Veronika,
>>No. No no no no no no. It refers to the first meaning.<<
Good! This is what I wanted to hear from you, because we are now back on the rational level of the argument (it is hard to keep to this level with somebody who vehemently defends or attacks “religious convictions”). We started with a simple statement “God exists” considered in the dictionaries that can give only one-sentence definitions of terms we were discussing.

If I was asked in a public-opinion poll to tick (a) I believe in God; (b) I do not; (c) none of the above, I would tick (a) - you probably (c) or would not answer - because I know that the evaluator would count the number of (a) and (b) ticks to conclude what percentage of theist and atheist respectively there are in the population (and might speculate about what (c) ticks could mean). ON THIS LEVEL we two would disagree and I would agree with e.g. Polycarp.

However, I thought discussions here are on a more sophisticated level, although if one goes too far in the direction towards “sophistication” one runs into the danger of being accused of condescension (see my unfortunate remark I apologised to you for, or the last two paragraphs about mjbp in your post containing the “no no no no no”).

Thank you for the reference to Skeptic’s Dictionary, explaining the meaning of atheism, though without a simple definition. It takes many more than one sentence, which was my point when referring to standard dictionaries that are bound to give brief definitions. This is more or less what I understand under atheism, though I do not remember whether I read this piece before. I could try to describe my own “theist” position on the same level, but certainly not in 350 words. (ctd)

(ctd) I have read only the first few pages, but I intend to read the lot. At least where they explain what atheism is, they do not mix it with an emotionally loaded (and often offensive to others) defense as some contributors to OLO do, though, of course, the article is not only a description of, but also an argument for, atheism, which is their good right.

Because of all the ramifications explained also in the article, I chose Oxford Companion to Philosophy‘s definition that starts with: “Atheism is OSTENSIBLY the doctrine that there is no God“ (c.f. my earlier post to CJ Morgan). For the same reasons I stated - in one of my posts to you - the alternatives as “an additional belief or disbelief in Something that science cannot tackle”, i.e. is outside the reach of our senses, instruments and scientific theories. This is how I interpreted e.g. Carl Sagan’s much quoted belief (or disbelief): "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." I can certainly better understand philosophising scientists (even those I disagree with) than philosophers (notably post-modernists) making remarks about what science is about.

So if you also subscribe to this long description of atheism then we have different positions in the theist-atheist debate, but are on the same level or wavelength, and should understand each other.

And that is the point of this exercise. I have always voted for the same political party in Australia, and have always wished they would win. However, I would not like the other party to fade into oblivion giving Australia a de facto one party system: both parties are needed for a healthy (democratic) society. I believe that something similar is true about the theist-atheist debate for the (intellectual at least) health of our society. See also Jürgen Habermas on a “post-secular society” that I quoted before (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html).

George: "However, I thought discussions here are on a more sophisticated level, although if one goes too far in the direction towards "sophistication" one runs into the danger of being accused of condescension."

Not at all. One runs into the danger of being accused of condescension if one is condescending.

I'm can't quite determine if your latest posts serve to continue the discussion or finalise it. Either way, I'm done, but thank you very much for an interesting conversation.

Fascinating. I've been to the coast for a few days and return to find this pointless discussion still going around in circles - or rather, down the gurgler, as the religious sophists use a lot of words to say "la la la, I can't hear you" to those of us who don't believe in God/s.

Incidentally, George - I stated quite clearly that I understand your convoluted arguments, but that I'm not persuaded by them. I don't believe in God or Easter Bunnies, but that's not the same as actively believing that neither God nor Easter Bunnies exist. In fact, I never think about either unless I read silly but amusing OLO discussions.

And where would a display of Christian sophistry on OLO be without the contribution of mjpb, who is as prolifically obtuse as ever. Pericles was wise to end it quickly...

As for Porky: << the reason people believe is due to a work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, minds and wills, not the apparent credibility of the story it is based on >>

I agree that this is a classic exposition of the fundamentalist epistemology. Forget the evidence - believe in fantasies and hallucinations instead. George, mjpb et al would do well to emulate the clarity and simplicity of Porky's distillation of what is, ultimately, their own position with respect to the Christian God.

Nice one, Veronika. I think I'm technically a "polyatheist", although I think I'd rather not be called a polyanything.

Veronika,

>> One runs into the danger of being accused of condescension if one is condescending. <<

Like “I have spend decades being interested in faith, and I know I understand it, whereas you guys (and I know this is going to sound bad, so apologies in advance) seem to have constructed an intellectual roadblock in front of a fairly simple piece of reasoning. “ ?

Condescension or not - mine was about philosophy, yours about faith, but never mind - we have agreed more or less on what atheism means, and I certainly do not want to start another argument about what condescension and sophisticated discussion mean.

Nevertheless, I would also like to thank you very much for an interesting conversation that among other things helped me to formulate my own ideas more carefully.

CJ Morgan,
I do not remember offering you any arguments, convoluted or not, in favour of this or that belief, disbelief, world-view or philosophy: I was just trying to clarify the meaning of “believe in”, and related terms, as they are defined in standard dictionaries, and as used e.g. in the article referred to by Veronika. The fact that you still do not seem to see the difference is indeed a strong argument against continuing this debate. I just hope there are others here who understand that difference.

"CJ Morgan,
I do not remember offering you any arguments, convoluted or not, in favour of this or that belief, disbelief, world-view or philosophy: I was just trying to clarify the meaning of “believe in”, and related terms, as they are defined in standard dictionaries, and as used e.g. in the article referred to by Veronika..."

George,

CJ just likes to throw around things like that when he can't argue his point. Don't take it to heart. To him, if an atheist argument struggles it is because Christians are just too clever, use too convuluted expression or stoop to sophistry so there is no point evaluating the Christian comments on their merits. You get used to it. When you consider that not everyone who reads the thread contributes and not all who read but don't contribute fall for his tactic your typing isn't wasted.

Veronika,

The discussion probably might as well dry up on that but how about the key point of the thread and the issue of the evidence of scriptures that was raised by Poly. At risk of Pericles thinking I'm trying an new angle to come back after he dumped me I'd like to pursue that further.

From one possible doctrinal approach the Bible is dismissed because it is accused of being written to convert people. However IMHO I invite people who are open to it to consider the value of the Bible as historical in a more thorough manner. The issue arose in the context of Jesus so I'm currently considering the New Testament.

I take on board the potential bias but note it is in the context of a religion which values honesty. Other considerations are the genuineness, veracity, integrity, and confirmation by research. My contention is that the New Testament stacks up well if fairly considered.