duma

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists  atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made  an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this. There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods  making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god. Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god  if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask. Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite  a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate. Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure. There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god  and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question. Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined  so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial. As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts. As for the difference between agnostic and athiest: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

Why don't you read the link I have provided, and then ask any question that they leave unanswered? If you really want to understand, it is going to take more then a few posts. Perhaps an example will do. Suppose someone doesn't believe in Jesus, nor any god of the christian belief. However, they are not willing to say there isn't another god.... this is very much like agnostic, but they are willing to say that tehy don't believe in the Catholic religion. That is still a simple way of saying it. It is very much like I said in my original post (denial of the "local" god).

We do not agree. You should read this site: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/ I am not redefining anything; just pointing out the simplistic definition as noted. Athiesm isn't a clean cut definition that fits into four words. Just a bit of what I am talking about:

It isn't so easy to do it like that.... The problom Unclean, there is general misconseption of what a broad range of people believe or don't believe. Athiesm has been labeled from disbelief in god in general, to disbelief in the "local" god. So, while it may be easy to define it simplistically, it isn't exactly correct. While the way I say it makes agnostic and athiest sound the same, they are not. It really is a muddy pool of water. But so is the this religious idea. Simplictically, to define athiesm in about four words will work, but my point is, it isn't exactly correct.

Perhaps this is symantics, but athiest do not claim there isn't a god, just that they don't believe in one. Voltaire once said that if there isnt a god, it would be necessary to invent one. I have often thougt about that line when people start discussing the views of religions, or lack there of. So, while you take this journey of religious self debate, consider that line.

An iced coffee substance of sorts, none-the-less.

I spoke with my mom about the license issue; it is true. However, I don't care about that. I can't see what difference it makes, other then he was illegal.

Okay, the news I have been waiting for has finally arrived (well, this and that he was going to live).

I had to go to work, so my mom kept me updated all day (my co-workers love me). From NFL.com Four doctors operated on Roethlisberger for seven hours to treat multiple facial fractures and "all of the fractures were successfully repaired," Dr. Harry W. Sell, chairman of the surgery department at Mercy Hospital, told reporters. Dr. Daniel Pituch, who led the team, said Roethlisberger was in serious but stable condition, and doctors were aware of no other serious injuries. "His brain, spine, chest and abdomen appear to be without serious injury and there are no other confirmed injuries at this time," he said. The doctors said his condition was not expected to change through the evening, and that no updates were expected until June 13. They declined to release further information at his family's request. If you really want to know, Pittsburgh has two main websites that cover this and keep it updated: http://www.post-gazette.com/ http://kdka.com/

This is serious. He has a broken jaw, lost his teeth, and there are mixed reports about his head (cuts to broken). Apparently he went head first into the windshield. The doc reports that he is in "serious but stable condition." My mon said the accident scene looks really bad.

My Mom (who lives in Pittsburg), just called to tell me that Ben wrecked his motorcycle. He has been taken to the hospital and doesn't know his name, or what happened. We are all very concerned.

<Duma steps in to represent fatty> Bastard isn't a cuss word, it is an insult. The man calls himself "fatty." If you fault him for calling himself a bastard, then you have to also extend it to fatty. And then how far have we gone once we do that? If we allow ourselves to ban based on such criteria, than anyone who calls themselves something less then positive would be in trouble. Also, can't one insult the themselves? The .gc rules have nothing on such a tactic. Based on history with names, we have established that people can insult themselves, just not anyone else. I would finally like to close with mentioning that Dunlavy can't keep bringing this issue up - at least without some sanctions. <duma smacks Dunlavy's face with his glove>

I think you and 30% of you GC guys fall under this category. Go go mod power.... (sparks and sputters)... d'oh!

Welcome! Enjoy your last fee-from-work summer.

Hi, my name is Brian, but ppl call me duma. I am a CS:S addict. I just took a hit a few hours ago, and I can't wait for this meeting to be over so I can get another fix. You haxors can unistall, I'm too leet for joo.

One of my best buds shares a bday with Zester.. who knew?

Somehow I thought this had to do with me... er... yeah... GJ! College is one of the best times of your life, just don't let the classes get in the way.

And I thought that you were smarter than me. If expressed in decimal hours, he would be correct. What do I win? A pocket protector and some tape for your glasses. Really? I like the one you have, please get mine at the same place.

And I thought that you were smarter than me. If expressed in decimal hours, he would be correct. What do I win?

Sounds like a bad case of hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia.

I guess ignorance about Xmen is bliss. I enjoyed the movie. ++++Warning: SPOILER+++++++ The only thing I didnt like was the end with him advancing against the sand blasting. I thought, "if this girl is like a god, why doesn't she just smash him?" Of course my answer is as others suggested, 'she wanted him to get to her.'

HF and GL!

I got mine off about a year ago. It is all wel worth everything you go through. I suggest you start using listerine though (it will save you, trust me).

I read the book too. I think the movie followed it well. It isn't a great movie, but if you liked the book, you will like the movie. I think the negative comments come from those who expected more, given the hype. Those who have read the book know what they are getting themselves into.

I just got back from seeing it. I liked it. The comics might be nice, but I never read them. I liked the special effects and the story.