Kolobian (I'll admit this one is a trap):

I asked: If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?

You said: Dave the Atheist and MJ are right. A person who asserts that those gods do not exist is an antitheist. I agree with them. You have to be an atheist in order to be an anti-theist.


So, let's clarify: If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an anti-theist?

Finally free said: If you changed your question to, "If I believe in Elohim, but i 'assert that no [other] god or gods exist,' am I an antitheist?" There is a cut and dry answer "Yes, anyone who asserts one or more god does not exist is an anti theist".

So, I have rephrased the question as Finally Free suggested - presumably the cut and dry answer is Yes, the peson is an anti-theist. And, Kolobian says "you have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist" (his words).

If indeed Kolobain answers yes to the anti-theist question, he necessarily must answer yes to the question which was "if I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?



((I've only resorted to laying this trap because of the disdain that started to rain down by me asking a simple question. Wow, the atheists are acting like the believers.))



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 02:06PM by thingsithink.

Hang with me raptor. Someone's going to eat crow - if I can get a straight answer. It might be me. :) We'll see.

You're going to turn this into a debate about your "agenda" rather than getting answers.

I think it's been answered as many ways and as honestly as possible with our human level of communication.

Yes, thank you.

Yes, I'm being facetious. ;)

Wow, you are determined...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,361110,361301#msg-361301

<<If you changed your question to, "If I believe in Elohim, but i 'assert that no [other] god or gods exist,' am I an antitheist?" There is a cut and dry answer "Yes, anyone who asserts one or more god does not exist is an antitheist">>

I'll point out that in breaking down your question I point out that you are also a theist in that you do believe in at least one God.

The definitions already provided you already answer this very clearly and you seem to be ignoring I don't know how many threads that have been created to explain this to you specifically.

What is your agenda with this? If you just spelled it out instead of playing games, you'd probably find that most people will be helpful and not so antagonistic.

The issue is that thingsithink doesn't appear to grasp the concept of provisional acceptance or conditional terms. He/she/it would like you to make an absolute statement which he/she/it can then use to "catch" you in a paradox. (At least that's what I assume the agenda is.

Seriously Rebekka (and Raptor):

Finally free said: If you changed your question to, "If I believe in Elohim, but i 'assert that no [other] god or gods exist,' am I an antitheist?" There is a cut and dry answer "Yes, anyone who asserts one or more god does not exist is an anti theist".

Do you guys agree with Finally Free?

I'm actually blown away that the "rational thinkers" on the board won't answer a question. You guys sound like the "believers." You talking about agenda's - carrying on about how the question has been answered. But its so hard to get an answer - regardless of how ambiguous it might be.

Finally Free has straight forward right out of the gates, but everyone else dances around before coming out with their answer.

Finally free said: If you changed your question to, "If I believe in Elohim, but i 'assert that no [other] god or gods exist,' am I an antitheist?" There is a cut and dry answer "Yes, anyone who asserts one or more god does not exist is an anti theist".

Is finally free correct? Yes, no?

How old are you again?

Oh, and feel free to re-read my answers to your posts -- I already answered that question, quite straightforwardly. It's not my problem if it wasn't the answer you wanted.

I completely understand what you are saying. I understand you are saying the person is a theist.

You are also saying the person is an atheist with respect to the other gods they assert do not exist.

Kolobian so far has said the person is not an atheist with respect to the other gods.

However, Kolobian has said, I think, that the person would be an anti-theist. He has also said you have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist. So, I think he has, in essence, answered yes (in part at least) to this question: If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?

Also, a little maturity goes a long way on this board. Maybe you should get to work on your homework instead of trying to "trap" people online.

Where has he ever said that? I don't recall seeing that once. Please provide a link to the quote if you're going to make statements like that.

At this point, you're just playing games and wasting people's time. This is a Recovery Board first, and people have a legitimate questions regarding where their faith is going and need help in understanding the new concepts that they are learning. Which is why most people here will try to help you, evening going to great lengths to help you understand the point they are trying they are making in an attempt to answer people's hopefully legitimate question.

You are throwing their charity back in their faces by playing games, laying traps and wasting peoples time.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,361110


"You couldn't rightfully call that person an atheist in regards to those other gods because they've taken their lack of belief in those gods and gone a step further by making a negative claim about the existence of those gods. So I would not call them an atheist in regards to those other gods even though they obviously and necessarily lack a belief in those gods in order to assert that those gods don't exist." Kolobian

You guys are killing me. You atheist (I'm sure you'd consider me one) can be the biggest ball busters on this board. Then someone asks you guys some questions - look at how you guys act. You do answer - but when I press on something that isn't making sense to me - you start talking like believers and just won't answer a question for fear that something fit just right in your world.

Come on. There is no belief to protect, right. Just ideas and different perspectives. So, why not answer instead of ragging about bandwidth or agenda's or maturity. Isn't that exactly what mormons do - throw stuff in the face of the person asking the question (actually it seems to be what everyone does).

You seem to be confused:

"won't answer a question for fear that something fit just right in your world"

Your question has been answered countless times, by multiple people in several different ways. There are several threads devoted specifically to your question. Just because you don't like the answer or can't understand it doesn't mean that it wasn't there.

You abuse the wealth of knowledge on this board for your games. We like a good debate on this board. Personally, I don't like games. Don't be surprised if you find yourself out in the cold.

Just because he would apply the definition antitheist to those people does not show any exception to the definitions given. He clarified this in many posts.

You are grasping at straw, nitpicking and playing games.

You said:

"Just because he would apply the definition antitheist to those people does not show any exception to the definitions given. He clarified this in many posts."


Actually, it does. Because if kolobian would apply the definition of anti theist to those people - and if Kolobian also believes that you have to be atheist to be anti theist, then Kolobian necessarily would have to answer the question below yes (at least in part). That's very simple logic. But he answered the question No. So, there is either a break is his logic or he has to work out his definitions or he misspoke.


I asked: If I believe in Elohim, but i "assert that no [other] god or gods exist," am I an atheist?

Finally Free,

It literally started with me being interested in something Kolobian said - making a distinction between "lack of belief" and asserting something did not exist.

But when I began to ask about the distinction, I felt like I was not getting a straight answer. I felt like the atheist crowd was tip toeing around my question. Almost like they were afraid to fall into a trap. I'm thinking - who cares about "falling into a trap." That's part of the search for understanding. If you answer somehow puts you in a position where it makes it difficult to explain something else you believe or leaves you in a trap - so what? Then you think about. I'm always stuck in a hundred different traps with my thoughts on things.

So, I was fascinated about how the thinkers on the board showed this trepidation and began show disregarding and disdain for the actual question itself. Now, that's funny. Disdain for a question. From ex-mormons?

You have answered very clearly. And Athiest Marine gave his opinion clearly. And so did Dave the Athiest. But MJ and Kolobian really seem to be sweating out their answers or trying to answer a question other than the one I ask. Why? It's just a question.

Their reasons for their explanations have all been explained to you, by multiple people, myself included. You have decided that people wanting to be clear with their explanations was "trepidation" or "disregarding and disdain for the actual question"

You have openly admitted that the question was a trap, see your post at the head of the thread. You want to now be flippant about the fact that you set a trap and people wanted to clear so that they don't fall into it. These people have spent a great deal of time trying to explain things, they were very clear and direct at first, the definitions were simple, you asked more questions showing that you were not understanding and they tried to answer. Your response was to then lay a trap for them, apparently on purpose, for people who were clearly trying to answer your questions. They didn't get caught, but you continue to try.

BTW, You still haven't answered the question as to where Kolobian stated anything like "person is not an atheist with respect to the other gods"

You are wasting all our time. I have no more for you.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,361110


"You couldn't rightfully call that person an atheist in regards to those other gods because they've taken their lack of belief in those gods and gone a step further by making a negative claim about the existence of those gods. So I would not call them an atheist in regards to those other gods even though they obviously and necessarily lack a belief in those gods in order to assert that those gods don't exist." Kolobian

Here is the link Finally Free ----

I know I'm done.

When thingsithink decides for a little honesty and a lot less game-playing I might respond again. Until then, I'm really tired of the deliberate incomprehension and continual attempts to rephrase a clear answer into something else. I'm also frankly amazed that anyone pretending to be an adult would expect everyone in any group to all agree on anything. Someone is stuck in cult-think, I think.

Skynet is here folks. Prepare to be stalked by Arnold Schwazzenager automatons. The end is nigh!

I don't expect everyone to agree. I think that's part of what I find so funny. The effort some are making to be in agreement. Like they get strength in numbers.

For the last time, can you demonstrate where any of us disagree about the following definitions?

Theism = belief in a god or gods

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods

Antitheism = belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods

Still waiting on an answer...

Wikipedia (and the Google Gods) tells me that antitheism is active opposition to theism.
Theism is in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. Lastly, atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

You are welcome.

Where did anyone responding disagree with those definitions?

Oh and atheists have different opinions. Duh, it's not exactly breaking news.

Right, the point is that Thingsithink is claiming that we have disagreed on a very specific point and that's not the case at all.

We've demonstrated over and over again how we are all in agreement, and thingsithink continues to make baseless assertions without providing evidence.

a lot of sense but:
it seems like at first reading that Kolobian posited that people could be atheists and antitheists and a theist depending on what "god" we are speaking of...maybe not all three at once but maybe a combo of the two...like i said havent delved into it at this point...i gotta go sign some Christmas cards!!
now dont start on me for that!! :)

Exactly. Thingsithink hates the fact that nobody is falling for his trap so he continues to bait.

He ignores the many post that have answered his question:

The person believes in elohim, lacks a belief in all other gods, and asserts that all those other gods do not exist.

Can you call that person a theist? Of course. He admits to believing in elohim.

Can you call that person an atheist? Only if you're dealing specifically with the person's lack of belief in any of the other gods. If you're dealing with his assertion that none of those exist, you would call that person an antitheist.

It's really very simple and we've answered him many times. Everyone agrees except thingsithink.

OF COURSE atheists don't agree.

The ONLY thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any gods. So why should one expect them to agree on any other thing?

That statement, apparently meant as a taunt to prove that one can safely disregard atheists because they don't agree, is no more meaningful than saying "People who do not own a Buick don't agree on cars" or "People who do not play chess cannot agree about hobbies."

:) just a joshin. i always like it when RP weighs in!
he even admits it when he makes a mistake...class act.

anyway i thought i would throw my way of interpreting this and the other thread in here so maybe thingsithink will understand easier. not every one gets it right away... and no not every one agrees even to be "pigeon holed" into a definition as some peoples "beliefs" or lack thereof are in flux...
whatcha say Thing? :)

"Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Islām, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism