@NetRunner

Actually, it is completely subjective to say "the suffering caused by denying marriage to gay people outweighs the discomfort you feel when you see them get married". You simply can not compare two different sets of feeling from 2 different frames of reference. Who are you to say that someones suffering isn't at great as someone else's, you have the burden of proof, and it is completely subjective. It is important to understand what I mean by subjective. It might be objective that someone is feeling a feeling; that a person is feeling something and that experience is real. But as to the depth of the feeling, it is immeasurable because it is contained entierly in the mind of the feeler. It pertains only to the individual.

You are making a HUGE claim next, that ALL actions need to be justified in the greater scope of humanity. Which also have the flaw scope being very near sided. The advancement of technology that developed the atom bomb would be a moral hazard to all scientists that helps science make it, or technologies that help make technologies that made it, or people that helped people make those technologies that made those technologies that made those technologies. In other words, the morality of consequence is failing to take in relevant information because it can't possibly obtain relevant information about long sweeping events.

Me eating cheetos and having a soda would also not be justifiable under this moral situation. How can I know the long term ramifications of such an event? Every seemingly mundane events in life can have profound effects. It is an intractable position. Even if consequentialism were a valid moral dogma, it fails to be readily applied in beings that are mortal and can only factor in very very limited scopes.

Consequentialism would be a good description of it I guess, though. As such, I find the terms all redundant. You don't need 5 terms to talk about 1 basic idea. Progressive doesn't tell us anything more than liberal or even more rootly, consequentialism.

In that, I have considered consequentialism in my recent inquiring. I have subsequently rejected it on it being based in "things that feel good" is very poor justification. I would have to be convinced that happiness is the one, most important aspect of reality.

Thanks for the lengthy replies .

it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.

...till then, it's just a bunch of shitty cops. You've been flinging that word around way too much and I think the burden of proof is on you to show us that this is a systemic problem at the higher levels and not just a bunch of individual cops with fragile egos.

@bmacs27

There's nothing to reconcile.

How would you reconcile laws against homicide, and the right to self-defense?
How would you reconcile laws against school prayer, and the right to freely worship?

Just because an individual has a right to something, doesn't give them the authority to infringe on someone else's rights. (Again) That's the whole purpose of laws... to protect rights.

If the people have a legal right to set up functions of government like court houses, military bases, schools, etc., then individuals don't have the right to infringe on that government function.

Making the interior of the JM a non-public forum is horseshit. There is no government function to protect. Furthermore, there should be no burden to prove that a public place is a public forum, the burden of proof should always be to make it a non-public forum. You should've have to prove that you have the right to free speech. It undermines the Constitution and the entire purpose of government.

You don't seem to understand my point. I never said that they rule the bill of rights to be unconstitutional, that would be absurd. I said that they decide when a law is actually infringing on your constitutional rights. For instance, they might decide on whether or not laws dictating the permitting requirements for demonstration are an infringement on your right to free expression granted by the first amendment. In this particular case, they held that they are not. That is, they upheld the constitutionality of the law in question against direct challenges. Further, they set the precedent that dancing can potentially be considered a form of demonstration.

That is, in this particular case, they've found that laws drafted by the legislature are not infringing on your constitutional rights, and as I've pointed out, they have the constitutional authority to do so.

So what's your beef?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bmacs27:
I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.
So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.
>> ^marbles:
If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.

??? Um, you do realize the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, right? So what you're saying is the courts can rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional? Yeah, ok.
It's vague because my argument isn't about what authority the courts do have, it's about what authority they do NOT have. If you want to take it somewhere else, then go ahead. The burden of proof is on you And so far it's strike 1 with "Judicial Review". Try again?
I'll repeat:
Rights are not granted by law.
Law exists to protect rights, not the other way around.

>> ^bmacs27:

I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.
So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.
>> ^marbles:
If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.


??? Um, you do realize the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, right? So what you're saying is the courts can rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional? Yeah, ok.

It's vague because my argument isn't about what authority the courts do have, it's about what authority they do NOT have. If you want to take it somewhere else, then go ahead. The burden of proof is on you And so far it's strike 1 with "Judicial Review". Try again?

I'll repeat:

Rights are not granted by law.

Law exists to protect rights, not the other way around.

@SDGundamX

The citations you refer to just find a lack of "valid comparative data." It seems like a difficult argument to make that reducing the sensitivity of sexual tissue has no effect on sexual sensation, and thus the intellectual burden of proof is probably on the people 'cutting up dicks.'

I reread every comment you made in this thread, and at no point until now did you assert that the peasant is the king's servant, much less his slave as you have now suggested. Not until I suggested that the peasant is in fact free to think as well as act did you suggest that the peasant was a slave. Even if we assume that the peasant is in fact a slave, you have still not demonstrated that his mental condition is in any way relevant to his ability to "perform his job", or "provide for his family", which I have proposed as his motivation for working, irrespective of his belief in an actual king.

You could have tried reading the original comment, which stated:

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The peasants life is intrinsically tied to the King. The peasant is not just working to earn a wage, but to be freed from his obligation..to be freed from slavery basically..not only that but to attain what he could never attain on his own, for himself and his family: a future. Without the reward, the peasant would have to eke out a subsistance existence until he died. His motivation is not a living wage, it is freedom from having to produce. The only way he can do this is by living a life pleasing to the King. The King expects obedience, ie the peasant has to work. The King expects results, ie the work has to be satisfactory and yield a good harvest. The King expects gratitude, ie the work is not proportional to the reward.

Nothing the peasant could ever do in his entire life could earn that reward. Upon receiving the reward, the peasant will certainly be grateful. If he didn't believe the reward existed though, he would simply hate the King for having to work for him. He would desire to flee the Kings authority and live for himself. He would seek out the company of people who felt the same way about the King and form conspiracies against Him. He would recruit other people and say the King was unjust, that there was no reward.

Now say the King had mercy on these peasants who were rebelling against him. He was a good King and cared about his subjects. He only wanted to reward them ultimately, but neither could he force them to believe his promise. So, for a time he let the peasants have a piece of his land to cultivate. They constantly gave him problems, either by raiding his stocks (because they could not sustain production for themselves), or encouraging others into disobedience. He was occassionally forced to kill some of the worst offenders, for the sake of the stability of the Kingdom.

His plan was to ultimately move everyone onto His land, after enough was stored up so no one had to work any longer. He would send emissaries into the places of rebellion, to encourage the peasants to return. He offered complete forgiveness for their crimes, if they would only work again for the sake of the Kingdom (which was in their own self-interest). Some listened, but others did not want to give up their freedom and killed the emissaries or drove them out.

Eventually it came time to pass that the Kings plan came to fruition. All the peasants who obeyed the King lived with Him on his land in harmony with one another, with enough to last them the rest of their days. The rebellious peasants could no longer raid the Kings stocks because they were completely shut out. They begged to be let in, because they were now starving, but it was too late..the King was neither going to take from the reward of those who earned it, to give to those who didn't, and who were presented every opportunity to change their ways, nor was he going to pollute the harmony he had cultivated (harmony based on gratitude for the reward and his justness)..for the rebellious peasants were neither grateful nor did they think the King was just. For them, it was here today and gone tomorrow..that is how they lived and that is how they died.

People have certainly been argued into believing in Jesus is their savior. They are typically called children. But, to get to the crux of your argument, until I can believe in god, I can't believe in god. Or rather, until I believe in god, I will have no reason to do so. That is about as circular as you can get.....

No, I am saying that until you feel that you need to be saved, for whatever reason, then you won't come near Jesus. You have to feel you need a savior before you look for one. Curiousity might get you near, but it won't make you follow Him. It is useless to argue someone into knowing Jesus..Jesus Himself predicted the kind of Christians that would produce in the parable of the sower: A weak one the devil will come steal away in times of hardship.

Your arrogance truly knows no bounds, does it? First off, you're about 2 decades off in your estimation. Second, as I quite clearly noted in parens, my interest in knowing the lawmakers in DC has nothing to do with whether or not I accept the rules of society. I am in fact deeply interested in the persons that would rule us. Let me ask you - can you name more than 50% of the 535 elected representatives in Congress, and more than 50% of their aides? I deeply care who our elected officials are, what they are doing, why they run, and their ultimate goals (so far as they may be elucidated), but my reasons for doing so have absolutely nothing to do with acceptance of their "authority over me". I think it is you that needs to reread this discussion and find the truth of what was written. You "know" that I have not searched for a god? What incredible presumptuousness. Are you now claiming not only to know God's love, but also when and where He will demonstrate it? Are you the arbiter of God's will????

Don't know don't care pretty much spells it out doesn't it? Seems like that is pride in being uninformed to me. This is the comment that made me think you were young, because that kind of apathy is very common among youth. Generation Emo doesn't give a shit, doesn't want to work, does everything based on feelings, and hasn't thought too deeply about anything because they want instant answers to everything. I concede its possible you have honestly looked, and perhaps God will lead you to Him later, if there is something in your heart that desires to know Him. Whatever it was though, it wasn't good enough. Have you ever tried doing the things that are pleasing to God first, before jumping up and down in his throne room and demanding He dance for you like a court jester? Yes, I do know Gods love. That's why I am here.

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question.
Not valid for you. Take off your blinders. You do not get to determine what is or is not valid for everyone else's intellectual endeavors.

I accept [that] people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.
This question, as with all questions, has as many answers as individuals as are willing to answer it. If you refuse to accept an answer as "valid", you must logically provide evidence why that is so.

Come on..this issue has been deliberately complicated to an extreme..when it is quite simple. The question of whether the Universe was created is entirely valid and relevant, though atheists will try to make it seem ridiculous, because they want to avoid the simple truth that there are only 3 answers to that question, because if they answer truly they have a burden of proof. I think if you're going to be an atheist, have the balls to admit it and stop playing these childish games with semantics. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the Universe was created by God(s), period.


Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?
I will glady entertain this question, but I do fear that this poor thread is terribly off course. You or I should create a new talk post in the religion or philosophy talk page to continue this. I'll gladly do that if you want.

I think it's doing just fine..however it may be necessary because of the broken comments system..the page is already freezing a bit. I'll get back to you if you don't want to continue on here.

Wow, someones a little sensitive. On the contrary, Hitchens struggles here to articulate his views because after he said God didn't exist the burden of proof was on him. He stutters, he dodges, he just basically flounders through the first five minutes.."that's a big question!" no shit, really Chris? WLC is a gentlemen here and doesn't call him on it.

It's amusing that you say that "The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."

lol, this is a debate, not a schoolyard..I can just imagine Christopher Hitchens going up to the podium and declaring: I'm right and you're wrong! Owned! lol...If you come to a debate you have to prove why your view is right and the others is wrong. Hitchens failed here to do that..offering no counter-evidence to any of Craigs assertions..

This was a debate on philosophical terms, and Hitchens was woefully underprepared. You probably don't know much about philosophy (or just aren't a deep thinker) so you believe that Hitchens didn't do so badly..but on the actual terms of the debate, he lost on every point.


>> ^KnivesOut:
This vid's title is just as accurate and compelling as your magic book. Your new one sucks just as bad.
It's as if Hitchens is arguing with an intellectual child. He's attempting to deal with a line of questioning that is idiotic.
It is not up to the athiest to prove that something that cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."
It is up to the thiest to provide conclusive evidence that god exists. The thiest cannot. Personal testimony is not admissible as evidence.
When was the last time god intervened in the world of man? Why are there no animals being spontaneously created to prove that evolution is false? Why would a god, supposedly so jealous and obsessed with his need for man's belief, not simply prove it, conclusively, in a way that requires no faith?
If your god does exist, he's a massive dick.>> ^shinyblurry:
Okay, since it's clear the sift bias is going to sink this video, even though the title is accurate and compelling, I'll change it.

>> ^blankfist:

Burden of proof? Evidence? Well, it's hard to have any evidence when the government rushes off under the cover of night and runs top secret exercises with zero transparency except for what they tell me they did. But, let's look at the facts. OBL was unarmed, he was shot, the government reported an untruth that a gun battle was waged, they also reported an untruth about him using his wife as a shield, they claimed they ran a DNA test and identified OBL, then cleaned him and dumped his body in the ocean all within 24 hours.

How do you know OBL was unarmed? Because the government said so? How do you know that it was an "untruth" that a gun battle was waged? I'm particularly interested in that one, since you're the only person I've seen advance the story that the SEALs didn't take any fire at all during the raid.

>> ^blankfist:
And you say the burden on proof is on the "we the people" of this country to prove or disprove the secret assassinations of our military and CIA? Rolling my eyes right now.

Hey, you're the one who's supposedly in favor of due process. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused. It doesn't matter what the accusation is, or who you're accusing.

You're right, you've got a hard case to prove...whatever it is you're trying to prove. That's why I think you should probably start looking for evidence, rather than running around pronouncing people guilty of things you can't prove. That is, at least if you're going to continue to hold yourself up as the arbiter of what constitutes due process and what doesn't.

>> ^blankfist:
Gladly. 1. It's Osama Bin Laden. He's the bogeyman for our loss of liberties over the past decade and the reason we've marched headlong into wars. 2. The other "examples" weren't met with such momentous applause as the death of OBL - and the cheers were mostly from progressives I've always hoped were pro-human rights (namely the right to due process here). But instead what I see are a bunch of apologists who are pro-partisanship even at the cost of human rights.

Ahh, pretty much what I expected. He's famous, and there are plenty of liberals who're glad he's dead.

So what you're saying is, rather than accept that maybe, just maybe Obama deserves credit for killing the bogeyman, and joining the liberal pivot to "so now we can bring everyone home, right?" You want to intentionally beat this drum to try to show that liberals are...what? You say "bloodthirsty" a lot, but at best this is an excuse to call people hypocrites for saying "in this case, I'm willing to make an exception."

Instead, your logic (such as it is) goes:

1. It isn't a war, it's purely a criminal matter (no matter what Congress says)
   
2. The official story says he was shot while reaching for a weapon, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SEALs could've captured him if they wanted, and just shot him anyways
   
3. It was Obama's order that even if they could capture him, they should kill him instead
   
4. Obama is the physical embodiment of pure liberalism, so anything he does must be based on a core tenet of liberalism
   
5. Therefore all liberals are bloodthirsty murderous cretins, especially that pro-Obama NetRunner guy

>> ^NetRunner:
It's easy, put your hands in the air and say "I surrender." At that point, killing him really would've been a war crime. There's no evidence that indicates he did anything of the sort.


Burden of proof? Evidence? Well, it's hard to have any evidence when the government rushes off under the cover of night and runs top secret exercises with zero transparency except for what they tell me they did. But, let's look at the facts. OBL was unarmed, he was shot, the government reported an untruth that a gun battle was waged, they also reported an untruth about him using his wife as a shield, they claimed they ran a DNA test and identified OBL, then cleaned him and dumped his body in the ocean all within 24 hours.

And you say the burden on proof is on the "we the people" of this country to prove or disprove the secret assassinations of our military and CIA? Rolling my eyes right now.

And, lol at "it's easy to raise your hands and say I surrender". What an apologist answer. Fucking murderous cretins. Yes, it's easy for you or me to raise our hands and say "I surrender" if the cops are outside our door with a bullhorn. Doubt anything remotely similar to that happened. lol

>> ^NetRunner:

But that's why I think you should explain your fixation with OBL's death. There are much better examples to use to advance the cause of civil liberties.


Gladly. 1. It's Osama Bin Laden. He's the bogeyman for our loss of liberties over the past decade and the reason we've marched headlong into wars. 2. The other "examples" weren't met with such momentous applause as the death of OBL - and the cheers were mostly from progressives I've always hoped were pro-human rights (namely the right to due process here). But instead what I see are a bunch of apologists who are pro-partisanship even at the cost of human rights.


>> ^Psychologic:

They didn't instantly teleport into his room... I doubt he was sleeping too well with helicopters hovering over his residence and gunshots being fired.
And as far as due process... while I agree with that notion in general, I'm wondering what the point would be in this case. Whether or not he actually perpetuated the 911 plans, he was more than willing to accept credit for it.
Bin Laden had at least several minutes to prepare from the time the heli arrived to the time his room was breached. I wouldn't discount the possibility of him having a bomb under his robe in the hopes they would try to arrest him.
Honestly, I have far more of a problem with predator drones nuking buildings than I do with this particular operation.


Yes, Osama heard the helicopters being valeted, got up, brushed his teeth, flossed, took a nice jaunt around the park, walked his dog, shat, and jerked it moments before strapping on his Explosinator 3000 under his robe.

Several minutes to prepare? You're obviously speculating. The reports of eye witnesses said the helis came fast as if they were out of nowhere.

As far as due process, what're you saying? That the premise for a trial is flimsy? And therefore assassination is a better recourse? Has everyone on here lost their fucking minds? Seriously, I think we're all getting hung up on this being OBL. Yes, he was a fucking scumbag that probably deserved worse than what he got, but goddammit he deserves a fair trial if we're to have a society of laws, no?

Isn't that what all you statists keep clamoring on and on about? That we should have laws? Well, where's your consistency here? A man, a very terrible scum of a human being, was robbed of his right to a fair trial. The "who" in this scenario is incidental. Rights aren't conditional based on someone's popularity. For fuck's sake.

And, yes, the drone planes are terrible. I despise those too, and we should constantly be outraged at that every second of every day and not stop voting out the lying bastards that continue bombing innocent people. Starting with Obama and any other Republican or Democrat that steps up in 2012 who isn't immediately in favor of ending these warlust aggressions against other people in sovereign lands.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted.

If this is supposed to be about Obama committing some sort of a crime, the burden of proof is on you. He's innocent until proven guilty.

>> ^blankfist:
How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly?

It's easy, put your hands in the air and say "I surrender." At that point, killing him really would've been a war crime. There's no evidence that indicates he did anything of the sort.

As for the rest of your comment, I could go and respond to each of your points in a big thread, but you usually don't bother to read those. Without stipulating that you said anything even remotely true, I'll say that there are certainly quite a few non-Osama bin Laden killings that are on much weaker legal and moral grounds than killing OBL was.

But that's why I think you should explain your fixation with OBL's death. There are much better examples to use to advance the cause of civil liberties.

The use of this one makes me just think you're trying to blunt its positive effect on Obama's poll numbers.

This short exposé (with graphs!) should be able to put the definition of atheism, theism, agnosticism and gnosticism to rest.

As for atheists not knowing the Bible...

BULLSHIT.

In fact, many, MANY atheists express that it was reading the Bible that brought them to discarding religion.


>> ^shinyblurry:


Now, atheism has always been the explicit denial that a God exists. Claiming atheism is a lack of belief as a premise is plainly just a device for argument, to shift the burden of proof on the theist. If you lack belief either way, you're an agnostic not an atheist. If lack belief in a God(s) but then on the other side believe there are no Gods, that's just the same as denying that any Gods exist.
Also, it's never useless to quote the Word of God..I've found that most atheists really have no idea what is in the bible, and are often surprised when I show them verses which illuminate something that they misunderstood, or assumed.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I was agnostic and to me the definition was simply, I didn't know. Not that I couldn't know, that I just didn't have enough information to make a determination. For instance, the size of the Universe vs the fact we've never even left our backyard. So in that way I lacked a belief, because I couldn't believe either way without enough informaiton. I was open to the possibility of a God (with proof) or no God and just death.
Now, atheism has always been the explicit denial that a God exists. Claiming atheism is a lack of belief as a premise is plainly just a device for argument, to shift the burden of proof on the theist. If you lack belief either way, you're an agnostic not an atheist. If lack belief in a God(s) but then on the other side believe there are no Gods, that's just the same as denying that any Gods exist.
Also, it's never useless to quote the Word of God..I've found that most atheists really have no idea what is in the bible, and are often surprised when I show them verses which illuminate something that they misunderstood, or assumed.

The letter A prefixing both atheism and agnosticism is known as a privative A. It's from ancient Greek and either negates the base term or denotes an absence. Hence, an atheist is not theistic or lacks theism. "Does not believe in God" is not synonymous with "Believes there is no God". The only reason both are considered valid definitions is because of centuries of misuse.

Gnostic refers to possession of knowledge and so agnostic refers to not possessing knowledge. When you study the concept of agnosticism in philosophy, it's proposed that we can't have knowledge of much of anything, because we can only rely on our highly flawed senses. Pertaining to God, specifically; God would be too complex for us to hold any absolute knowledge. As an example, you have made repeated references to personal revelation (yay, alliteration!) as the source of your faith, but you can only interpret what you experienced through your limited senses with your limited (ie human) mental capacity. This concept applies to all human knowledge across the board, to some extent, though the term is usually associated with knowledge about or of God.

I do not believe a god exists but I also do not have absolute knowledge so I am an agnostic atheist. You, if you are honest with yourself, are an agnostic theist. I am not convinced by the evidence I have seen whereas you are convinced by the evidence you have seen but neither of us truly knows.

I said it was useless to quote the "Word of God" in this context, meaning it's useless as evidence. As I do not believe the "Word of God" actually came from God, those words will do nothing to convince me of his existence. That's not to say they can't be interesting or informative from, for example, a cultural standpoint, but they are not evidence of God unless you already believe in him. The only thing that gives them any validity or weight is the belief that He said them in the first place.

shiny, please get this through your head. The words "agnostic" and "atheist" have multiple meanings. There is the historic meaning, which I use, and the more recent usages, which you have defined. Though the recent usages have become widespread, and are even included in most dictionaries, they annoy me because they warped the original meanings and have created confusion.

However, we are now stuck with the multiple meanings, because that's how language evolves. So when I say I'm atheist, I am using the historical and still one of the accurate definitions of the word, with the meaning "I do not have enough evidence to convince me God exists". It is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.

This is the label I choose for myself because I believe it is the most precise. I'm asking you to respect what I call myself, and understand that I am not alone. Most of the people I know who call themselves atheists are people who simply do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and don't give a crap about the other human created religions. None of the atheists I know make the claim that God isn't possible, just that your God doesn't make any sense.

And, let me assure you in no uncertain terms, the burden of proof is on you.

I was agnostic and to me the definition was simply, I didn't know. Not that I couldn't know, that I just didn't have enough information to make a determination. For instance, the size of the Universe vs the fact we've never even left our backyard. So in that way I lacked a belief, because I couldn't believe either way without enough informaiton. I was open to the possibility of a God (with proof) or no God and just death.

Now, atheism has always been the explicit denial that a God exists. Claiming atheism is a lack of belief as a premise is plainly just a device for argument, to shift the burden of proof on the theist. If you lack belief either way, you're an agnostic not an atheist. If lack belief in a God(s) but then on the other side believe there are no Gods, that's just the same as denying that any Gods exist.

Also, it's never useless to quote the Word of God..I've found that most atheists really have no idea what is in the bible, and are often surprised when I show them verses which illuminate something that they misunderstood, or assumed.



>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Actually, atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Look it up in a dictionary sometime. A lack of belief, ie, you don't know, would be agnosticism.
Both are valid definitions for atheism, as indicated by every definition you yourself linked to. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Atheism is anything else, whether it be a lack of belief or an active disbelief.
Agnosticism is the position that we can't know. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I prefer to avoid such terms whenever possible. I'd rather just explain what I believe if someone wants to know than give a one-word (maybe two) blanket answer.
I'd also like to make a suggestion. You quote the Bible a lot but it's pretty useless in this context. The words of the Bible have power to you because you believe they are God's words, are divinely inspired, or something of the such. To those of us who do not believe in God, the words of the Bible are no more proof of anything than the words of Moby Dick. Know your audience, my friend. If you want to convince us, you're going to need to present evidence that we find compelling, not just you.