I would like to add my personal opinion on the definition of “atheist”.
IMO it is a response to a question, which is Is there a god?" And for myself, the answer is no.
It is just a response to a question. Just like me saying “two” when asked how many thumbs I have. I do not require a belief system, a philosophy, or anything additional. Just two thumbs.
There we differ.
If I’m asked “do you believe in god?” I’m obliged to answer “No” because I don’t believe.
If I’m asked “Is there a god?” I answer honestly " I don’t know" This because I don’t know and have never come across anyone who has convinced me one way or t’other
To argue that it’s intuitively obvious, or just common sense that there is no god is simply an argument from incredulity fallacy and may be dismissed.
No mater how unlikely I think the existence of god might be, I make no claims also because to assert “'there is no god” is an affirming claim and attracts the burden of no proof
@boomer47 My previous post was driven by the desire to isolate the label “atheist” from “belief” or “faith”. That is why I phrased my post the way I did, to reduce atheism to a very simple answer to a very simple question, which if you ignore the fact we are discussing a possible god, is just a simple answer to a simple question.
Too many times I witness theists attempt to attach all kinds of baggage to being an atheist, on which I object.
Ah, I replied to what you actually said, not to what you apparently meant.
As far as I’m aware, we don’t get to redefine the common/accepted meanings of words. Besides, why do you care about what some apologist twit might think? Such wondrous examples of human survival seldom give us the same consideration. (Take a look at our latest little treasure, what’s her name and her first post, with “atheists are liars” )
Excellent point. Not that any of them give a shit about my opinions.
Do you still believe this?
What I’d like to know is why didn’t Trump’s lawyers file suit where they did have standing?
It’s hard to believe anyone ever did. Claiming prima facie that he could only lose the election if the other side cheated, is something of a poisoning of the well fallacy. Even the now heavily right wing loaded supreme court dismissed all the claims the election result was affected by any significant fraud.
Many years ago Trump admitted this was one of his tactics. At the slightest hint of any potential opposition, he would launch a full attack on the character of the other person, a pre-emptive strike. He anticipated many years ago he may lose his second term election, and started to talk about rigged and dirty elections.
That tweet of his did not age well. 
Scientology 101, basic course.
Thanks internet, the boomerang every kid wanted until you realized it doesn’t come back to you and land gently in your hand, it comes back more like herpes. Painful, repeatedly, and at the worst time.
Do you still believe this?
Interesting question, I have no desire to antagonise anyone, but that post is the very definition of an unevidenced conspiracy theory. There were what 60+ legal challenges to the elections results, and (from memory) at least 3 went to the supreme court, not one was upheld as evidencing any significant voter fraud or irregularity. The significance of the supreme court of course is obviously that Trump appointed an unprecedented number of new judges late in his tenure, and obviously all with a heavy right wing bias, yet they also recognised there was no voter fraud.
The evidence is not “out there for all to see”, quite the opposite is true. It’s worth noting as well how this reaction, Trumps incitement of a riot unleashed on the Capitol and the seat of government, contrasts to the left in general and Democrat’s reaction to what was a fairly well evidenced smear campaign against his (Trump’s) opponent when he won the election. Also worth nothing he failed to get a majority of votes (the popular vote) on both occasions.
Quick question, have you met more than 1 atheist because I know I occasionally do some of that but please watch any atheist youtuber, it’s free.
Post your irrelevant ramblings elsewhere. If you can’t be on topic, we don’t need your commentary. Thank you.
He’s French supposedly. Practicing English, He speaks in gross generalizations. I have requested he get more specific. (Highlight the post he is responding to would be helpful.)
Il est soi-disant français. Pratiquant l’anglais, il parle dans des généralisations grossières. Je lui ai demandé d’être plus précis. (Mettre en surbrillance le message auquel il répond serait utile.)
Ah I see, didn’t notice that until now. Thanks.
I just finished reading the entire report. Seems like a slam dunk to me.
I received a couple different copies in the mail this week. I’ve read about 1/2 of the NYT’s edition.
eta: I don’t recommend the NTY edition. The footnotes are not in the volume and have to be tracked down online (a fucking pain in the ass too). The other copy (my wife’s) is by “Ari Melber” and it has the footnotes (ISBN 9780063315501).