lets try the names calling thingy

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.theologer.com/2011/04/nine-billion-names-of-god.html&sa=U&ei=5ZMDT7uXGsmjiQfXoJDQAQ&ved=0CBwQFjAE&sig2=G3qD5qunoqMjN9rbnGu-Bw&usg=AFQjCNHI-vbF4f3YZEKFGwtISeIae26kjQ

everything ever named...came from within
[a mind thunk it]..[first]

its clever this alpha-thiest..[athiest scam]
unbelievers steal the supreeem fullfillmenmt of the thiest..[alpha thiest]

alpha/gnostic
and thus the alpha/theo

let rething the a
letting it be..as it was meant to be
ie discriptive honourum..of the alpha/thiest/gnostic/good..[god]

but then the mob rection sets in..
missusing the big a..[as add-verb?]
to negate the fullfillment of the objectives..of the thiest and the athiest

i know god is real..
[based on the probability of the known known's
be they gnostic acts..or science facts..]

the known knowns
rule out science as a cause

yes i know god is real...because
his sign...is logi*c..light life love

all good comes by the a-theo
the one and only truelly good[god]

noted..this advert
Global Atheist Convention

on this link

http://wordinfo.info/unit/2738/page:11

so im not quoting from it
it runs 12 [pages]

Really, Grim?

>>It's quite fascinating that you can put a few atheists into a room together and they will argue endlessly about the nature of the belief or non belief of the non existence of a non corporeal being.<<

I can only presume that this is sarcasm.

I have, on many occasions, been in a room together with a bunch of atheists, and I can assure you that we have never, ever, on any one single occasion, argued "endlessly about the nature of the belief or non belief of the non existence of a non corporeal being."

But perhaps you mix in entirely different circles.

OK, I see your game now AJ. I’d have posted this several hours ago if I hadn’t exceeded my limit, but I see that Grim is right onto you now as well.

According to you it all comes down to definitions. If you read my last posts and simply remove the words atheist, atheistic, gnostic and agnostic (which I only fitted for your happiness) then re-read, perhaps we may have a discussion.

If you are only interested in your self-definition of an atheist, together with hiding behind your self-classification as an agnostic-theist, then what’s to discuss? You want the position that you never actually have to “deny” the existence of a god covered at all exits.

Unfortunately, to be an “atheist” according to many dictionaries is to “deny” or “disbelieve” the existence of a god.

To “deny” is a strident stand that needs defence against challenge, as you well know. To “disbelieve” means to “reject as false”, similarly strident.
Your claim to being agnostic, a simple doubter, is overridden by stridency.

I’m sure you’d happily argue away over this, ad nauseum, through a judicious choice of dictionaries, especially over words like “disbelieve”. I’m not interested in dictionaries at ten paces providing you opportunity to refute by obfuscation. Hiding smugly behind a contruct of self-serving definitions and self-styled classifications avoids defending the indefensible.

I am an honest and unconfused atheist, AJ, while you are a self-deluded or closet one masquerading as an agnostic.

I believe there is no god. I accept this it is simply matter of faith to me, just as for theists. Together we honestly stand but you, AJ, really need to come out of the closet before you disappear up your own orifice!

The hair-splitting over terminology is becoming excruciating, Luciferase.

>>A man may be unconvinced by the by theists’ evidence in support of their belief, remaining a doubter (agnostic)<<

I do not "doubt".

I am entirely unconvinced by the story that is presented.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the story is fabricated.

More than that, I am concerned at the very nature of the "evidence" provided, which seems to build massive claims upon a complete lack of any substance whatsoever.

In Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", a fiction was created, that the people proceeded to share between themselves. All the "evidence" is in fact manufactured along the way. By the tailors, by the courtiers, and most significantly in the conversations between the citizenry, all entirely unsupported by anything that is material (apologies for the inadvertent pun).

"Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!" "What a marvellous train!" "And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!" They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted" (The Emperor's New Clothes)

http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm

A classic parable, of people willing to convince themselves in the face of an utter and complete lack of evidence.

Did the small boy who broke the spell "doubt" what his senses told him, that the entire story was a crock?

Or did he, quite simply, know?

Apologies again, Pericles; I hadn't expected anyone to take me quite so literally.
I was of course referring to the 'room' you, Luciferase, AJ Philips, David f., WmTrevor etc., and I are currently sharing.

Touché, Grim.

>>I was of course referring to the 'room' you, Luciferase, AJ Philips, David f., WmTrevor etc., and I are currently sharing.<<

Although to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that everyone you mention is completely certain that they are atheists. Quite a few of the discussion points are precisely those tabled by Christians, in their attempt to persuade us that atheism is "just another faith".

Speaking for myself, challenging those ideas is why I am posting here. I think of it as practice for the main event.