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

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

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

Around the Network
Nem said:
WolfpackN64 said:

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:

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.

You're the one going against the definition. This is not a religious position.

It's really tiring you know. Because you're atheist, you claim to automatically be in the right, that your position is de facto right. You're bending definitions to your will and throwing entire philosophical debates in the trash because it's doesn't suit your narrowminded worldview. That's just sad.

And your position on what babies believe can go die in a ditch.



Nem said:
VGPolyglot said:

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.

I'm not a religious person, I'm an atheist myself. However, you can't be an atheist without knowing of the idea of deities, because atheism is the explicit rejection or disbelief in the existence of gods, not the ignorance of the concept.



WolfpackN64 said:
Nem said:

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.

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.

You're the one going against the definition. This is not a religious position.

It's really tiring you know. Because you're atheist, you claim to automatically be in the right, that your position is de facto right. You're bending definitions to your will and throwing entire philosophical debates in the trash because it's doesn't suit your narrowminded worldview. That's just sad.

And your position on what babies believe can go die in a ditch.

If being open minded is letting people bullshit other people, then yes, i am very narrow minded in that regard. 

You want to change the rules of the game because you can't win. I'm saying no one is gonna go with that.

Little secret, it's not an opinion. It's fact. You just don't understand what the definition of Atheism is. Were you expecting children to be born believing in God? Good joke.

Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018

VGPolyglot said:
Nem said:

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.

I'm not a religious person, I'm an atheist myself. However, you can't be an atheist without knowing of the idea of deities, because atheism is the explicit rejection or disbelief in the existence of gods, not the ignorance of the concept.

Ok, so you are an Atheist but are not clear with the concept. I will try to explain.

 

Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. 

This is because the default position is to not believe anything that isn't proven to exist (cookie monster, talking butter, dragon in the basement, etc.).

Say, you say you believe God doesn't exist. This is a proposition you can never prove. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, because it's obvious it doesn't exist until it's proven to exist. It is therefore an illogical proposition. 

Atheism/t is the guy who gets told by the religious guy: There is a God! Pray to him!

The atheist says: Ok... wheres your proof? You have none? Well... screw that then. 

You were as much an atheist before the religious guy asked you the question as after. Before he asked, you didn't know anything about it, so you naturally didn't assume it's existance. After the proposition, you were not shown proof and your position therefore didn't change.

This is the same for any claim. The space cookie monster for example. Had you thought about him before? Did you think it was real before i brought it up? If i say he is and fail to present evidence, did your position change?

See, the burden of proof is in the person that makes the claim. The atheist makes no claim. He rejects the claim made by the religious guy. The "rejection" is the default state for everything. If it wasn't like this everyone would live in chaos and fear of everything and anything being real at any moment.

 

In the same way: Baby is born. He doesn't know what God is. This mean he doesn't have a belief in God. He is therefore Atheist. Maybe he gets shown the proposition later and decides to accept it, he becomes a theist, or not and mantains the position.

 

This is apparantly very shocking for our fellow religious buddy there, wich i find hilarious. Anyways, hope this helped you understand it. Feel free to ask if you still have questions. I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018

Around the Network
Nem said:
VGPolyglot said:

I'm not a religious person, I'm an atheist myself. However, you can't be an atheist without knowing of the idea of deities, because atheism is the explicit rejection or disbelief in the existence of gods, not the ignorance of the concept.

Ok, so you are an Atheist but are not clear with the concept. I will try to explain.

 

Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. 

This is because the default position is to not believe anything that isn't proven to exist (cookie monster, talking butter, dragon in the basement, etc.).

Say, you say you believe God doesn't exist. This is a proposition you can never prove. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, because it's obvious it doesn't exist until it's proven to exist. It is therefore an illogical proposition. 

Atheism/t is the guy who gets told by the religious guy: There is a God! Pray to him!

The atheist says: Ok... wheres your proof? You have none? Well... screw that then. 

You were as much an atheist before the religious guy asked you the question as after. Before he asked, you didn't know anything about it, so you naturally didn't assume it's existance. After the proposition, you were not shown proof and your position therefore didn't change.

This is the same for any claim. The space cookie monster for example. Had you thought about him before? Did you think it was real before i brought it up? If i say he is and fail to present evidence, did your position change?

See, the burden of proof is in the person that makes the claim. The atheist makes no claim. He rejects the claim made by the religious guy. The "rejection" is the default state for everything. If it wasn't like this everyone would live in chaos and fear of everything and anything being real at any moment.

 

In the same way: Baby is born. He doesn't know what God is. This mean he doesn't have a belief in God. He is therefore Atheist. Maybe he gets shown the proposition later and decides to accept it, he becomes a theist, or not and mantains the position.

 

This is apparantly very shocking for our fellow religious buddy there, wich i find hilarious. Anyways, hope this helped you understand it. Feel free to ask if you still have questions. I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Quit trying to redefine a word that is self-defining.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren said:
Nem said:

Ok, so you are an Atheist but are not clear with the concept. I will try to explain.

 

Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. 

This is because the default position is to not believe anything that isn't proven to exist (cookie monster, talking butter, dragon in the basement, etc.).

Say, you say you believe God doesn't exist. This is a proposition you can never prove. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, because it's obvious it doesn't exist until it's proven to exist. It is therefore an illogical proposition. 

Atheism/t is the guy who gets told by the religious guy: There is a God! Pray to him!

The atheist says: Ok... wheres your proof? You have none? Well... screw that then. 

You were as much an atheist before the religious guy asked you the question as after. Before he asked, you didn't know anything about it, so you naturally didn't assume it's existance. After the proposition, you were not shown proof and your position therefore didn't change.

This is the same for any claim. The space cookie monster for example. Had you thought about him before? Did you think it was real before i brought it up? If i say he is and fail to present evidence, did your position change?

See, the burden of proof is in the person that makes the claim. The atheist makes no claim. He rejects the claim made by the religious guy. The "rejection" is the default state for everything. If it wasn't like this everyone would live in chaos and fear of everything and anything being real at any moment.

 

In the same way: Baby is born. He doesn't know what God is. This mean he doesn't have a belief in God. He is therefore Atheist. Maybe he gets shown the proposition later and decides to accept it, he becomes a theist, or not and mantains the position.

 

This is apparantly very shocking for our fellow religious buddy there, wich i find hilarious. Anyways, hope this helped you understand it. Feel free to ask if you still have questions. I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Quit trying to redefine a word that is self-defining.

Is that all you have to say? I don't make up words nor definitions. I use the existing ones. You have me confused with religious leaders.



If Christianity were true, it would be of no consequence at all to me as I would not submit to such a wildly insane and malevolent deity.



Nem said:
VGPolyglot said:

I'm not a religious person, I'm an atheist myself. However, you can't be an atheist without knowing of the idea of deities, because atheism is the explicit rejection or disbelief in the existence of gods, not the ignorance of the concept.

Ok, so you are an Atheist but are not clear with the concept. I will try to explain.

 

Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. 

This is because the default position is to not believe anything that isn't proven to exist (cookie monster, talking butter, dragon in the basement, etc.).

Say, you say you believe God doesn't exist. This is a proposition you can never prove. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, because it's obvious it doesn't exist until it's proven to exist. It is therefore an illogical proposition. 

Atheism/t is the guy who gets told by the religious guy: There is a God! Pray to him!

The atheist says: Ok... wheres your proof? You have none? Well... screw that then. 

You were as much an atheist before the religious guy asked you the question as after. Before he asked, you didn't know anything about it, so you naturally didn't assume it's existance. After the proposition, you were not shown proof and your position therefore didn't change.

This is the same for any claim. The space cookie monster for example. Had you thought about him before? Did you think it was real before i brought it up? If i say he is and fail to present evidence, did your position change?

See, the burden of proof is in the person that makes the claim. The atheist makes no claim. He rejects the claim made by the religious guy. The "rejection" is the default state for everything. If it wasn't like this everyone would live in chaos and fear of everything and anything being real at any moment.

 

In the same way: Baby is born. He doesn't know what God is. This mean he doesn't have a belief in God. He is therefore Atheist. Maybe he gets shown the proposition later and decides to accept it, he becomes a theist, or not and mantains the position.

 

This is apparantly very shocking for our fellow religious buddy there, wich i find hilarious. Anyways, hope this helped you understand it. Feel free to ask if you still have questions. I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Yes, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, which is why the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. I myself would be considered an agnostic atheist, though when asked I generally tend to refer myself to the latter as there are also theistic agnostics. But calling someone who does not know of the concept of a god an atheist doesn't make sense as they could begin to believe in one as soon as they become aware of the idea, and thus in terms of debates and discussion it shifts away from the central argument.



VGPolyglot said:
Nem said:

Ok, so you are an Atheist but are not clear with the concept. I will try to explain.

 

Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. 

This is because the default position is to not believe anything that isn't proven to exist (cookie monster, talking butter, dragon in the basement, etc.).

Say, you say you believe God doesn't exist. This is a proposition you can never prove. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, because it's obvious it doesn't exist until it's proven to exist. It is therefore an illogical proposition. 

Atheism/t is the guy who gets told by the religious guy: There is a God! Pray to him!

The atheist says: Ok... wheres your proof? You have none? Well... screw that then. 

You were as much an atheist before the religious guy asked you the question as after. Before he asked, you didn't know anything about it, so you naturally didn't assume it's existance. After the proposition, you were not shown proof and your position therefore didn't change.

This is the same for any claim. The space cookie monster for example. Had you thought about him before? Did you think it was real before i brought it up? If i say he is and fail to present evidence, did your position change?

See, the burden of proof is in the person that makes the claim. The atheist makes no claim. He rejects the claim made by the religious guy. The "rejection" is the default state for everything. If it wasn't like this everyone would live in chaos and fear of everything and anything being real at any moment.

 

In the same way: Baby is born. He doesn't know what God is. This mean he doesn't have a belief in God. He is therefore Atheist. Maybe he gets shown the proposition later and decides to accept it, he becomes a theist, or not and mantains the position.

 

This is apparantly very shocking for our fellow religious buddy there, wich i find hilarious. Anyways, hope this helped you understand it. Feel free to ask if you still have questions. I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Yes, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, which is why the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. I myself would be considered an agnostic atheist, though when asked I generally tend to refer myself to the latter as there are also theistic agnostics. But calling someone who does not know of the concept of a god an atheist doesn't make sense as they could begin to believe in one as soon as they become aware of the idea, and thus in terms of debates and discussion it shifts away from the central argument.

Atheism is about wether you believe the proposition or not, agnosticism is about wether you know the proposition to be true or not.

The agnostic says that he doesn't know enough to accept the proposition, the Atheist says he doesn't believe the proposition. They are the same thing. You are just saying you don't know and don't believe the proposition rather than just saying you don't believe the proposition. It's the same thing. It doesn't change the conclusion.

A theistic agnostic is a bundle of contradictory nonsense. You can't believe it and know it not to be true. Those are most commonly known as the closet Atheists.

I don't know if you catched my previous post but this page i linked before explains all you need to know. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Hmm, would it make more sense to you if i said the baby is an atheist but he doesn't know it? I am not sure why my previous example didn't click though. If i say not believing the space cow means you are a "atheist-moo" but i didn't tell you, would that mean you are not a "atheist-moo"? It is not dependant on you recognising the term yourself, it's about your belief of the proposition.