Lack of belief in God: élleipsi pÃstis ston Theó
vs.
Lack of God: élleipsi theoú
The Lack of Belief atheism is a relatively new "definition" introduced by Antony Flew in the 70's
Atheists vs Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy << Last Eden
And what is theism? What is the rejection of a theistic argument (if not theism, in itself)?
If humans — and thereby theism — ceased to exist, would god vanish, too?
The expression of a thing's non-existence is predicated upon the articulation of a lack of belief in that thing, *made meaningful by its contrast with belief*, such that due to absence of evidence, there exists no rational reason to believe in or accept a claim or argument. Thus, the rejection of theism, if propped upon rational reasoning, must mean that the concept discussed is false, meaning that "god doesn't exist" corresponds with "the god concept is false". No "knowledge" involved — the conflation hopefully eradicated, by now.
I do not immediately see how "new" is relevant to "correct"; again, you're conflating.
re-brand “atheism†as a default position.
A thing's non-existence (belief) can't be substantiated by a position insofar as there's nothing to substantiate; there is no "stance". Unless you can resolve the issue of how a non-thing can "be" a thing, as intimated by you, your links remain predicated upon the eschewal of veracity.
--
The point you're raising seems to be a bout the prevalance of the monotheistic version of god, since it is one that dominates the discourse in our society. It's a worthy point, I'll get to it below.
No; I was making the point that an "atheist lifestyle" is not a coherent thing. Going back to my question about whether a person who has neither heard nor thought of god is an atheist, I believe we may extend this to the unimaginable number of thoughts and claims to be had or made — would it be fair to say that we live the equivalent of "atheist lifestyles" with regards to those? A lifestyle may be defined by what it comprises rather than what it does not; again, that pesky conflation between a position and the lack of one.
Only if he is apprehinsible through reason. Something like Aquinas's version of a "prime motor" which was necessary for the universe to be created, could make sense to me though I have no knowledge of whether or not such a prime motor is necessary for the universe to exist, or if the universe simply has always existed and is simply going trough cycles that repeat. Or something else. This is why the question of whether the monotheistic version of god exists makes a bit more sense than asking why Zeus does, because monotheistic theology actually refers to philosophy and thus to reason.
Aquinas' wielding of reason is flimsy at best; if an entity may be apprehended by reason, and reason has thus far proven ineffective at ascertaining its existence (according to who's being examined (atheists)), what's the next reasonable step?
What are you tring to "prove" to me with these questions anyways? Just curious.
Working toward a better model (without articulating whether or not I believe, again).
--
Islamic mass murder in our streets in the name of Allah by driving trucks into pedestrians has begun in Europe. and Australia.
Talk about the generalization of generic blah blahs to be hypocritically espoused in the name of a "better world"; weaseling words to aid the weasel.
And that's true genius.