Why can't atheists define atheism?

one of very few arguments I ever lost on the internet was when the other guy showed me a dictionary that said atheism includes agnosticism. I think they should be separated so that certainty/agnosticism refers to knowledge while theism/atheism refers to belief.

>a force which controls all of existence
Apollo or Ares certainly didn't control all of existence. Atheists tend to reject those beings, so that definition can't possibly work.

I ask again, why can't atheists define atheism?

Attached: childlike3.png (1022x599, 192K)

no one knows and its sad really. they have no objective meaning of morality or ethics and they claim its self taught but it clearly wasnt self taught otherwise religion wouldnt have been concocted...

I like that you deliberately ignored the "divine power" part

>one of very few arguments I ever lost on the internet
That you admit, anyway.

>theism/atheism refers to belief.
Belief in what, exactly?

Attached: childlike4.jpg (236x350, 13K)

state your definition of a god or deity then smartass. this is kikebook tier wordgames.

Define the word "divine."

Attached: childlike5.jpg (720x545, 83K)

2015 called and wants its meme back

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Attached: 6c8c0d92dea273e5e1054634a3a17505.png (450x435, 98K)

All I'm saying is that atheists can't even define their belief system, despite going to great lengths to defend it. Pretty silly. Only an idiot would call himself an atheist, not knowing what it means.

Attached: childlike6.jpg (853x360, 19K)

So are you going to keep moving the goal posts every time your question is answered?

>Asks atheist to define atheism
>Gets legitimate definitions
>Picks a word in the definition, "Deity/god" to move goalposts
>Strawmans their definition of deity, they clearly said "divine power" which tigers have no such divine power
>Thinks they won

The characteristic description of an imagined supernatural "supreme being".

Why don't you define theist/theism then?

stop posting this ugly jew girl

You are easily the most retarded poster on Jow Forums.

Clearly autistic shitposting. pic related to your first question.divine= god like. SAGE thread if autism continues.

Attached: Doghead.jpg (296x599, 41K)

I'm just pointing out to you that your "definition" is just based on another word that refers to the very thing you're supposed to be defining.

It's like if I asked you to define "Cow" and you said "Bovine animal."

Attached: childlike7.jpg (500x729, 30K)

Why is atheism so attractive to bugmen numale millennials?

youtube.com/watch?v=5_YyXB0eAFs&feature=youtu.be&t=117

Attached: 1745345.jpg (1280x720, 28K)

This. OP is a fucking nigger faggot, and shall purged with the rest.

The definition has been offered to you, you're just deliberately ignoring it so you can play kike semantics and move the goalposts until people get tired of it and you come away thinking you've won an argument.

Attached: 1524172413144.jpg (652x1438, 450K)

>imagined
So only fictional supreme beings count as gods?

Well, I guess I'm an atheist too, then.

Attached: childlike8.jpg (464x346, 21K)

>Apollo or Ares didn't certainly control all of existence
>Atheists tend to reject those beings, so that definition can't possibly work.
???? Atheism is by definition "without gods". If we were in a society which had a multitude of deities, atheism would still be "without gods".

>belief system

There is no Atheist "belief system", it's a lack of belief.

>It's like if I asked you to define "Cow"
*points to a cow*

Can you do the same?

Lack of belief. Its not a system, either.

>Gods are anything divine
What does divine mean?
>Divine means anything godlike

I think you can guess my next question.

Attached: childlike9.jpg (720x368, 16K)

BASED ORIGINAL POSTER

If you want to give an actual definition instead of giving a synonym, go ahead and try.

Attached: childlike10.gif (500x215, 317K)

So what's a god then? We've established it isn't just something that controls all of existence, since atheists reject so-called gods which had limited powers.

Attached: childlike11.jpg (500x501, 61K)

divine

>being this much of a brainlet

Attached: childlike12.jpg (600x450, 55K)

until the bulgarian orthodox church reforms i will be a heretic.not an atheist.
There is no evidence if it is fictional or not. You might ask yourself why is everything existing? Why are you shitposting? But that leads to questions answered by our best philosophers and I am not that well read(might go to /lit/ soon)... however noone can answer why your autism is so bad.

>Pretty silly. Only an idiot would call himself an atheist, not knowing what it means.
>Well, I guess I'm an atheist too, then.
next level stupid

Attached: 1522087331883s.jpg (229x186, 4K)

"You can't prove a negative" is self-contradicting; it is itself a "negative" statement, making the claim that it is not the case that one can prove a negative.

atheists still try to use it as an excuse for not supporting their assertions that God doesn't or is unlikely to exist, not realizing that if this fallacy were true, it would refute these assertions - yes, including any assertion of the likelihood of God's existence: "It is not the case that it is likely that God exists" or, if you want to conveniently define "likely" as meaning something like "over 50% chance," then "It is not the case that it is not unlikely that God exists."

In fact, "negative" things don't objectively exist; it is just semantics used in logic; and literally any truth claim can be a "negative" statement, such that anything can not not be true, represented in logic as ~~p or ~~q.

But you want to say that you can only not prove something with an odd number of "nots" or negations? Prove it. Oh, you can't.

This shit is just another example of how atheists stupidly just believe and subsequently mindlessly regurgitate whatever their bias-confirming heroes like sam harris, lawrence krauss, or sean carroll say, all of whom are not logicians or philosophers, and whom know next to nothing about what even constitutes a true statement.

atheists are just a bunch of whining, non-thinking degenerates, and you need to get off this board.

Attached: childlike13.jpg (774x1032, 89K)

>So what's a god then?

[spoiler]make believe[/spoiler]

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

OP:
Why do you keep moving the goalposts? You got really good definitions at the top. Your question ONLY stated someone needed to define atheism, but you keep moving the goal posts further and further away, asking them to define deity, and then divine.

What's the next word you're going to move the goalpost to?

Atheism is a term used to describe the lack of belief in any deities. A deity is a supernatural "supreme being".

Definition 1: does not apply to all so-called "gods"
Definition 2: could also apply to a tiger, which is certainly superhuman in most ways and can easily overpower a human.

Are you saying atheists don't believe in tigers?

Attached: childlike14.jpg (220x220, 7K)

>Can you do the same?
*points to same cow*
checkmate atheists

Attached: 1521348406271.jpg (1024x971, 75K)

Atheism is a lack of belief of God/gods

>What is a god, exactly?

Conscious creator of the universe(s)

>B-b-b-but what if God didn't create the universe.

Then it's not God, it'd be a deity. A deity is a supernatural entity, usually consciousness.

>B-B-But what is supernatural

Breaking laws of physics.

Attached: 1523219454100.png (403x363, 95K)

I can. It's an absence of belief in any given theology.

Word salad. You have no proof, no matter how much you think you're tip-toeing around the issue with semantics and what you probably think is """philosophy""". You have no proof, no one does. You do not believe anything else in life that someone may claim that has no evidence, and you're mentally ill if you override your brains natural common sense to delude yourself into thinking a being exists who watches you masturbate.

>>ITT We define definition, then try to define defining definition.

Attached: d98.jpg (600x640, 28K)

I understand you want to break the loop and go to the bottom of the etymology of the words, but here we use logic not autistic childlike larping. Use google or go back to Elementary school, I have work to do and a family to feed.

Gonna have to try harder than that, man.

Define "God."

Atheism: No faith in a "superior" force, god or else

>could also apply to a tiger, which is certainly superhuman
can someone please draw dis nigger a superhuman tiger?

Attached: 1521219524267.jpg (540x723, 155K)

Atheist/freethinker: Hell no I don’t believe in any god or magical imaginary friends or virgin birth. Believing in such things is literally an insult to rational thought.

Op: So what you’re saying is that you actually do believe in those things?

Define "Checkmate"

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE

>What is a god then?
Apollo or Ares aro both gods for instance, like you mentioned. A god is a supernatural being considered to be divine. If you don't know what divine means, go fucking look it up.

>We've established it isn't just something that controls all of existence, since atheists reject so-called gods which had limited powers.
>Being this dense
We've also established that atheism is the rejection of any god or a deity. It doesn't matter how many there are or how much supernatural powers they possess.
What's the next word you can't compherend?

But first you'll have to define "define", 'strayan.

Attached: ROOd.png (600x329, 189K)

This thread serves as a crash course in Jewish argumentation. This is exactly what it's like.

You asked for a definition for atheism. You got your definition. Other atheists are agreeing with me, proving we do agree on its definition.

>ITT: A jew doesn't understand words
Time for lunch, I'm out

>Used "define" while asking me to define define

Looks like I win again, heathen

гoтoвo
Seee said traits.

Attached: boreeed.jpg (1150x630, 181K)

He understands words and he knows we've been providing him with valid definitions, he just wants to dance around the debate until people get aggravated enough with his tedious games. Then he declares himself the victor and moves on.

your giving me pre meme war nostalgia

Everyone knows hes not a victor but a massive faggot. Also thisIm off to work now.

Attached: OP.gif (350x569, 2.1M)

Tigers have as much power over human fortunes as human have on Tigers. A human with a pike he build could kill a Tiger. A human using it's superior intellect could trick or play a mindgame with a Tiger.

Tigers aren't superhuman because super mean being above. If you only better in some aspect, you're not above, just not equal. Therefore tiger aren't superhuman.

You could say, some people consider Tiger to be gods in Africa, an Atheist would just say they aren't superhuman and don't have power over nature or human fortune. They don't deny the existence of the tiger but its godly essence.

Are you happy?

well you seem to have difficulty defining the divine, or a deity, or a god, so you youd have to be an idiot to call yourself a theist

Then let us go into hypotheticals.

Surely you can accept that in the vast universe there must be some being which is better than humans in every way. Probability demands it. Atheism under your definition denies that such a being can exist, refusing to even consider the possibility.

Basically, atheists consider themselves to be gods, which is the height of arrogance.

Attached: childlike30.gif (500x375, 1000K)

why do atheist keep posting this girl?? what's the connection?

theists consider themselves cattle, which is the height of cuckness.

>Using "define" first without defining it, therefore forcing me to request a definition for "define" and declaring yourself the winner for said request when you negligently made the mistake of using "define" without a definition for it in the first place
also checked

Attached: 1512301659384.jpg (396x385, 31K)

>Surely you can accept that in the vast universe there must be some being which is better than humans in every way. Probability demands it. Atheism under your definition denies that such a being can exist, refusing to even consider the possibility.

The key difference here is that you're referring to extraterrestrial organisms which would exist in nature; deities are supernatural beings which must exist outside of our universe given their ability to subvert and operate outside of the laws of nature. The latter is what atheists do not believe in, simply due to lack of evidence for their existence.

>Basically, atheists consider themselves to be gods, which is the height of arrogance.

Atheists do not even believe that gods exist, let alone consider themselves to be as such.

Why post pictures of a child ?
Perhaps you are a pedopriest user.

Doesn't the name 'a-theism' define it?

Well, then I will just withdraw to the most important part of the definition. It need to be worshipped. It's a god to someone. But if I decide to not worship it, it's not a god to me. If I create a complex computer simulation where actor become aware of my existence and try to please me so I give them better things, I would be a god to them. But would I be a god to you? Would I be a god at all? I would not be a supreme being.

I think most Atheist would follow the first definition as the second can lead to worship thing that doesn't deserve it (like mountains spirit that would kill you if you don't), because in the end they are just tyran.

What make a god, a god?

In the end, we're so insignificant in front of an omnipotent/omniscient being that you can't still prove it is actually "creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.". This god could try to show you, but this god might just fuck with your brain since he's so powerful. You can't be sure.

Atheist are degenerate pedophiles

Theist are degenerate pedophiles too

It's a fucking kids movie, It's just some autistic shit he is attracted too because he's a closest pedo faggot. Oh and it was shown in a murdoch video
youtu.be/xaILTs-_1z4

I hope everyone sages your thread. If you are religious then just have some convictions in your faith instead of trying to rationalize it through semantics and nonsense you fucking retard. Even if you do this autistic shit what if i just agree and make the argument against your god, Sure god exists but it's x not y? Then what can you say?

Muslims rape 9 year olds and priests fuck anything under 12.
But its the atheists that are pedos!!
Jan put the bong down will you ?

still don't get it, I get that it's a movie, but don't understand why atheists keep posting it

What is this for nonsense you dont magically become a rapist when you become religious

The OP and main guy posting it isn't an atheist btw.

And you don't magically become a rapist when you become an Atheist

Lets settle this once and for all. There is no god, there has never been evidence of god, and the very definition of faith is a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

We have 7.6 billion belief systems in the world and some of them do incorporate a supernatural element. Mine does not.

Some people believe in ideology and the 'Big Other'. Mine does not.

I get to define my own views on the world and what atheism means to me, as do people with a religious belief. It's their prerogative, however if your semanticist, reductionist arguments want to be challenged, which they do, I will give it to you straight like a pear cider that's made from 100% pears.

>Sure god exists but it's x not y

Three blind men are all shown an elephant. The first feels the trunk, and says the elephant is like a snake. The second feels a leg, and says an elephant is like a tree trunk. The third feels the tail, and says an elephant is like a rope. All are wrong, and all are right.

Attached: childlike24.gif (394x166, 496K)

>there has never been evidence of god
for the last time, there is NO proof to support the nonexistence of God.

Attached: childlike19.gif (500x270, 814K)

youtube.com/watch?v=kyYS-GzBSIg

Come on I'm not going to say it but you know the outcome to this one.

Also the question that's more important is why do people believe?

an elephant is just a mouse built to government sepcifications

There is no evidence that there is no magic kettle orbiting the sun that will destroy the world if everyone don't call you a faggot in this thread.

"You can't prove a negative" is self-contradicting; it is itself a "negative" statement, making the claim that it is not the case that one can prove a negative.

atheists still try to use it as an excuse for not supporting their assertions that God doesn't or is unlikely to exist, not realizing that if this fallacy were true, it would refute these assertions - yes, including any assertion of the likelihood of God's existence: "It is not the case that it is likely that God exists" or, if you want to conveniently define "likely" as meaning something like "over 50% chance," then "It is not the case that it is not unlikely that God exists."

In fact, "negative" things don't objectively exist; it is just semantics used in logic; and literally any truth claim can be a "negative" statement, such that anything can not not be true, represented in logic as ~~p or ~~q.

But you want to say that you can only not prove something with an odd number of "nots" or negations? Prove it. Oh, you can't.

This shit is just another example of how atheists stupidly just believe and subsequently mindlessly regurgitate whatever their bias-confirming heroes like sam harris, lawrence krauss, or sean carroll say, all of whom are not logicians or philosophers, and whom know next to nothing about what even constitutes a true statement.

atheists are just a bunch of whining, non-thinking degenerates, and you need to get off this board.

Attached: childlike21.gif (245x140, 807K)