Questions for the religous

You already contradicted yourself in giving the definition of "atheist". It is the absence of belief in deity. That is all that it requires. Yes, some sections of atheism outright deny deity, but most don't. Most atheists simply don't care and take the position of "I'll believe it when I see it". Which is a fair position to take, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem here is that you are confusing negation with apathy. With a very extremist fervour, at that.
 
I'm starting to get irritated now. We have to get on the same intellectual page here, or I'm going to have to cease intellectual argument with you.

Agnostic

n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

What is true atheism? You tell me? Why has this definition implied that true atheism is an extreme?
 
A true agnostic would not compare God to a spaghetti monster is the sky because he knows that he might get his "stuff" fixed post death. A true atheist is comfortable with referring to God as a spaghetti monster in the sky because he/she knows that there isn't a God.
 
Simple. You're thinking about gods and I am referring to God.
I am not a monotheist. I am a polytheist. Thus, I do not believe in all-powerful, all-knowing deity that professes to be the one and only source of good and truth in the universe.

I'm starting to get irritated now. We have to get on the same intellectual page here, or I'm going to have to cease intellectual argument with you.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, or gnosis, in general. An agnostic takes the position that x is unknowable. It is usually used in reference to theology, but it is not limited to that. However, in the context of theology, agnosticism is a true neutral. Not only do they state that it is impossible to know that deity exists, they deliberately do not care.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deity. There are different shades of atheism, from strong atheism (deliberate belief in the non-existence of deity) to weak atheism (simply not believing). Weak atheism is the proper term for what you referred to as agnosticism.
 
Atheism is the lack of belief in deity. There are different shades of atheism, from strong atheism (deliberate belief in the non-existence of deity) to weak atheism (simply not believing). Weak atheism is the proper term for what you referred to as agnosticism.

Read this:

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

And especially this:

A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".



A couple of etymologies from respected dictionaries are shown below:



From Merriam-Webster Online:

Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god



From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.:

Etymology of "atheism": French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god

Stupid Argument #2: Most Dictionaries Define "Atheism" as a "Lack of Belief".



I see this lie quite often on the internet. The truth of the matter is that no reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition. See page 3 for more on this subject.

Stupid Argument #3: Most Dictionary Definitions of "Atheism" are Wrong Because They are Written by Biased Christians.



This absurd claim is totally unsupported by any facts, much like the gigantic government conspiracy to cover-up UFO landings.

Stupid Argument #4: Only Atheists get to Define What the Word "Atheist" Means.



This argument is absurd for two reasons. First of all, words are defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition. For example the word "handicapped" is defined by common usage not just by handicapped people.



Secondly, a "lack of belief" definition for the word "atheist" would include so many agnostics, babies, infants, and the undecided that the self-identified atheists would be a very small minority. Babies and infants would make up a majority of the "lack of belief" atheists and I haven't heard of any of them who could express a coherent definition.

Stupid Argument #5: Most Atheists Want a "Lack of Belief" Definition.


This argument is usually presented as fact without any actual surveys to back it up. The first problem with this is the "babies and infants" problem described above. The second problem is that most scientific surveys of religious beliefs show that only a minority of the non-religious people self-identify as atheists. For example the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows that 13.2% of the US population self-identified as "no religion" while 0.4% self-identified as atheists and 0.5% self-identified as agnostics. The 2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year also shows similar numbers.

Stupid Argument #6: The Phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."



This idiotic argument is sometimes presented by brain dead morons who don't understand basic English grammar. I really don't expect most people to know that "raising" is the technical name for the location of the negative in the first sentence, or that raising simply shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like. (Here are two links from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English that explain it: Link 1, Link 2)



However, I find it impossible to believe that anyone with half a brain would use this argument. The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:



A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.



B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.



C) "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.



D) "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.

Stupid Argument #7: A "Lack of Belief" Definition is Useful in Debates.



Some people think that a "lack of belief" definition of atheist shifts the burden of proof to the theist and requires them to prove the existence of their god. The truth of the matter is that the theist's claim of a supernatural god with magical powers is an extraordinary claim and requires substantial evidence if it is to be logically believed. The burden of proof is on the theist regardless of the definition of the word "atheist".



As an analogy, if someone claimed that flying pigs existed, then they would have the burden of proof to prove this regardless of whether I told them I "lacked belief" in the existence of flying pigs or if I told them that I believed that flying pigs did not exist.

Stupid Argument #8: All Atheists Lack a Belief in Gods so Anyone who Lacks a Belief in Gods is an Atheist.



This argument is so damn stupid that it is rarely expressed explicitly. Usually it is only vaguely implied by statements such as "the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods".



The logical mistake here should be self-evident to any adult with half a brain, so I won't explain it. But if you are in a child in elementary school, try to figure it out with this analogy: All dogs have fur so anything with fur is a dog.

There are also pages three and four
 
Well, the definition I gave is the definition most atheists I know use. As the site said, atheists get the right to define themselves, and the ones that I know use that one.
 
An agnostic has a lack of belief in deity. So if a atheist has a lack of belief in deity. What differentiates the two? Do not, again, define an agnosticism as simply not caring because urban dictionary does a better job than that.

Agnosticism 382 up, 77 down

The only true sign of intelligence you will encounter from another human being.

A theist, or believer in God, will tell you that he ABSOLUTELY exists. An atheist (non-believer) will say he ABSOLUTELY doesn't.

Well, the last time I checked, it's been like 2000 years since God was reported to have talked to anybody, making it pretty difficult to prove. Besides which, all religion is predicated on faith (See also: Not supposed to be proven).

Prove he doesn't exist? Possibly the only thing harder to do. Besides the enormity of the task, there's the fact that anyone who ever took a logic class knows and that is that you can't prove a negative. You can only prove (sometimes) that something hasn't happened YET. It may still the next time.

So... you have a theist, an atheist and an agnostic... None of them really knows the truth about the nature of existence.

But only the agnostic is smart enough to admit it.
Agnosticism says: I don't know if there's a God or not... and neither do you.

Sleep tight.
 
Well, the definition I gave is the definition most atheists I know use. As the site said, atheists get the right to define themselves, and the ones that I know use that one.

You mean this?
Stupid Argument #4: Only Atheists get to Define What the Word "Atheist" Means.

This argument is absurd for two reasons. First of all, words are defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition. For example the word "handicapped" is defined by common usage not just by handicapped people.

Secondly, a "lack of belief" definition for the word "atheist" would include so many agnostics, babies, infants, and the undecided that the self-identified atheists would be a very small minority. Babies and infants would make up a majority of the "lack of belief" atheists and I haven't heard of any of them who could express a coherent definition.
 
I don't think that's a stupid argument, though. People deserve the right to label, identify, or define themselves however they wish.
 
I don't think that's a stupid argument, though. People deserve the right to label, identify, or define themselves however they wish.

This is genius. Now all we need to do is make haste and inform California's homosexual community that all they need to do is "label" themselves heterosexual in order to obtain equal marital rights.

Disclaimer: I'm a jokester, so my arrogance plus sarcasm equals little ill-intent.
 
Hmm you're right. I'm the Queen of England.
Well, any idea taken to extremes can become ridiculous. :p

Fine then, you can define atheism however the hell you want. I, however, define it as I did earlier: non-belief in deity.
 
Last edited:
I guess you're done talking to me. Likewise. Except, shades of extremes? Come on.

Starting from today, begin calling yourself agnostic.
 
Well, any idea taken to extremes can become ridiculous. :p

Fine then, you can define atheism however the hell you want. I, however, define it as I did earlier: various shades of non-belief in deity.

Let me quote an atheist:

The logical mistake here should be self-evident to any adult with half a brain, so I won't explain it. But if you are in a child in elementary school, try to figure it out with this analogy: All dogs have fur so anything with fur is a dog.
 
I'm sorry. The conflicting information you're putting out is confusing me. You had become so steadfast in your atheist friend's definition of atheism that I believed you were atheist. And the, atheist have the right to define themselves, statement is equally confusing. So three knuckleheads have the right to define atheism on behalf of all atheists. So now we have a guy who isn't even arguing his own convictions.

Do not throw the uncertainty back my way, cause I am as certain as disease.
 
Back
Top