"Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You may as well call the sperm in my left testicle atheist while that which rests in my right is the theist!

Personally, I would use the term bollocks to describe that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You may as well call the sperm in my left testicle atheist while that which rests in my right is the theist!

What about the sperm that is neither in your right or left testicle?

Originally posted by Penguin
I have just been looking up the definition of the 'a' prefix. In all the sites I have gone to it is defined (in the context of words like amoral, aseptic, abiotic, asexual, atrophy, atheist, apolitical) as simply 'not' or 'without'.

http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/ ...[text shortened]... like. But the fact remains that the term does describe both of those positions.

--- Penguin.

Curious you would search for the meaning of the prefix a, stop when it appeared to support this new definition and yet failed to look at the most readily-available definitions for the word itself. I suppose you had your reasons.

And this is also the meaning understood by the majority of people who use it and that RWingett, GoogleFudge, et al are using.
If this were true, we would expect to see the word described as such in the dictionary, since the dictionary is the source which defines words based on their common usage--- which we've covered, as you are aware.
But we don't see anything remotely like the definition used by RWingett and googlefudge.
The majority of people understand atheism to convey a rejection of the notion of the divine.
That rejection requires consideration, requires thought.

Here's a thought for you.
Why did we use the prefix a instead of the prefix un since un denotes not, remove, opposite?

The atheists herein want us to think they are simply lacking a belief.
It's a posturing that just makes their position look like so much silliness.
They don't like thinking in terms of rejection as though they're embarrassed to admit they even thought on the topic.
They want to pretend the topic of the divine is not universal, that it hasn't been woven into the fabric of man's existence, that it isn't the eternal question on man's mind.
Quite simply, they simply want to answer 'no' before the question is posed.

Originally posted by rwingett
I am attempting to define atheism exactly as it is - as non-theism. Everyone who is not a theist is, by default, an atheist. I have no motives beyond clarifying the word definition. You, on the other hand, helplessly flail against my definition precisely because you impute more to my motives than is warranted. Your intransigence is rooted in politics, not semantics.

If there are politics involved, I fail to see them.
My correction of your woefully incorrect definition of the term is nothing more than correction.
If anything, you are eroding the idea that atheism has considered the topic and formulated a reasoned response.
Atheism requires thought.
It is not the thought before the thought.
It is the thought that has considered the concept and made a decision to reject the concept.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there are politics involved, I fail to see them.
My correction of your woefully incorrect definition of the term is nothing more than correction.
If anything, you are eroding the idea that atheism has considered the topic and formulated a reasoned response.
Atheism requires thought.
It is not the thought before the thought.
It is the thought that has considered the concept and made a decision to reject the concept.

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Again. Explicit atheism requires thought. Implicit atheism does not. It is a default state.

Since you obviously won't take my word for it, I encourage you to spend some time at Wikipedia's article on atheism.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Would you like to try again, but not in gibberish this time?

Try doing it 'without' your 'personal style' and see how it turns out.

Originally posted by Penguin
I have just been looking up the definition of the 'a' prefix. In all the sites I have gone to it is defined (in the context of words like amoral, aseptic, abiotic, asexual, atrophy, atheist, apolitical) as simply 'not' or 'without'.

http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm
http://www.macroevolution.net/biology-prefixes-a.html#.UtfKXPvmyzg
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_prefix_a_mean?#slide=4

And this is also the meaning understood by the majority of people who use it and that RWingett, GoogleFudge, et al are using.

I did find one site that could possibly include GB's interpretation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a has it meaning Not; Without or Opposite To. But really, the opposite of 'having belief in a deity' is simply not having a belief in a deity. Newborns still count.

Grampy Bobby is effectively saying that the word 'fruit' means 'apple' and telling us we are wrong to say that pears are also fruit.

I think the issue is that theists do not like the fact that the term 'atheist' encompasses not only the default position of newborns, but also the stronger position of people like Dawkins and Hitchins, the anti-theists, if you like. But the fact remains that the term does describe both of those positions.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Semantic quibbling over ~the 'a' prefix~ is by no means a dead end; it's a closed loop going nowhere which is a place no one wishes or needs to go. Net: an individual 'not' having a personal relationship with or 'without' a personal relationship with God is in this unfortunate dilemma by choice; and will be separated from God and unable to share His Perfect Happiness for e t e r n i t y. The sententious observation of another atheist who changed his mind about the reality of God and the desirability of knowing Him would have attitude and bite for me if I was an avowed atheist: "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -Clive S. Lewis

Originally posted by googlefudge
Would you like to try again, but not in gibberish this time?

Try doing it 'without' your 'personal style' and see how it turns out.
___________________________________

Would you like GB to matriculate at the "One Size Fits All googlefudge Institute for The Language Challenged"?

Originally posted by rwingett
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Again. Explicit atheism requires thought. Implicit atheism does not. It is a default state.

Since you obviously won't take my word for it, I encourage you to spend some time at Wikipedia's article on atheism.

Since you obviously won't take my word for it, I encourage you to spend some time at Wikipedia's article on atheism.
Good God, you guys are incredible.
It's literally like shooting fish in a barrel with a double-barrel shotgun.
Here's your source--- at the very opening of the page:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

It's only when you get into the esoteric nuances of atheism--- which is far removed from the common usage and understanding of the term--- that you can find the mystery doctrines of implicit and explicit atheism. George Smith in 1979 coins implicit atheism... and the rest of the world lets forth a disinterested yawn.

It ain't necessarily so...

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The preservation of the universe and the earth (including plant life, animal life, stability of the environment, components of the atmosphere and the human race itself depends entirely on the veracity, omnipotence and immutability of the incomparable Jesus Christ

You must have a breezy, easygoing definition of "stability of the environment" in your mind! Take a look at this brief article on the Toba eruption of 70,000 years ago, an event I imagine you are familiar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Since you obviously won't take my word for it, I encourage you to spend some time at Wikipedia's article on atheism.
Good God, you guys are incredible.
It's literally like shooting fish in a barrel with a double-barrel shotgun.
Here's your source--- at the very opening of the page:
[quote]
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief i ...[text shortened]... eism... and the rest of the world lets forth a disinterested yawn.

It ain't necessarily so...[/b]

I never said the Wikipedia article wholly endorsed my interpretation. It does acknowledge that there are some misguided fools who prefer the narrowest definition, like yourself. But it does give a fair amount of time to the broader definition as well. Assuming, of course, that you have the stamina to make it past the introduction.

The George Smith book is the seminal work on atheism. I have a copy. I would suggest you get one as well. You might learn something.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
You must have a breezy, easygoing definition of "stability of the environment" in your mind! Take a look at this brief article on the Toba eruption of 70,000 years ago, an event I imagine you are familiar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
One of the OP's questions mentions endangered species.

It has been estimated that 99.9% of all species that have lived on Earth are now extinct.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/999-of-all-species-have-gone-extinct.html

Does that number suggest a loving deity carefully watching over Creation? Do you agree that most of those extinctions happened before there were any Homo sapiens, such that most extinctions cannot be blamed on us? If the blame is not on us, who is it on?
_________________________________________

8. "In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?" (OP)

> Paul, since you appreciate irreducible simplicity: yes; yes; and nobody [it's not a blame game]. The preservation of the universe and the earth (including plant life, animal life, stability of the environment, components of the atmosphere and the human race itself depends entirely on the veracity, omnipotence and immutability of the incomparable Jesus Christ:

"13. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20. and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. 21. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22. yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach- 23. if indeed you continue in [ad]the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister." (1 Colossians 1; 13-23)

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2. in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4. having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they." (Hebrews 1: 1-4)

> The reason for His preservation of the universe is to resolve the pre-historic angelic conflict in human history. "9. But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. 10. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. 11. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Hebrews 2: 9-10) New American Standard Bible
______________________________________________

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
You must have a breezy, easygoing definition of "stability of the environment" in your mind! Take a look at this brief article on the Toba eruption of 70,000 years ago, an event I imagine you are familiar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
____________________________________________

Yes, I've read of "the Toba eruption" along with numerous other occurrences of extreme weather over the decades. There are no freak accidents of nature or unusual temperature fluctuations, etc. "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." Hebrews 1:3a. Sleep well; He's in control.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
There are no freak accidents of nature... Sleep well; He's in control.

I wonder if the 24 campers buried by the Madison River landslide would have thought the way you do as they were being killed by nature.

http://formontana.net/landslide.html

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I wonder if the 24 campers buried by the Madison River landslide would have thought the way you do as they were being killed by nature.

http://formontana.net/landslide.html

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I wonder if the 24 campers buried by the Madison River landslide would have thought the way you do as they were being killed by nature.

http://formontana.net/landslide.html

Those campers who had believed in Christ are in an interim body face to face with Him; those who rejected the grace gift of eternal life His work made possible began suffering alone in a compartment of Hades awaiting the Great White Throne Judgment at the conclusion of Christ's Second Advent Reign on earth during the Millennium and then eternity in the Lake of Fire. They won't be judged for their sins no matter how heinous but for their good works. All human good/self righteousness equals 0.0000000000 on the Scale of Divine Righteousness. Divine Righteousness is positionally imputed to each human being's account at the moment of faith alone in Christ alone. To be a member of His Royal Family, an individual must have a righteousness equal to His. Christianity is a family relationship freely offered; religion is man by man's efforts trying to gain the attention and approbation of God. In religion, man wants to do something... to take credit instead of accepting a gift.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Those campers who had believed in Christ are in an interim body face to face with Him

If they had prayed an hour before that the Lord would keep them safe through the night, do you think He would have diverted the landslide so that it only killed the non-believers? Or is prayer not reliable in that way?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II

If they had prayed an hour before that the Lord would keep them safe through the night, do you think He would have diverted the landslide so that it only killed the non-believers? Or is prayer not reliable in that way?

Total Presumption to ever tell God what to do or how to do it or when. He's already aware of your need and of the role the landslide is designed to play in His Perfect Plan. Correct prayer: "Father, grace me out to remain calm and alert under the pressure of this impending adversity. Comfort my family and the others facing into this almost certain disaster with us. Deliver us from this hopeless situation from which I see no way out if it be your will. In Christ's Name I pray. Amen."

Anecdote: Early Friday morning, December 10, 2010, I got out of bed to shave and shower but after one step crumpled to floor of my bedroom paralyzed from hip to knee. Within twenty minutes the ambulance arrived; on the way to a private hospital nearby I inaudibly prayed the equivalent of that prayer. No stroke or seizure or impact injury. I had been active all summer, swimming morning and night; playing competitive Ping Pong Doubles, Team Volley Ball and working out in the well equipped gym. A dozen doctors performed all diagnostics options in their collective repertoire..... and, after ten days, apologized to me bedside for their inability to determine the cause of the instantaneous paralysis or its prognosis.

For the next sixteen months my home was a First Class Rehab and Medical Care Facility. By February, 2011, catheterized and unable to feed or bathe myself, weight dropped from 210 to 149 lbs. I'm 6'. My son (whose birthday is today) and his wife booked a flight to be with a dying man for the last time. The taste of the Pepperoni Pizza Eric ordered that Saturday night I still remember, even though I could tolerate only a few bites. The daily regimen was progressively strenuous to say the least. By early summer I was able to get up from the wheelchair and walk a few minutes with the assistance of one or two physical therapists; by autumn my weight was at 163 lbs. and I was dancing around that facility as if I owned it.

Finally, I was discharged the first week of April, 2012. Today, three years and a month since the onset, weight is 182 lbs. I'm in fighting trim with normal mobility and bodily function. Throughout the sixteen month confinement I knew with confidence that nothing could take me out of here until it was His will to take me home. My cheerfulness astounded the ambulance drivers, doctors and nurses and therapists. No credit to be taken. He had graced me out. "Thank you, Father..."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Total Presumption to ever tell God what to do or how to do it or when. He's already aware of your need and of the role the landslide is designed to play in His Perfect Plan. Correct prayer: "Father, grace me out to remain calm and alert under the pressure of this impending adversity. Comfort my family and the others facing into this almost certain disas ...[text shortened]... s and nurses and therapists. No credit to be taken. He had graced me out. "Thank you, Father..."

You were faking it for the attention. It's why you're here, too: ya wanna be noticed.

Unlike Lucy in Peanuts, I won't even charge you the nickel.