Atheism is a belief.

I know how to use a dictionary.

  • Yes, and I incorporate its info.

    Votes: 28 57.1%

  • Yes, but I still like to make up definitions as I go along.

    Votes: 10 20.4%

  • No, I believe in "Truthiness"

    Votes: 17 34.7%
  • Total voters
    49
Agnostics are on the fence for areason. They don't feel they have enough data either way. And that's a fair thing. Atheists have personally come to the conclusion that there is zero credible evidence for a god thingy. Agnostics are not "without god" or "with god". They're not sure. Atheists are sure. There is no credible evidence for a god thingy.

This is NOT saying categorically that there is no god thingy. We could find compelling evidence tomorrow that the universe is an "artificial" construct. The current state of things is that there is absolute no evidence that exclusively demonstrates that to be the case. This is why we are atheists.

You can quibble definitions all you want. Atheists are with out god(s). We have no use for what is, by all standards of evidence and reason, a human myth. But we no more categorically state that a god thingy absolutely does not exist than we do for alien intelligence on other worlds.

You must get that now, right? :confused:
 
Tht1Gy! said:
But then, we are not discussing the word 'atheos', are we. That sounds more like a predecessor type word. (My spell check doesn't recognize it. No biggie. Just an asnide) sic


Your spell check won't recognize it because it does not recognize Classical Greek. I have given you a literal translation of " atheos" from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

You might find a precedent helpful: Socrates was sentenced to death for denying the gods, among other things. Now if you look at Plato's account of the trial of Socrates in " The Apology" in the original Greek, or have someone do it for you, you will see that the translation I have offered you is correct. Language changes, and it doesn't take much imagination to get from atheos to atheist
Click to expand...
 
superluminal said:
Agnostics are on the fence for areason. They don't feel they have enough data either way. And that's a fair thing. Atheists have personally come to the conclusion that there is zero credible evidence for a god thingy. Agnostics are not "without god" or "with god". They're not sure. Atheists are sure. There is no credible evidence for a god thingy.

This is NOT saying categorically that there is no god thingy. We could find compelling evidence tomorrow that the universe is an "artificial" construct. The current state of things is that there is absolute no evidence that exclusively demonstrates that to be the case. This is why we are atheists.

You can quibble definitions all you want. Atheists are with out god(s). We have no use for what is, by all standards of evidence and reason, a human myth. But we no more categorically state that a god thingy absolutely does not exist than we do for alien intelligence on other worlds.

You must get that now, right? :confused:
Click to expand...

Right. With the evidence, you believe there is no god.;)
 
I think a true agnostic is necessarily athiest. Yup.

(not positive athiest, just lacking belief)
 
Tht1Gy! said:
Yeah, I don't know what happened. It shocked the hell out of me too. Our sect was nearly finished with the temple too. It's real nice. marble and everything.



Not exactly. I however, did find Dog. He needed a bath, tho.

I'll be sure to keep ya posted if I here (or there) anything knew.:D
Click to expand...

lol fair enough.. it was good while it lasted :bawl:
 
superluminal said:
You heard me. Respond to the content of my post, then we'll see.
Click to expand...
Try reading all my posts in this thread. Cuz I ain't saying it a'gin.
And yeah I heard you, I'm just incredulous you have resorted to name calling. I didn't realize we were on the playground.

And, I'm not the one telling you that the dictionary is wrong. Hmm?
 
epistemology |iˌpistəˈmäləjē|
noun Philosophy
the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Version 1.0.2 (1.0.2)
Copyright © 2005 Apple Computer, Inc.,

This might be of some use.
 
superluminal said:
Agnostics are on the fence for areason. They don't feel they have enough data either way. And that's a fair thing. Atheists have personally come to the conclusion that there is zero credible evidence for a god thingy. Agnostics are not "without god" or "with god". They're not sure. Atheists are sure. There is no credible evidence for a god thingy.

This is NOT saying categorically that there is no god thingy. We could find compelling evidence tomorrow that the universe is an "artificial" construct. The current state of things is that there is absolute no evidence that exclusively demonstrates that to be the case. This is why we are atheists.

You can quibble definitions all you want. Atheists are with out god(s). We have no use for what is, by all standards of evidence and reason, a human myth. But we no more categorically state that a god thingy absolutely does not exist than we do for alien intelligence on other worlds.
Click to expand...
Read The Dictionary!!!
And:
If you want to go Greek; agnostics are "without knowledge". Sometimes stated not as "I don't know", but rather "It's unknowable" OR to join the two: "It's unknowable, ergo I don't know". Which, if one truly wants to be logical, is the position to take.

"absolute no evidence that exclusively demonstrates that to be the case..."
Click to expand...
... that you accept.

And I believe you meant "conclusively", as the big word you used, in this context, makes no sense.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
superluminal said:
No way. If you're afraid to respond to my questions and maybe clear up a misunderstanding or two, then you've clearly been beaten.

Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Not afraid, weary. :wallbang:

... and beaten? By you? Got any more of those drugs?:bugeye:
 
Tht1Gy! said:
Read The Dictionary!!!
And I believe you meant "conclusively", as the big word you used, in this context, makes no sense.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No. I meant exclusively. As in excludes all other possible explanations leaving only god as the result. Dig?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top