Had to pass this one on, couldn't resist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This isn't a difficult concept, Vlad. Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief) in god(s) but to apply it to something that lacks the ability to form that sort of belief is redundant and rather silly.

But I 'm not following your argument

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods

A carrot lacks belief in gods

But it is not an atheist

because it lacks the ability to form that sort of belief? What sort of belief?

In other words what is the human atheist doing that the carrot isn't?

Atheism is not the mere passive lack of belief it seems.

[Stranger]

But I 'm not following your argument

Then try using your brain. A carrot is an atheist (because it has no belief in gods) in very much the same way as a rock is vegetarian (because it never eats meat).

[wigginhall]

I remember interminable arguments about whether babies are atheists.   You can argue both ways, but as with carrots, babies tend not to form beliefs, well, such complicated ones.    So to say that you lack something, which you can't possess, is odd.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Then try using your brain. A carrot is an atheist (because it has no belief in gods) in very much the same way as a rock is vegetarian (because it never eats meat).

A carrot is a living thing, a rock is not (unless you want to argue that rocks reproduce by splitting themselves).

[Gordon]

A carrot is a living thing, a rock is not (unless you want to argue that rocks reproduce by splitting themselves).

Even so neither has the capacity to have beliefs, which is the point.

[Stranger]

A carrot is a living thing, a rock is not (unless you want to argue that rocks reproduce by splitting themselves).

Which has bugger all to do with the facts that carrots have no belief in gods and rocks never eat meat.

Applying to term atheist to a carrot is no less silly than applying the term vegetarian to a rock. Which (again) is probably why the dictionary definitions of both terms refer to people: vegetarian, atheist.

[jeremyp]

So if it is true that atheists are more intelligent then does that mean that atheism makes you more intelligent?

Nobody is claiming that. People would probably claim that the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to get hoodwinked by religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then try using your brain. A carrot is an atheist (because it has no belief in gods) in very much the same way as a rock is vegetarian (because it never eats meat).

Try using yours.

A carrot is an atheist because it lacks belief in God's
So human atheism has to be more than just a lack of belief in God's
Therefore the person who says atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's is wrong.

So stranger if there is more to atheism......what is it?

[Gordon]

Try using yours.

A carrot is an atheist because it lacks belief in God's
So human atheism has to be more than just a lack of belief in God's
Therefore the person who says atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's is wrong.

So stranger if there is more to atheism......what is it?

You do realise that people and carrots are, dare I say it, different.

Funniest attempt at deduction this century though (so far): have a carrot.

[Stranger]

A carrot is an atheist because it lacks belief in God's
So human atheism has to be more than just a lack of belief in God's
Therefore the person who says atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's is wrong.

So stranger if there is more to atheism......what is it?

Nothing - your 'argument' is nonsense.

Atheism is not having belief in any gods. A carrot has no belief in gods, it also has no belief in ghosts, doesn't trust the scientific method, can't use logic, and is illiterate and innumerate.

So what? It doesn't change the meaning of the other terms when applied to humans - neither does it make it sensible to apply any of them to a carrot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do realise that people and carrots are, dare I say it, different.

Funniest attempt at deduction this century though (so far): have a carrot.

Not really because it is an example of atheists turning to incorrect propositions
vis atheists stating in argument that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods. Just google that line to see how often it crops up. We must rejoice that such smart aleckness can no longer be used.

Secondly, Ippy puts great store in the conclusion of this so called survey. It is important that the terms are forensically gone through for the test to be scientific.

So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?

[floo]

Not really because it is an example of atheists turning to incorrect propositions
vis atheists stating in argument that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods. Just google that line to see how often it crops up. We must rejoice that such smart aleckness can no longer be used.

Secondly, Ippy puts great store in the conclusion of this so called survey. It is important that the terms are forensically gone through for the test to be scientific.

So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?

Atheism is a lack of belief in any god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nothing - your 'argument' is nonsense.

Atheism is not having belief in any gods. A carrot has no belief in gods, it also has no belief in ghosts, doesn't trust the scientific method, can't use logic, and is illiterate and innumerate.

So what? It doesn't change the meaning of the other terms when applied to humans - neither does it make it sensible to apply any of them to a carrot.

So it isn't sensible to say a carrot lacks a belief in gods? Is it incorrect though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism is a lack of belief in any god.

So carrots who lack belief in any god are atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which has bugger all to do with the facts that carrots have no belief in gods and rocks never eat meat.

Applying to term atheist to a carrot is no less silly than applying the term vegetarian to a rock.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ          Appeal to ridicule and statements that it isn't sensible to.

As it happens a rock does not eat vegetables and therefore cannot be vegetarians.

Thus we find you guilty of talking intellectual wank.

[Gordon]

Not really because it is an example of atheists turning to incorrect propositions
vis atheists stating in argument that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods. Just google that line to see how often it crops up. We must rejoice that such smart aleckness can no longer be used.

Secondly, Ippy puts great store in the conclusion of this so called survey. It is important that the terms are forensically gone through for the test to be scientific.

So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?

Don't be silly, Vlad, you've had this explained to you before.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do realise that people and carrots are, dare I say it, different.

Funniest attempt at deduction this century though (so far): have a carrot.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Horselaugh fallacy

[Stranger]

As it happens a rock does not eat vegetables and therefore cannot be vegetarians.

vegetarianism - The practice of not eating meat or fish...

So it isn't sensible to say a carrot lacks a belief in gods? Is it incorrect though?

FFS Vlad, there really isn't a difficult concept here - it's very, very simple. Even you should be able to get it.

Yes, it's correct - just as it's correct that that a rock doesn't eat meat or fish and your friend the carrot can't read, write or do arithmetic.

So if you really want to make an arse of yourself, you can call a carrot illiterate, innumerate, and atheist and a rock a vegetarian - in the narrowest and  most pedantic of senses, they are all correct - just, very, very silly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad, you've had this explained to you before.

Gordon that's just your wee ploy isnt it?......and we will find that you are unable to either repeat why if atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods it cannot apply to a carrot.....or reference where you did.

Oh and Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Appeal to ridicule.

[Gordon]

So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?

It is a position that there are no good reasons to think that there are Gods, often (as in my case) as the result of concluding that the various arguments offered in support of there being Gods all fail due to being either fallacious or incoherent (or both).

Therefore, atheists tend to have an absence of belief in Gods: which is not the same thing as actively believing there are no Gods.

Do you get it now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

................they are all correct - just, very, very silly.

Bzzzzz appeal to ridicule.

So I am right. Thanks.

[Stranger]

Bzzzzz appeal to ridicule.

No, an appeal to ridicule involves ...comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke.

I'm not making your argument the object of a joke, your argument is a joke, from the get-go and all by itself, I'm just providing a commentary.

[jeremyp]

So carrots who lack belief in any god are atheist.

I think that's fair comment. In a trivial sense, carrots are atheist. However, the survey we are talking about was only of humans who had an understanding of the concept of gods.

I also would  surprised if there was not an exchange on this forum back in the mists of time where some atheist pointed out we are all born atheist and you argued the opposite based on the premise that you couldn't be an atheist without having some concept of God.

[wigginhall]

I actually met a Catholic carrot the other day.   I was about to slice it up, when I heard it squeak something about transubstantiation, so I paused, to give it a chance, and then it said that it meant consubstantiation, so I thought that was Lutheran nonsense, so I chopped it up, and put it in the casserole.   Do you think that it's gone to hell?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a position that there are no good reasons to think that there are Gods, often (as in my case) as the result of concluding that the various arguments offered in support of there being Gods all fail due to being either fallacious or incoherent (or both).

Therefore, atheists tend to have an absence of belief in Gods: which is not the same thing as actively believing there are no Gods.

Do you get it now?

It is a position that there are no good reasons to think that there are Gods, often (as in my case) as the result of concluding that the various arguments offered in support of there being Gods all fail due to being either fallacious or incoherent (or both).

Well we will leave your grasp of fallacies out of it but what you are describing is a bit more than the mere lack of belief in gods. Without prejudice to your capabilities I accept there was a process by which you arrived at the position of being an atheist but what about atheists who just don't think they have to bother or think about what you claim to have reviewed?

Several years ago I did a year's further training and knew several atheists I cannot recall any exchange with them that is as nasty as on here. Mind you I knew them to be intellectual and academic and they weren't afraid of presenting their working out and to be honest enjoyed their company better than many agnostics or apatheists, what's happened to you guys? I digress.