The problem with Moroni's challenge

[_NeoMorm]

Yes, most atheists will admit that it's possible that there might be god(s). We just have seen no compelling evidence for it so far. Apparently you don't know what atheism is.

Most? is that as specific as it gets? You are both talking about atheism and you are both right. Implicit atheism versus explicit atheism.

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

Cool, even atheists have their sects.

[_NeoMorm]

human instinct and social tradition

Man and society are our Gods? the definers of the "absolute" - talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Guest]

Yes, most atheists will admit that it's possible that there might be god(s). We just have seen no compelling evidence for it so far. Apparently you don't know what atheism is.

Most? is that as specific as it gets? You are both talking about atheism and you are both right. Implicit atheism versus explicit atheism.

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

Cool, even atheists have their sects.

Your misuse of the word "sect" is intellectually dishonest. And the topic you're responding to has nothing to do with implicit vs explicit - that would have been the topic of atheist babies.

I've never met an atheists who didn't acknowledge that it's technically possible there could be a god or two out there somewhere.

Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods. I don't believe in any number of supernatural characters. That doesn't mean I don't think it's technically possible that one of them might be real - I've just seen no compelling evidence that any are. My position is very typical

[_Buffalo]

human instinct and social tradition

Man and society are our Gods? the definers of the "absolute" - talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire.

That's not what I said. Try to focus.

[_NeoMorm]

Your misuse of the word "sect" is intellectually dishonest.

Wait, explain this too me and use small words so I will be sure to understand.

And the topic you're responding to has nothing to do with implicit vs explicit - that would have been the topic of atheist babies.

Too true! The OP is about Moroni's challenge.

From Wikipedia: Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak/negative atheists would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.

So this has nothing to do with the sub-thread that has evolved here? I mistakenly thought it sounded so familiar...

An exaggeration and not implicit to atheism, but generally true... True. Though we've got the 0-2 age group locked up in the atheist category...

I've never met an atheists who didn't acknowledge that it's technically possible there could be a god or two out there somewhere.

I don't know if I can get him on this board but he is Canadian, perhaps I can arrange and introduction, but if you don't know any i suppose he doesn't exist either.

Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods. I don't believe in any number of supernatural characters. That doesn't mean I don't think it's technically possible that one of them might be real - I've just seen no compelling evidence that any are. My position is very typical

I'm catching on, slowly. You are an Implicit Atheist, was there a baptism involved?

[_Buffalo]

Your misuse of the word "sect" is intellectually dishonest.

Wait, explain this too me and use small words so I will be sure to understand.

As if having different points of view in a philosophy makes it a religion. That's obviously what you were implying.

And the topic you're responding to has nothing to do with implicit vs explicit - that would have been the topic of atheist babies.

Too true! The OP is about Moroni's challenge.

Don't play dumb, please.

From Wikipedia: Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak/negative atheists would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.

So this has nothing to do with the sub-thread that has evolved here? I mistakenly thought it sounded so familiar...

An exaggeration and not implicit to atheism, but generally true... True. Though we've got the 0-2 age group locked up in the atheist category...

I've never met an atheists who didn't acknowledge that it's technically possible there could be a god or two out there somewhere.

I don't know if I can get him on this board but he is Canadian, perhaps I can arrange and introduction, but if you don't know any i suppose he doesn't exist either.

Straw man.

Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods. I don't believe in any number of supernatural characters. That doesn't mean I don't think it's technically possible that one of them might be real - I've just seen no compelling evidence that any are. My position is very typical

I'm catching on, slowly. You are an Implicit Atheist, was there a baptism involved?

You don't seem to understand the terms you're using.

[Guest]

-

[_NeoMorm]

It's been a pleasure discussing this with you.

Likewise.

[_NeoMorm]

As if having different points of view in a philosophy makes it a religion. That's obviously what you were implying.

Yes, I'd also like to suggest that being an atheist takes faith.

Don't play dumb, please.

Who's playing? I am still trying to figure out how you can make an assertion that most atheists believe there could still be a God. Then when subgenius or I make any comments about atheism, your argument is simply to state that we are know-nothings or atheist babies. Your implication is that in order to understand what atheism is you have to BE an atheist, and that you alone can speak for atheism.

I've never met an atheists who didn't acknowledge that it's technically possible there could be a god or two out there somewhere.

I don't know if I can get him on this board but he is Canadian, perhaps I can arrange and introduction, but if you don't know any i suppose he doesn't exist either.

Straw man.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought that's what we were doing... If you can say that you never met an atheist who didn't acknowledge that it's technically possible that there could be a god then I can say that I know one who won't. Its all a big spitting match anyway.

You don't seem to understand the terms you're using.

I guess not, the term implicit when combined with atheism makes the terms incomprehensible to me. Care to tell me why?

[_Morley]

Yes, I'd also like to suggest that being an atheist takes faith.
....

How so? Please elaborate.