probably divide Atheism as a religious belief system into smaller categories, such as Dawkinsian atheism or Darwinian atheism or perhaps Irrationalist atheism, but I don't really thing that's necessary at this point.

[Forty Two]

I was not aware that he was whining about it.

Anyone who condemns people to an intinity of burny torture for not believing in them is a pretty whiny cunt in my book.

And you know that this is what God does how, exactly? You are once again falling into the Atheist's Fallacy line of reasoning.

Atheists don't know that, and don't believe that. But, some Christians say that is what they know or believe God does.

But you're sort of right. You're not aware he is whining about it. Or anything else about him for that matter. Just like, seemingly, every other cunt.

And your rigorous scientific evidence showing that no other "cunt" knows anything about god is...??

There can be none, since there is no scientific evidence (rigorous or otherwise) showing that a god, or God, exists in the first place.

[Forty Two]

I would have thought theism is a belief system. It's a belief in something taken entirely on faith.

No it's not. Theism is a generic or umbrella term. Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are all theistic belief systems, but they are not the same thing.

Correct. One uses the lower-case when describing the umbrella term "atheism" and "theism." One uses the capitalized case when referring to a specific group or set of beliefs that fall under either umbrella term. Thus it's Christian theism, Catholic theism, Hindu theism etc., and it's Atheist atheism. We could probably divide Atheism as a religious belief system into smaller categories, such as Dawkinsian atheism or Darwinian atheism or perhaps Irrationalist atheism, but I don't really thing that's necessary at this point.

Which, of course, leads me back to the question of: What, in your view, is "Atheism?"

[JimC]

Fort Two wrote:

Which, of course, leads me back to the question of: What, in your view, is "Atheism?"

For Seth, the honest reply would be "a set of beliefs held by people I enjoy fighting with on the internet"

[Blind groper]

Since Seth has already admitted being a troll, Jim's comment is probably spot on.

But let me remind Seth of the original post I made. You cannot prove a negative. That is why non theists cannot prove the non existence of any deity.

But a positive proof is easy. Yet in all the years theists have been studying and researching their deity no such positive proof has ever emerged. This lack of 'proof', or even strong evidence is the reason I am an atheist.

[JimC]

Since Seth has already admitted being a troll, Jim's comment is probably spot on.

But let me remind Seth of the original post I made. You cannot prove a negative. That is why non theists cannot prove the non existence of any deity.

But a positive proof is easy. Yet in all the years theists have been studying and researching their deity no such positive proof has ever emerged. This lack of 'proof', or even strong evidence is the reason I am an atheist.

On top of that is the realisation in this modern age that nothing in the observable universe requires an explanation involving a creator god. Before Darwin, for example, it was an intellectually respectable position to argue, in the absence of any other potential explanatory mechanism for fine-tuned adaptations, that these were arranged by a clever, bio-engineering god. Post Darwin, we no longer have the need for that hypothesis...