"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

[Nem]

WolfpackN64 said:

Nem said:

Oh no i'm not. The word is fine as it is, and you don't get to project yourself as the people of the world. Only you and your sub-set of people use it wrong. You are the ones that need to use it right. It's not the word that should change for the rest of us. That is arrogance of the highest order.

Besides, your definition of Atheism is completely illogical, so even if you managed to change the meaning of Agnosticism, you will never manage to change the meaning of Atheism to mean the "belief of no god". They will therefore always mean the same position. It's sad but there is no anti position to belief. We are very sorry for the incovenience that poses.

Look, now we're both disagreeing on who's using the term right. I remain behind my argument. You're misusing the term and doing so clearly to defend your own viewpoint at the cost of a widely held position. If you don't agree with that, start using better arguments, because you've been entirely unconvincing that you even have a basic grasp of what agnosticism means.

I couldn't care less what you think. The term I'm using is the correct one whose meaning is recognized through the whole world of linguistics.

There is a reason why you have to search for the religious meanings for your concepts of the word. That is the same as searching for the bullshit meanings of the word. Sorry, you can't change logic and reason. You will never succeed.

VGPolyglot said:

Nem said:

If it does, wich i doubt given you guys are fed all sorts of lies it is STILL illogical. Something not existing is the default position. Believing something doesn't exist is logically redundant. Therefore, the meaning of the word will never change.

So, even hiding on some questionable latin, it is still wrong and it will always be wrong because it doesn't make logical sense.

I think you have to have a knowledge of the idea of God in order to be an atheist, in order to consciously/explicitly reject the belief of gods. A baby who is just born cannot be an atheist if he/she has no concept of God.

A baby is an Atheist to everything as they are born. If it's something you haven't been presented to, you obviously don't assume it exists. I do think there's probably a different term to this as Atheism only refers to the god proposition, but i think you can understand.

Notice that this goes for our ignorance as well, where we are as clueless as babies. Whatever we don't know, we don't assume is real.

 

This is making me think how funny it is that religious people really want for there to be 3 roads. A belief of the opposite. There isn't. There is only a belief and the lack of a belief. Theres no 3rd road. There's no belief of the opposite. That would be a different proposition that in itself would be illogical.

Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018