"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:0bRHi.6$W76.1@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
> news:13evm5v1at70h21@corp.supernews.com...
>> Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief",
>> but go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
>> "disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
>> "agnosticism". Again, from Websters:
>
> negative, ghost rider.
>
> i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in
> god. whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence
> for god, and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for the
> possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics believe
> that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that is NOT
> me.
>
> i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
> versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't herself
> either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there
> is something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other
> dictionaries. they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many
> sources. here's what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of
> understanding which is why we are having this discourse.
>
> american heritage:
>
> disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.
>
> right next to:
>
> a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
>
> doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me to
> deny? are you getting my point?

No, and yes. Example:

Statgement: "I watched TV last night"
Denial: No you didn't.

Where is there something in unequivocably in evidence for having watched TV
last night? It is still a "denial".

OK, you can live with your definition from American Heritage. All my life,
we always referred to Websters, so I'll live with mine.

Shelly