Hi, not Atheist

[Gawen]

I agree with the point made, but again am a little displeased with the wording. We are not so much born with a lack of belief as we are born without belief in god(s)

I thought I said that.

ehh...semantics...*chucklin*.

It's just that one implies having something but losing or otherwise being deprived of something, while the other does not.

I see your point. But either way works in this case because if one is born with a lack of something, he never had it to begin with....right?

[Asmodean]

I see your point. But either way works in this case because if one is born with a lack of something, he never had it to begin with....right?

Yes, pretty much - or at least to any reasonable person. However, such small things can spark massive misunderstanding. For instance, there are more ways of twisting "born with a lack of" than there are of twisting "born without" and certain religious types are all too twist-happy.

Me, I try to have clear wording as a general rule, unless speaking in metaphors or regarding the end result of a conversation as utterly unimportant.

[The Magic Pudding]

I agree with the point made, but again am a little displeased with the wording. We are not so much born with a lack of belief as we are born without belief in god(s)

I thought I said that.

ehh...semantics...*chucklin*.

It's just that one implies having something but losing or otherwise being deprived of something, while the other does not.

Na I'm not getting it, lack means don't have, without means don't have. 
I'm resisting looking at a dictionary although I often do.
Without can mean outside, does that make a difference?
When I first started reading the words of thinken folks I admired their use of the word idle.

[Asmodean]

Na I'm not getting it, lack means don't have, without means don't have. 
I'm resisting looking at a dictionary although I often do.
Without can mean outside, does that make a difference?
When I first started reading the words of thinken folks I admired their use of the word idle.

Let us examine it then. "being born with a lack of something" versus "being born without something"

The first expression says, "born with... Oh, wait! It's not there!" thus oh-so-subtly implying that there is something missing - something that was expected to or should have been there.

The second, while meaning the same, has no such subtle implication - it is the simplest way of stating the fact in question.

[The Magic Pudding]

The second, while meaning the same, has no such subtle implication - it is the simplest way of stating the fact in question.

OK thanks, Lack the noun: "The state of needing something that is absent or unavailable"

Lack the Verb: "Be without"

Hey, what can I say, I'm an action guy, I'm going with the verb.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Define "pointless".
I have plenty of things in my life that have a "point". I love my husband and my son, I love helping people and I work with animals for a living. I love the sensations of moving and breathing and enjoying nature. I love my memories and my plans for the future.
I'm at peace with dying and ceasing to be.
I'm not afraid of hell, or the devil, or some kind of eternal punishment.
I don't feel threatened by ideas that challenge me.

Sounds like some great "points" right there, to me.

pointless: to have no sense, use, or purpose. I did not mean to say you cannot find meaning in your life.

Oh, well, I guess my life is pointless then. I wonder what's wrong with that?

[Twentythree]

Atheism is appealing to me in the fact that it is a reaction to former beliefs...It was created because of a belief in God.

Well, I have to disagree on this one because all humans are born with a lack of belief in god/s.

This may be true, but all humans are born with the ability to believe in both concrete and abstract concepts. That may be where bike is getting mixed up. If you go back and read some of the original argument on this post and add concept after god it makes much more sense. God concepts are ideas, no one will argue the existence of god concepts. God concepts have a history and may have motors or evolved into all sorts of interesting philosophy.

[bicycle]

So if not believing in a god is pointless, is believing in a god also pointless?

In my opinion no, it would be similar to believing in yourself, or in others.

There is reasonable evidence that you exist.  There is reasonable evidence that others exist.  Where is the reasonable evidence for any god?

If the idea of God exists, why would people deny it?, even if it is not physically existing, neither is my plans for the future, but I still believe in them. Do you believe ideas can be destroyed?

The idea of a teapot orbiting the sun exists, why would people deny that?  The idea of hobbits living happily in Middle Earth exists, why would people deny that?  An idea doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. How does the question of whether ideas can be destroyed relate to this line of discussion?

Because god is an idea, and since that is the case why would you deny that?

[bicycle]

Atheism is appealing to me in the fact that it is a reaction to former beliefs...It was created because of a belief in God.

Well, I have to disagree on this one because all humans are born with a lack of belief in god/s.

This may be true, but all humans are born with the ability to believe in both concrete and abstract concepts. That may be where bike is getting mixed up. If you go back and read some of the original argument on this post and add concept after god it makes much more sense. God concepts are ideas, no one will argue the existence of god concepts. God concepts have a history and may have motors or evolved into all sorts of interesting philosophy.

You could not believe there is no god without someone telling you about god, that would not make sense to be born knowing anything, people don't even know what their instincts are until they are observed..

[Recusant]

Because god is an idea, and since that is the case why would you deny that?

The idea of a god does not equal the existence of that god.  Are you implying that I'm denying that the idea of a god exists?  If so I'll be as clear as possible:  The ideas of not just one god, but hundreds if not thousands of gods exist. Is it your position that if an idea of a god exists, then that god actually does exist?

You failed to address a couple of questions.  I'll re-post them for you:

There is reasonable evidence that you exist.  There is reasonable evidence that others exist.  Where is the reasonable evidence for any god?

How does the question of whether ideas can be destroyed relate to this line of discussion?

[bicycle]

Because god is an idea, and since that is the case why would you deny that?

The idea of a god does not equal the existence of that god.  Are you implying that I'm denying that the idea of a god exists?  If so I'll be as clear as possible:  The ideas of not just one god, but hundreds if not thousands of gods exist. Is it your position that if an idea of a god exists, then that god actually does exist?

No, God exists, thousands of "God's" would just be dividing up the same idea into however people see fit, which would be ridiculous IMO

You failed to address a couple of questions.  I'll re-post them for you:

There is reasonable evidence that you exist.  There is reasonable evidence that others exist.  Where is the reasonable evidence for any god?

How does the question of whether ideas can be destroyed relate to this line of discussion?

There's a difference between knowing and believing, how would you know god does not exist, if there is no evidence...Do you feel that people came up with the idea of God for no reason? Contrarily that's almost how I feel about atheism...

[bicycle]

I brought up the fact that ideas cannot be destroyed because in that case ideas cannot be created...

[bicycle]

So you think that there is no reasonable evidence god exists, and yet we do exist?

[The Magic Pudding]

So you think that there is no reasonable evidence god exists, and yet we do exist?

And so are you the god of bothering atheist forums?

[bicycle]

The truth is there is no reasonable evidence that God exists, because reasonable evidence is only considered something you can see or touch, in which case I don't think God is small enough to see, it's almost like saying look at your eye, without a mirror. or touch your finger with the same finger.