What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is Atheism Irrational? NYTimes Opinion Piece (2 Viewers)

You can know absolutely that all religious texts that have existed to date are factually inaccurate, and in fact make very little sense.

But no, as long as we don't know 100% how life came to be on this planet, we cannot take an absolute position on the existence of some creative force that exists outside our current understanding of natural law.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atheism says all religions are wrong. But not just that. It says absolutely no sort of higher power exists. It's not just an argument against Christianity.
I don't know that it really does. But in practice, I consider it the dismissal of any and all world religious theories, the GREAT MAJORITY of which are Abrahamic, as bunk akin to any other fictional story. What you overdefine it as is up to you.

 
Question for religious people: how do you feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you an atheist regarding his existence, or are you agnostic?
Not a religious person. I'd say that a flying spaghetti monster is unlikely. But then again I think if there is some sort of higher power it's probably outside of my understanding. I'd also say the Christian God, the Hindi Gods etc... are unlikely as well.

 
"Where will you be in an hour from now?"

"I'm having lunch with a friend."

"That's not correct. Suppose you have an emergency? Suppose your friend has an emergency? Can you GUARANTEE that lunch?"

"Well no..."

" the next time I ask that question, or any question in which you don't know the answer to be 100% true, you must say you're not sure. Otherwise you're being dishonest."

 
Atheism says all religions are wrong. But not just that. It says absolutely no sort of higher power exists. It's not just an argument against Christianity.
I don't know that it really does. But in practice, I consider it the dismissal of any and all world religious theories, the GREAT MAJORITY of which are Abrahamic, as bunk akin to any other fictional story. What you overdefine it as is up to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

A little over 50% are Abrahamic so not a great majority. You're also dismissing all the non Abrahamic. If you think some of the others are possible or don't dismiss them outright then you're agnostic in practice. Just my opinion.

 
"Where will you be in an hour from now?"

"I'm having lunch with a friend."

"That's not correct. Suppose you have an emergency? Suppose your friend has an emergency? Can you GUARANTEE that lunch?"

"Well no..."

" the next time I ask that question, or any question in which you don't know the answer to be 100% true, you must say you're not sure. Otherwise you're being dishonest."
That's a stupid argument. Everyone understands that things change and nothing is 100% in the real world.

In academic practice sometimes things are 100%. And the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is that 100% since they're just academic concepts.

 
I feel like some want to be able to say both 'Of course God doesn't exist.' and 'I don't believe with certainty a claim about the existence of a diety.' The first one is fun and aggressive, kind of like a deep porter or stout, and works well on the Internet for trolling religious people. The second is more nuanced, kind of like a clean wheat beer, and is more fit for a polite discussion at dinner.

 
Atheism says all religions are wrong. But not just that. It says absolutely no sort of higher power exists. It's not just an argument against Christianity.
I don't know that it really does. But in practice, I consider it the dismissal of any and all world religious theories, the GREAT MAJORITY of which are Abrahamic, as bunk akin to any other fictional story. What you overdefine it as is up to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

A little over 50% are Abrahamic so not a great majority. You're also dismissing all the non Abrahamic. If you think some of the others are possible or don't dismiss them outright then you're agnostic in practice. Just my opinion.
Well I was thinking more about the dominating theories and less about the people but that's fair. It would be impossible for anyone who works for a living to become closely familiar with them all, but show me one that's possible or plausible, Abrahamic or not, and I will concede the point. My limited knowledge tells me that they are all based on old world mythology (Abrahamics, Hinduism) new world bull#### (Scientology), or some combination of the two (Mormonism). I consider myself an atheist but anyone from Dawkins on down can be called an agnostic if you really want to hammer the terminology.

I consider agnosticism the allowance of the reasonable possibility that some world religion is correct. Again I'm not trying to fight over Merriam Webster, just presenting my understanding of the terms, in practical use.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!
What religion do/did your parents follow? Grandparents? Just wondering.

 
Sorry guys. I was genuinely interested to find out if atheism was actually 'not theism'. Which of course it isn't. But matuski won't admit it most likely.

I've read Plantinga. He's an interesting philosopher, probably most known for arguing that belief in God is properly basic.
Only interesting post of this thread so far. I learned something.

 
I feel like some want to be able to say both 'Of course God doesn't exist.' and 'I don't believe with certainty a claim about the existence of a diety.' The first one is fun and aggressive, kind of like a deep porter or stout, and works well on the Internet for trolling religious people. The second is more nuanced, kind of like a clean wheat beer, and is more fit for a polite discussion at dinner.
It is simple.

I live my life as if no god or gods exist. I can do this for the same reason I live my life as though an invisible dragon doesn't live in my garage.

I can't prove neither is there, but there is certainly no sane reason for me to pretend they are.

 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.

 
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!
It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.
Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.
Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."
Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.
I'm not assuming anything beyond the commonly understood definitions of the words in his post. What's the point in saying "nothing could convince me" if that's not what he meant? I don't mean to pick on him, but it's only because others are claiming to speak for him and declaring that he meant something that is the opposite of what he said.
Maybe he just didn't feel like typing out the full meaning of "nothing could convince me." Similarly, someone may not feel like typing out the full details of their belief system and would prefer to just label themselves as "agnostic" or "atheist".

But, yes, I agree that Jayrod could better answer this for Jayrod. We're just making assumptions about what he intended.

 
At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
That's just sad
Curious as to why you think that.
What if God himself appeared to the world and stated that Jesus was an imposter, then performed a few miracles himself to prove he was the real deal. Would that convince you?
 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?

 
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!
It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.
Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.
Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."
Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.
I'm not assuming anything beyond the commonly understood definitions of the words in his post. What's the point in saying "nothing could convince me" if that's not what he meant? I don't mean to pick on him, but it's only because others are claiming to speak for him and declaring that he meant something that is the opposite of what he said.
Maybe he just didn't feel like typing out the full meaning of "nothing could convince me." Similarly, someone may not feel like typing out the full details of their belief system and would prefer to just label themselves as "agnostic" or "atheist".

But, yes, I agree that Jayrod could better answer this for Jayrod. We're just making assumptions about what he intended.
But but but you're "sure he means 'no evidence I'm likely to encounter here on Earth in this lifetime'".

 
This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
:goodposting:

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
But you cannot know whether there is a god or not, so all atheists would be agnostic.

 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
I don't understand why so many seem to find the stark definitions so unsatisfying. Care to explain? (And I mean this genuinely, not snarky).

 
Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
I get there are different points on the spectrum, but for you to call any distinction ridiculous you would have to believe that there are actually no atheists that assert that no deity exists. Do you believe that?

 
I feel like some want to be able to say both 'Of course God doesn't exist.' and 'I don't believe with certainty a claim about the existence of a diety.' The first one is fun and aggressive, kind of like a deep porter or stout, and works well on the Internet for trolling religious people. The second is more nuanced, kind of like a clean wheat beer, and is more fit for a polite discussion at dinner.
It is simple.

I live my life as if no god or gods exist. I can do this for the same reason I live my life as though an invisible dragon doesn't live in my garage.

I can't prove neither is there, but there is certainly no sane reason for me to pretend they are.
Ok, fine. But you want all the deep dark notes of the hard core atheism but then retreat to the friendlier confines of agnosticism. Claiming they aren't really different allows you to double fist the drinks and pull the right claim out at the right time. You know that to claim strongly that there isn't a God is just as tenuous (maybe more so) than the theist's claim of a God. Maybe that's basically what you believe. But agnosticism is a much easier position to defend and it's really helpful to take that stance especially when you are done mocking religious people (using the dark heavy stout) and now need to appear more balanced and measured.
 
I think what Niles Standish, the OP and others are trying to assert is that there are no such thing as atheists. Because unless you FULLY COMMIT 100.0000000^infinity%, you must be an agnostic. Of course you can apply this logic to a lot of definitions. It's silly but it was fun for a bit.

 
This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
:goodposting:

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
But you cannot know whether there is a god or not, so all atheists would be agnostic.
Well then technically so are theists. That's not the point. The point is what you believe, not what you can objectively prove. That's what the words 'atheist, agnostic, theist' mean. They are systems of belief.
 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
You're right 5 years from now Atheism might be different. Currently our definition is very simple. So if we have this argument sometime in the future it might be completely different.

 
At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.
That's just sad
Curious as to why you think that.
For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
I'm sure there are a lot of things in life like that, in your life included. And here's a little secret, I'm happier, more fulfilled, healthier and better off for this steadfast belief.Now explain to me why that's sad, exactly.
That's easy, for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous. Read it again.
He is comfortable with it, he rarely comes here to put it on others. He isn't saying it makes sense to anyone but himself, and that it makes him happy.. a fair position for an individual to take.

No reason to attack him on it.

 
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity.
Theism isn't "deity," it's "belief in a deity." By your method, then, A-Theism is "without belief in a deity."

In other words Atheism there is no god

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.
Right, here's the definition from your link: "a person who believes that God does not exist." It doesn't say "Atheist: a person who knows God does not exist." It doesn't say "Atheism: there is no god."

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Most atheists are probably agnostic atheists. They lie on different spectrums, they're not mutually exclusive.

 
I think what Niles Standish, the OP and others are trying to assert is that there are no such thing as atheists. Because unless you FULLY COMMIT 100.0000000^infinity%, you must be an agnostic. Of course you can apply this logic to a lot of definitions. It's silly but it was fun for a bit.
Not really. There are people who truly believe there is nothing. Those people are Atheists. People who leave it open to interpertation are Agnostics. People who truly believe there is something are Theists.

It's pretty simple really.

 
Well then technically so are theists. That's not the point. The point is what you believe, not what you can objectively prove. That's what the words 'atheist, agnostic, theist' mean. They are systems of belief.
Exactly. We're all agnostic, so let's be friends!

My favorite are the Christians who so often say, "Why wouldn't you believe just to be safe?" That's the most agnostic #### I've ever heard.

 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
You're right 5 years from now Atheism might be different. Currently our definition is very simple. So if we have this argument sometime in the future it might be completely different.
Definition? Singular? Come on, now. Pull out a dictionary. Do a Google search. Ask 10 random people. Re-read this thread. I guarantee you'll find more than one definition.

 
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!
It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.
Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.
Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."
Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.
I'm not assuming anything beyond the commonly understood definitions of the words in his post. What's the point in saying "nothing could convince me" if that's not what he meant? I don't mean to pick on him, but it's only because others are claiming to speak for him and declaring that he meant something that is the opposite of what he said.
Maybe he just didn't feel like typing out the full meaning of "nothing could convince me." Similarly, someone may not feel like typing out the full details of their belief system and would prefer to just label themselves as "agnostic" or "atheist".

But, yes, I agree that Jayrod could better answer this for Jayrod. We're just making assumptions about what he intended.
But but but you're "sure he means 'no evidence I'm likely to encounter here on Earth in this lifetime'".
I wrote that, not dgreen

 
I'd also be curious to know what the actual rules to knowing are, since your Solitaire example seems to imply that they are simple, straightforward, and settled. But I'm pretty sure epistemology has been debated for centuries. Plantinga is just one voice on the subject.
I'm not a philosopher, but I've yet to read a convincing argument for a departure from materialism. YMMV.

 
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity.
Theism isn't "deity," it's "belief in a deity." By your method, then, A-Theism is "without belief in a deity."

In other words Atheism there is no god

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.
Right, here's the definition from your link: "a person who believes that God does not exist." It doesn't say "Atheist: a person who knows God does not exist." It doesn't say "Atheism: there is no god."

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Most atheists are probably agnostic atheists. They lie on different spectrums, they're not mutually exclusive.
Yes it's a system of belief. A religious person believes a god exists. They do not know a god exists. An Atheist believes god doesn't exist. They don't know god doesn't exist.

 
Well then technically so are theists. That's not the point. The point is what you believe, not what you can objectively prove. That's what the words 'atheist, agnostic, theist' mean. They are systems of belief.
Exactly. We're all agnostic, so let's be friends!

My favorite are the Christians who so often say, "Why wouldn't you believe just to be safe?" That's the most agnostic #### I've ever heard.
:goodposting:

 
I think what Niles Standish, the OP and others are trying to assert is that there are no such thing as atheists. Because unless you FULLY COMMIT 100.0000000^infinity%, you must be an agnostic. Of course you can apply this logic to a lot of definitions. It's silly but it was fun for a bit.
Not really. There are people who truly believe there is nothing. Those people are Atheists. People who leave it open to interpertation are Agnostics. People who truly believe there is something are Theists.

It's pretty simple really.
TRULY BELIEVE

I must admit I have truly believed a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. A lot of it was said by women

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.
:goodposting:

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.
But you cannot know whether there is a god or not, so all atheists would be agnostic.
Well then technically so are theists. That's not the point. The point is what you believe, not what you can objectively prove. That's what the words 'atheist, agnostic, theist' mean. They are systems of belief.
A lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in nothing. No matter how much you want it to be the case.

 
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!
What religion do/did your parents follow? Grandparents? Just wondering.
All Catholic.

 
Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.
Nice work.....

 
"Where will you be in an hour from now?"

"I'm having lunch with a friend."

"That's not correct. Suppose you have an emergency? Suppose your friend has an emergency? Can you GUARANTEE that lunch?"

"Well no..."

" the next time I ask that question, or any question in which you don't know the answer to be 100% true, you must say you're not sure. Otherwise you're being dishonest."
That's a stupid argument. Everyone understands that things change and nothing is 100% in the real world.

In academic practice sometimes things are 100%. And the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is that 100% since they're just academic concepts.
Get this through your head - no one knows 100% that something doesn't exist. If someone calls themselves an atheist they aren't truly saying that they believe 100% that there's no God, just 99.99% or whatever. This semantic argument is stupid.

 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
You're right 5 years from now Atheism might be different. Currently our definition is very simple. So if we have this argument sometime in the future it might be completely different.
Definition? Singular? Come on, now. Pull out a dictionary. Do a Google search. Ask 10 random people. Re-read this thread. I guarantee you'll find more than one definition.
Please find a legitimate dictionary definition that says atheism is anything other than a lack of a belief in a god. As far as I know that is the current meaning of the word. I don't care what Joe Blow in an internet thread says because he is probably wrong.

 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
More relevantly. A- theism doesn't mean "without God." It means without belief in God. That's what the "ism" means.

 
"Where will you be in an hour from now?"

"I'm having lunch with a friend."

"That's not correct. Suppose you have an emergency? Suppose your friend has an emergency? Can you GUARANTEE that lunch?"

"Well no..."

" the next time I ask that question, or any question in which you don't know the answer to be 100% true, you must say you're not sure. Otherwise you're being dishonest."
That's a stupid argument. Everyone understands that things change and nothing is 100% in the real world.

In academic practice sometimes things are 100%. And the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is that 100% since they're just academic concepts.
Get this through your head - no one knows 100% that something doesn't exist. If someone calls themselves an atheist they aren't truly saying that they believe 100% that there's no God, just 99.99% or whatever. This semantic argument is stupid.
Well if it makes you feel better we can pretend that Atheism is what makes you feel all warm and fluffy.

Or you can admit that there is a difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.

 
I wrote that, not dgreen
Oops, you're right. He said, "I think saying "nothing can change my mind" is more of a prediction that no evidence will come across his path in life that will lead him to believe that Jesus is not legit rather than a hard stance that he won't change his mind regardless of what evidence he comes across. In fact, he can't just choose to never change his beliefs. Either they will be changed or they won't be changed based on the evidence he encounters."

 
Question for religious people: how do you feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you an atheist regarding his existence, or are you agnostic?
Tough to say given the back and forth here. I don't believe in it but I can't prove it doesn't exist. You tell me.

 
I think what Niles Standish, the OP and others are trying to assert is that there are no such thing as atheists. Because unless you FULLY COMMIT 100.0000000^infinity%, you must be an agnostic. Of course you can apply this logic to a lot of definitions. It's silly but it was fun for a bit.
Not really. There are people who truly believe there is nothing. Those people are Atheists. People who leave it open to interpertation are Agnostics. People who truly believe there is something are Theists.

It's pretty simple really.
TRULY BELIEVE

I must admit I have truly believed a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. A lot of it was said by women
:lmao:

 
for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.
so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?
Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!
What religion do/did your parents follow? Grandparents? Just wondering.
All Catholic.
And where did you end up on your spirit journey?

 
I'm glad we decided early on not to make this a debate on semantics.
Well really, what else are you gonna do? It's going nowhere no matter what
There is a lot of interesting religious discussion in the FFA. Reading about insistence that a sole definition is right for a word that has multiple definitions is not interesting.
The words roots are very clear. A-Theism without deity. A-Gnostic without knowledge.

In other words Atheism there is no god, Agnostic I don't know. The argument is stupid if we ignore simple facts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The definition is very clear.

If you call yourself an Atheist but in practice are Agnostic then you're calling yourself the wrong name. That means you don't know how to define the word it doesn't mean that the rest of the world should conform to your definition.
Words can only mean what their root words mean? Additional meanings can't be created or changed over centuries?
More relevantly. A- theism doesn't mean "without God." It means without belief in God. That's what the "ism" means.
That's fine, I never took Greek. :) I stand corrected by you and I forget the other person who also corrected that.

That being said it doesn't change the point your definition actually fits what I said better.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top