I used to waste a great deal of time -- a LOT of time -- trying
to raise the level of discourse.
So here's one thread...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/4-VWXUs18WQ/m/RMa6hdOuBQAJ
And it was simple. It went like this:
Post any evidence you have for the existence of one or more atheists
but, only evidence of a sort that you would accept coming from
anyone else, including a theist.
That's it.
Restricting yourself ONLY to forms of evidence you accept from those
you are arguing against, present evidence for the existence of one
or more atheists.
My point of course was that the only "Evidence" for the existence
of atheists would be personal testimony -- self reports -- and that
is precisely what self-identified atheists EXCLUDE!
It didn't work. Nobody saw their error. Nobody glimpsed themselves
as the rest of the world sees them.
And the real irony here? Theists aren't limited to self reports.
But they were just as blind to this fact as they were to themselves.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:56:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
I used to waste a great deal of time -- a LOT of time -- trying
to raise the level of discourse.
So here's one thread...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/4-VWXUs18WQ/m/RMa6hdOuBQAJ
And it was simple. It went like this:
Post any evidence you have for the existence of one or more atheists
but, only evidence of a sort that you would accept coming from
anyone else, including a theist.
That's it.
Restricting yourself ONLY to forms of evidence you accept from those
you are arguing against, present evidence for the existence of one
or more atheists.
My point of course was that the only "Evidence" for the existence
of atheists would be personal testimony -- self reports -- and that
is precisely what self-identified atheists EXCLUDE!
It didn't work. Nobody saw their error. Nobody glimpsed themselves
as the rest of the world sees them.
And the real irony here? Theists aren't limited to self reports.
But they were just as blind to this fact as they were to themselves.
How idiotic.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:56:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
My point of course was that the only "Evidence" for the existence
of atheists would be personal testimony -- self reports -- and that
is precisely what self-identified atheists EXCLUDE!
It didn't work. Nobody saw their error. Nobody glimpsed themselves
as the rest of the world sees them.
And the real irony here? Theists aren't limited to self reports.
But they were just as blind to this fact as they were to themselves.
How idiotic.
On 8/25/26 3:24 AM, Ted wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:56:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
My point of course was that the only "Evidence" for the existence
of atheists would be personal testimony -- self reports -- and that
is precisely what self-identified atheists EXCLUDE!
It didn't work. Nobody saw their error. Nobody glimpsed themselves
as the rest of the world sees them.
And the real irony here?-a Theists aren't limited to self reports.
But they were just as blind to this fact as they were to themselves.
How idiotic.
Self identified "Atheists" are idiotic. That was the point.
On 8/25/2026 1:52 PM, JTEM wrote:
Self identified "Atheists" are idiotic. That was the point.
So are
On 8/25/26 3:24 AM, Ted wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:56:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
My point of course was that the only "Evidence" for the existence
of atheists would be personal testimony -- self reports -- and that
is precisely what self-identified atheists EXCLUDE!
It didn't work. Nobody saw their error. Nobody glimpsed themselves
as the rest of the world sees them.
And the real irony here? Theists aren't limited to self reports.
But they were just as blind to this fact as they were to themselves.
How idiotic.
Self identified "Atheists" are idiotic. That was the point.
On 8/25/26 7:50 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2026 1:52 PM, JTEM wrote:
Self identified "Atheists" are idiotic. That was the point.
So are
In English, read for comprehension, you just agree that self
identified "Atheists" are idiotic.
Your fallacyIt's not a fallacy. You need to Google that word,
For what?-a I am an agnostic atheist:
From the article:
On 8/26/26 12:05 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
For what?-a I am an agnostic atheist:
And I'm a white black guy. That's right, I'm transracial:
https://commonwealthtimes.org/2018/04/08/lte-transracial-people-exist-i- know-because-i-am-one/
-aFrom the article:
Wiki isn't a cite. What isn't A.I. these days is still written from
mentally unhinged usenet trolls.
I don't knowI've been telling you this for quite some time.
On 8/27/26 5:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I don't knowI've been telling you this for quite some time.
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't?-a Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
On 8/28/2026 10:08 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't?-a Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
Is the mainstream media
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't? Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
On 8/28/26 11:22 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2026 10:08 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't?-a Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
Is the mainstream media
Three examples. You didn't name even one.
Sure, that's pretty typical for a narcissistic personalty
order, especially one as bad as you display...
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:116s88k$2fdm2$1@dont-email.me:
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't? Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
There is no "mainstream media".
On 8/28/2026 4:32 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/28/26 11:22 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2026 10:08 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't?-a Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
Is the mainstream media
Three examples. You didn't name even one.
Sure, that's pretty typical for a narcissistic personalty
order, especially one as bad as you display...
I don't agree with Vanessa Friedman's hair style
On 8/28/26 10:17 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:116s88k$2fdm2$1@dont-email.me:
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't? Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
There is no "mainstream media".
STOP being such a pussy and respond to the challenge:
Give three examples were you "Disagreed" with the mainstream
media narrative!
There is no mainstream
On 8/29/26 12:25 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2026 4:32 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/28/26 11:22 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2026 10:08 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/28/26 12:02 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Other than you, who do I believe?
The mainstream media. Constantly. Religiously.
Wanna pretend you don't?-a Fine. Give three examples where
you "Disagree" with the mainstream media. Should be
interesting to see what your psychosis dreams up...
Is the mainstream media
Three examples. You didn't name even one.
Sure, that's pretty typical for a narcissistic personalty
order, especially one as bad as you display...
I don't agree with Vanessa Friedman's hair style
The really funny part here is that you actually believe
that you're being clever, instead of transparent.
On 8/30/26 2:33 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
There is no mainstream
The classic "Retard" defense? No. Just your
overriding mental disorder manifested in a
slightly different way: You're still acting
like a pussy though, still running away on
tippy-toes from the challenge:
Name three examples where you "Disagree" with
the mainstream media.
Prove there is
On 8/31/26 9:33 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a Prove there is
For once in your life, try to NOT prove you are a
super highly disordered mental case.
So, again:-a Offer three examples of YOU -- any of
your army of alters/symptoms -- disagreeing with
the mainstream media.
So, again:-a Offer three examples of YOU -- any of
your army of alters/symptoms -- disagreeing with
the mainstream media.
1)-a That there is a God.
2)-a That there is a soul/spirit that survives the death of the brain.
3)-a That human beings will ever land on the surface of the planet Mars.
4)-a The nuclear fusion is a real, technological possibility that someday will happen.
5)-a That quantum computers will someday be able to beat the best
classical computers on the factoring of very large composite numbers.
6)-a That AI is an existential threat to Humanity, or, for that matter,
any threat at all, even a minor one.
7)-a That miracles and/or other supernatural events are real.
Dawn--
On 8/31/2026 10:30 AM, JTEM wrote:someday
On 8/31/26 9:33 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a Prove there is
For once in your life, try to NOT prove you are a
super highly disordered mental case.
So, again:-a Offer three examples of YOU -- any of
your army of alters/symptoms -- disagreeing with
the mainstream media.
1) That there is a God.
2) That there is a soul/spirit that survives the death of the brain.
3) That human beings will ever land on the surface of the planet Mars.
4) The nuclear fusion is a real, technological possibility that
will happen.
5) That quantum computers will someday be able to beat the best
classical computers on the factoring of very large composite numbers.
6) That AI is an existential threat to Humanity, or, for that matter,
any threat at all, even a minor one.
7) That miracles and/or other supernatural events are real.
Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174nhb$18cir$1 >@dont-email.me:
On 8/31/2026 10:30 AM, JTEM wrote:someday
On 8/31/26 9:33 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:1) That there is a God.
???????? Prove there isFor once in your life, try to NOT prove you are a
super highly disordered mental case.
So, again:?? Offer three examples of YOU -- any of
your army of alters/symptoms -- disagreeing with
the mainstream media.
2) That there is a soul/spirit that survives the death of the brain.
3) That human beings will ever land on the surface of the planet Mars.
4) The nuclear fusion is a real, technological possibility that
will happen.8) That we are winning in Vietnam.
5) That quantum computers will someday be able to beat the best
classical computers on the factoring of very large composite numbers.
6) That AI is an existential threat to Humanity, or, for that matter,
any threat at all, even a minor one.
7) That miracles and/or other supernatural events are real.
9) That blacks need to earn their civil rights.
10) That women are "meant to be" homemakers.
11) That a Catholic president will be a tool of the Pope.
12) That interracial marriages should remain illegal.
In fact, the whole counter-culture movement was a
*rejection* of what JTEM thinks was "mainstream
media".
On 8/31/26 4:17 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
So, again:-a Offer three examples of YOU -- any of
your army of alters/symptoms -- disagreeing with
the mainstream media.
1)-a That there is a God.
Must've missed that one, this last news cycle...
2)-a That there is a soul/spirit that survives the death of the brain.
Kind of just repeating yourself:-a Religion. And you're just spewing
nonsense and NOT identifying any real mainstream media message.
3)-a That human beings will ever land on the surface of the planet Mars.
This would be the same mainstream media that though a robotic Mars return-mission was too expensive, the one telling you that there
will be people landing on Mars soon?
4)-a The nuclear fusion is a real, technological possibility that
someday will happen.
I think you meant to pretend that the mainstream media is currently
on a COLD FUSION narrative...
Not true but, hey, you're batting zero...
5)-a That quantum computers will someday be able to beat the best
classical computers on the factoring of very large composite numbers.
What do you mean by "Beat?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records
I remember, on numerous occasions, reading & hearing news articles &
stories that said, "Encryption is dead", because, here soon, quantum >computing will reach a point where it can break encryption keys. I was
not a believer then, and I am not a believer now; in fact, I have never
been a believer in quantum computers doing anything in the way of >significant, meaning computation.
8) That we are winning in Vietnam.
9) That blacks need to earn their civil rights.
10) That women are "meant to be" homemakers.
11) That a Catholic president will be a tool of the Pope.
12) That interracial marriages should remain illegal.
I dont know about you but I'm taking most of the material as
an example of how conservative thinking -- generally claiming things "impossible" you don't understand, politically disagree with, or never
heard of -- can lead to contrary conclusions for different people.
AKA is not logically sound.
I remember, on numerous occasions, reading & hearing news articles &
stories that said, "Encryption is dead", because
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records
I remember, on numerous occasions, reading & hearing news articles &
stories that said, "Encryption is dead", because, here soon, quantum
computing will reach a point where it can break encryption keys. I was
not a believer then, and I am not a believer now; in fact, I have never
been a believer in quantum computers doing anything in the way of
significant, meaning computation.
LOL.
IBM quantum computer solves classically intractable problem in 15 minutes
ScienceDaily, 31 Aug 2026
IBM researchers say a 70-qubit experiment has crossed a major quantum
computing threshold, solving an otherwise ...
This one quite a tricky biz. The machine not only solved the problem
but also proved it had solved the problem.
Solving classically intractable problems is only the tip of the
iceberg. Other quantum effects such as manifesting matter or energy out
of nowhere are also of interest to some people.
Another little story I you can google relates to the Pentagon awarding
a contract this week(?) to a company that has developed a chip that
extends the Casimir Effect -- normally used to push tiny parallel metal plates together via positron/electron pairs popping into existence
outside the plates but not between them -- to produce a very small
flow of electricity out of nowhere.
Yes, yes, yes. All ideas the classical 18th C mind just can't fathom and
can never be trained to accept. :)
On 9/1/26 10:28 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
I dont know about you but I'm taking most of the material as
an example of how conservative thinking -- generally claiming things
"impossible" you don't understand, politically disagree with, or never
heard of -- can lead to contrary conclusions for different people.
AKA is not logically sound.
You're explaining Trump Derangement Syndrome.
...."<SHRIEK!> Trump said that a Harvard study linked the use
of acetaminophen during pregnancy to autism. Quick! Someone!
ANYONE: I'm in my 7th month! Hand me a bucket of Tylenol for me
to swallow!"
I knew all was lost after the LeftTards first got Trump elected
in 2016. No, they hadn't overturned Roe v Wade yet, after their
hyper successful "STOP HILLARY!" campaign but, Trump announced
he wanted to withdraw all the U.S. forces from Syria and, of
course, the LeftTards all turned into a pack of war-loving
chickenhawks.
Trump's goal is to abandon world leadership
and turn that role over to China and Russia.
And you support that?
On 9/2/26 9:23 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Trump's goal is to abandon world leadership
and turn that role over to China and Russia.
Lol! You're an idiot!
Trump cut off 40% of China's oil with his little
war in the gulf, and you think he's turning over
control to them?
What he's saying is "If you FuckTards want us to
provide your defense you've got to start
rewarding us for it, or go suck a Russian cock."
And you support that?
I support getting you the mental health treatment
you so desperately need...
But thank you for CONFIRMING my point: Trump
says "Let's Withdraw" and the opposition
immediately converts to Chickenhawk neocons!
See the posted citations below.
}...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_recordsLOL.
I remember, on numerous occasions, reading & hearing news articles &
stories that said, "Encryption is dead", because, here soon, quantum
computing will reach a point where it can break encryption keys. I was
not a believer then, and I am not a believer now; in fact, I have never
been a believer in quantum computers doing anything in the way of
significant, meaning computation.
IBM quantum computer solves classically intractable problem in 15 minutes
ScienceDaily, 31 Aug 2026
IBM researchers say a 70-qubit experiment has crossed a major quantum
computing threshold, solving an otherwise ...
LOL.
One of my infamous witticisms used to be:
Conservative thinking only predicts the past.
But over the past few years I think there's enough evidence accumulating (thank-you generation III of social media) to update that to:
Conservative thinking barely predicts the past.
The subject is the inability of so called "Atheist" to prove that
atheists exist
On 9/2/26 2:02 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
See the posted citations below.
Why?
Trump cut off 40% of China's imported oil with his
little gulf adventure.
He also kicked them out of their Venezuelan grab...
Why are you pretending that the world stands still as
you scratch your ass & sniff your finger?
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 23:41:45 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<117delq$9e9m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
The subject is the inability of so called "Atheist" to prove that
atheists exist
Trump created a global leadership void
that China is rushing to fill.
On 8/26/26 5:00 AM, Ted wrote:
Your fallacyIt's not a fallacy. You need to Google that word,
see how you misunderstood it.
The fake atheists demand "Proof" that God exists,
and then convince themselves that they just made
an ultra convincing "Argument." So I lowered the
bar for all you 'Tards. I didn't ask for "Proof"
I only asked for EVIDENCE.
Not proof, I asked for evidence. I lowered the
bar.
Oo! And I demanded that they only use evidence
that they would accept from the theist.
{Crickets}
You fakers have so openly rigged the "Debate" that
only a mentally damaged fake atheists could miss
it....
"We can't even support the claim that atheists
exists, not under our rules, even though atheists
are supposed to just be people and no divine
creatures."
Never mind "Prove," you door knob lickers can't
even SUPPORT THE CLAIM that any atheists exist,
with evidence.... because YOU have long since
rejected as invalid the only thing you might
possibly cite as "Evidence."
Your rules: You bar self reports, personal testimony.
You'reIt's not working. You did not answer the challenge.
On 9/4/26 9:26 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Trump created a global leadership void
that China is rushing to fill.
Where? How?
Trump cut off 40% of China's imported oil in the gulf
alone, plus what he took from them in Venezuela.
YOU are so emotionally damaged that you see this as
"Doing nothing."
What do you want Trump to do?
China is eyeingYou keep saying that, as if repetition someone takes
On 9/4/26 6:34 AM, Attila wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 23:41:45 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<117delq$9e9m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
The subject is the inability of so called "Atheist" to prove that
atheists exist
The subject hasn't changed and you still haven't supported
the existence of atheists with evidence that an atheists
would accept from a theist.
On 9/6/26 1:53 AM, Ted wrote:
You'reIt's not working. You did not answer the challenge.
You were challenged to present evidence for the
existence of atheists, but only a kind of evidence
that you would accept from theists trying to
support the existence of God.
You're pathetic, childish one-line-wonder makes it
look like you're frustrated, trapped by the
challenge, so you can only lash out... emotionally.
And that's funny.
I laughed at you!
On 9/6/26 1:53 AM, Ted wrote:|The spontaneous healing of an adult amputee, especially, when predicted
You'reIt's not working. You did not answer the challenge.
You were challenged to present evidence for the
existence of atheists, but only a kind of evidence
that you would accept from theists trying to
support the existence of God.
You're pathetic, childish one-line-wonder makes it
look like you're frustrated, trapped by the
challenge, so you can only lash out... emotionally.
And that's funny.
I laughed at you!
On 9/6/26 2:36 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
China is eyeingYou keep saying that, as if repetition someone takes
the stupid away, but Trump has done A! LOT! to stem
China and you never noticed ANY of it!
You're ignorant.
And China didn't only appear yesterday, what do you
want to pretend Biden or O Bum Hole did about it?
What are the Democrats in congress doing?
|On 9/6/2026 1:07 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 9/6/26 1:53 AM, Ted wrote:|The spontaneous healing of an adult amputee, especially, when predicted
You'reIt's not working. You did not answer the challenge.
You were challenged to present evidence for the
existence of atheists, but only a kind of evidence
that you would accept from theists trying to
support the existence of God.
You're pathetic, childish one-line-wonder makes it
look like you're frustrated, trapped by the
challenge, so you can only lash out... emotionally.
And that's funny.
I laughed at you!
|in advance would certainly be a step in the right direction to
|establishing the existence of God!
|Dawn
Surely a cheap magic trick.
The amusing thing is, the 2 best theories Science has
at present -- Relativity and Quantum Theory -- both point in
the direction the universe is some kind of construct and
humans and other minds are just visitors.
It seems agnosticism is sane but atheism is about to develop a heap of problems, underlining the basic idea that proving the negative is
logically fraught and probably should not be attempted by
non-mathematicians. :)
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:117kdao$2kiqc$1@dont-email.me:
On 9/6/26 2:36 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
China is eyeingYou keep saying that, as if repetition someone takes
the stupid away, but Trump has done A! LOT! to stem
China and you never noticed ANY of it!
You're ignorant.
And China didn't only appear yesterday, what do you
want to pretend Biden or O Bum Hole did about it?
What are the Democrats in congress doing?
Republicans control the whole government
and you blame the Democrats are not stopping them?
Trump Defends Chinese Purchases of U.S. Farmland
May 21, 2026 https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2026/05/trump-defends-chinese- purchases-of-u-s-farmland/
On 9/6/2026 8:09 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
It seems agnosticism is sane but atheism is about to develop a heap of problems, underlining the basic idea that proving the negative is
logically fraught and probably should not be attempted by non-mathematicians. :)
And, so, the FSM exists because no one can prove that it does NOT exist??
Dawn
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/6/2026 8:09 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
It seems agnosticism is sane but atheism is about to develop a heap of
problems, underlining the basic idea that proving the negative is
logically fraught and probably should not be attempted by
non-mathematicians. :)
An agnostic *is* an atheist. An atheist doesn't necessarily
believe there are no gods, so it's not incumbent upon him to
prove it.
The dictionary is your friend.
On 9/7/2026 2:12 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/6/2026 8:09 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
It seems agnosticism is sane but atheism is about to develop a heap of >>> problems, underlining the basic idea that proving the negative is
logically fraught and probably should not be attempted by
non-mathematicians. :)
An agnostic *is* an atheist. An atheist doesn't necessarily
believe there are no gods, so it's not incumbent upon him to
prove it.
The dictionary is your friend.
Here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
And, here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
From the second link:
Note: Do not confuse agnostic with atheist, which refers to a person who does not believe in the existence of God or any gods.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/7/2026 2:12 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:Here:
On 9/6/2026 8:09 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
It seems agnosticism is sane but atheism is about to develop a heap of >>>>> problems, underlining the basic idea that proving the negative is
logically fraught and probably should not be attempted by
non-mathematicians. :)
An agnostic *is* an atheist. An atheist doesn't necessarily
believe there are no gods, so it's not incumbent upon him to
prove it.
The dictionary is your friend.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
And, here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
From the second link:
Note: Do not confuse agnostic with atheist, which refers to a person who
does not believe in the existence of God or any gods.
Exactly. An atheist is anyone who has no belief in gods.
That includes agnostics. Agnostics are a subset of atheists.
Some atheists have an active belief that there are no gods.
They are sometimes called "strong atheists". Other atheists,
"weak atheists", lack any belief either way.
Do not confuse "does not believe in gods" with "believes
there are no gods". They are disbelief and belief, night and
day.
Corollary: everyone was born an atheist.
Next up: what does "believe" mean?
On 9/8/2026 1:36 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/7/2026 2:12 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:Here:
On 9/6/2026 8:09 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
It seems agnosticism is sane but atheism is about to develop a heap of >>>>> problems, underlining the basic idea that proving the negative is
logically fraught and probably should not be attempted by
non-mathematicians. :)
An agnostic *is* an atheist. An atheist doesn't necessarily
believe there are no gods, so it's not incumbent upon him to
prove it.
The dictionary is your friend.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
And, here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
From the second link:
Note: Do not confuse agnostic with atheist, which refers to a person who >> does not believe in the existence of God or any gods.
Exactly. An atheist is anyone who has no belief in gods.
That includes agnostics. Agnostics are a subset of atheists.
Some atheists have an active belief that there are no gods.
They are sometimes called "strong atheists". Other atheists,
"weak atheists", lack any belief either way.
Do not confuse "does not believe in gods" with "believes
there are no gods". They are disbelief and belief, night and
day.
Corollary: everyone was born an atheist.
Next up: what does "believe" mean?
You can contact the staff of Merriam-Webster here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/contact-us
PSA -- No death threats; they will contact the police!! (And, anyone
doing such will end up in jail!)
Dawn
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:53:17 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,746 |