By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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."

Nem said:
Azuren said:

Paraphrasing the same stance over and over doesn't make you right, it makes you stubborn. The only part of your statements that are factual is that, by definition, facts can be proven wrong. And considering you believe Agnosticism and Atheism are the same thing (something that has already been shown to not be true), yes. I suppose they are factual. Factually incorrect.

Wow... this official means you are living in "koo-koo" world. Guess what? If a fact is proven wrong, it's not a fact. You are a walking contradiction sir. 

Also, no, Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing. One says something over wether you believe something and the other over if you know something to be true. The position they reflect in face of the god preposition is what is the same. Wether you say you have no belief for god or if you say you cant know if he is real, you are saying the same thing.

How difficult is this stuff to understand eh? You should try physics, it will blow your head away. 

No, I misread, I concede that was incorrect (which, by the way, is how you admit wrong: not go on and on about how there's no way you can be wrong for 6-7 pages).

 

And right, they aren't the same thing: welcome to the conversation. What on Earth have you been arguing in a circle about for the past day?



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Bristow9091 said:

Get a room you two!

Seriously, you've both been bickering back and forth for a while now, and it should really come to an end. Consider this post a thread warning to the both of you, and if either replies to the other after this, moderations will take place.

Thats a bit of a trap given he was the last one to reply. :p

Anyways i thank you. I have been trying to end the conversation unsucessfully. I was actually already rolling my eyes when i saw the notification and was gonna move away myself. 



Nem said:
Azuren said:

Well, the point of your post is fundamentally wrong on just a definitions standpoint, so there isn't much point in addressing anything else you said. It's clear you just want it to mean a certain thing, and that's fine if you want to do that, but try not to make assumptions about other people just because you're upset about not having a leg to stand on.

You were wrong. Your definition of atheism was wrong and even your excuse of the latin meaning was wrong as arfy just told me in the previous page. And btw terms don't define themselves, we do.

Your replies for the last 5 or 6 pages have been /pout after that. I made no assumption except you are poisoned with religious definitions. It's a fact, wether you are atheist or theist.

For example VG is an Atheist but his concepts are still unclear or influenced by religion. This is an educational problem at large in the US from what i know.

I'm not a good teacher. I know the logic and i know what's real and how to determine it. I did not learn specifically how to decode the way people think incorrectly and help them fix it. I apolgise, i wish i had that talent, but theres many books and atheists to talk with that will do a better job at explaining these things and i vehemently recommend them.

I only went to Kindergarten in the US though. I don't believe in God, an afterlife, fate, etc. However, what we are not arguing is whether or not atheism is a real position or concept, we are disagreeing fundamentally of what atheism is. How are you going to expect a baby with no concept of god to explain what atheism is? And that is why it is important to have knowledge of the subject. How can you be an atheist if you don't even know what atheism is or means? (By the way I'm not saying this personally to you, I'm talking of your definition where someone who doesn't have the concept of it can still somehow be one).



VGPolyglot said:
Nem said:

You were wrong. Your definition of atheism was wrong and even your excuse of the latin meaning was wrong as arfy just told me in the previous page. And btw terms don't define themselves, we do.

Your replies for the last 5 or 6 pages have been /pout after that. I made no assumption except you are poisoned with religious definitions. It's a fact, wether you are atheist or theist.

For example VG is an Atheist but his concepts are still unclear or influenced by religion. This is an educational problem at large in the US from what i know.

I'm not a good teacher. I know the logic and i know what's real and how to determine it. I did not learn specifically how to decode the way people think incorrectly and help them fix it. I apolgise, i wish i had that talent, but theres many books and atheists to talk with that will do a better job at explaining these things and i vehemently recommend them.

I only went to Kindergarten in the US though. I don't believe in God, an afterlife, fate, etc. However, what we are not arguing is whether or not atheism is a real position or concept, we are disagreeing fundamentally of what atheism is. How are you going to expect a baby with no concept of god to explain what atheism is? And that is why it is important to have knowledge of the subject. How can you be an atheist if you don't even know what atheism is or means? (By the way I'm not saying this personally to you, I'm talking of your definition where someone who doesn't have the concept of it can still somehow be one).

An apple, so far as I can tell, has no concept of being an apple.  Yet, it is still an apple, because it has all the qualities that we have defined for apples.

Likewise, an atheist can be an atheist regardless of whether or not they can explain it.  

Let's define an atheist as someone who is convinced (believes) that god (in this case yahweh) exists.  Suppose we had a person in an uncontacted tribe of people.  That person is fully capable of forming concepts like gods, but has never heard of yahweh.  Would you say that this person believes in god or not?  It's a binary position, so it has to be one or the other.  I'd say he does not believe is the accurate answer.



Of course, if you define atheism as actually rejecting god, then you would need a concept to reject.  Because rejecting, like believing, is active and not passive.  But, I don't believe I've personally met or seen any atheists who define atheism in that way.  



JWeinCom said:
VGPolyglot said:

I only went to Kindergarten in the US though. I don't believe in God, an afterlife, fate, etc. However, what we are not arguing is whether or not atheism is a real position or concept, we are disagreeing fundamentally of what atheism is. How are you going to expect a baby with no concept of god to explain what atheism is? And that is why it is important to have knowledge of the subject. How can you be an atheist if you don't even know what atheism is or means? (By the way I'm not saying this personally to you, I'm talking of your definition where someone who doesn't have the concept of it can still somehow be one).

An apple, so far as I can tell, has no concept of being an apple.  Yet, it is still an apple, because it has all the qualities that we have defined for apples.

Likewise, an atheist can be an atheist regardless of whether or not they can explain it.  

Let's define an atheist as someone who is convinced (believes) that god (in this case yahweh) exists.  Suppose we had a person in an uncontacted tribe of people.  That person is fully capable of forming concepts like gods, but has never heard of yahweh.  Would you say that this person believes in god or not?  It's a binary position, so it has to be one or the other.  I'd say he does not believe is the accurate answer.



Of course, if you define atheism as actually rejecting god, then you would need a concept to reject.  Because rejecting, like believing, is active and not passive.  But, I don't believe I've personally met or seen any atheists who define atheism in that way.  

The difference being that an apple is a state of being, something that is composed in a specific matter in a specific way. On the other hand, atheism specifically refers to beliefs, thus you need to have a certain belief in order to be one.  I don't understand your second paragraph, I assume you mean to say that an atheist is someone who believes that God doesn't exist, rather than does exist? I don't have a belief that narrowly defined myself, as mean deities in general. Obviously it's impossible to know every single deity, but if you are actively aware of the deity/deities, and aware that the non-belief of the deity/deities exists, then you can be an atheist if you choose to not believe in the deity/deities. So, he may be an atheist in that he doesn't believe in the deities that he's aware of, but you still can't say he rejects Yahweh if he is not even aware of him. Yes, he may not believe in Yahweh, but not believing in something is not the same as rejecting something. I consider atheism to be the rejection of the existence, as I said before calling a baby an atheist doesn't really do anything to advance the debate.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
JWeinCom said:

An apple, so far as I can tell, has no concept of being an apple.  Yet, it is still an apple, because it has all the qualities that we have defined for apples.

Likewise, an atheist can be an atheist regardless of whether or not they can explain it.  

Let's define an atheist as someone who is convinced (believes) that god (in this case yahweh) exists.  Suppose we had a person in an uncontacted tribe of people.  That person is fully capable of forming concepts like gods, but has never heard of yahweh.  Would you say that this person believes in god or not?  It's a binary position, so it has to be one or the other.  I'd say he does not believe is the accurate answer.



Of course, if you define atheism as actually rejecting god, then you would need a concept to reject.  Because rejecting, like believing, is active and not passive.  But, I don't believe I've personally met or seen any atheists who define atheism in that way.  

The difference being that an apple is a state of being, something that is composed in a specific matter in a specific way. On the other hand, atheism specifically refers to beliefs, thus you need to have a certain belief in order to be one.  I don't understand your second paragraph, I assume you mean to say that an atheist is someone who believes that God doesn't exist, rather than does exist? I don't have a belief that narrowly defined myself, as mean deities in general. Obviously it's impossible to know every single deity, but if you are actively aware of the deity/deities, and aware that the non-belief of the deity/deities exists, then you can be an atheist if you choose to not believe in the deity/deities. So, he may be an atheist in that he doesn't believe in the deities that he's aware of, but you still can't say he rejects Yahweh if he is not even aware of him. Yes, he may not believe in Yahweh, but not believing in something is not the same as rejecting something. I consider atheism to be the rejection of the existence, as I said before calling a baby an atheist doesn't really do anything to advance the debate.

Apple and atheist are both labels that we give to things that have certain properties.  If the thing has that properties that fit the label, then that's what it is.  

I meant is not someone who does not believe got exists, which is an important distinction from someone who believes god doesn't exist.  I refer to a specific god in this case, because depending on the god you propose, I may or may not call myself an atheist.  

I'm aware that the baby doesn't reject yahweh, and that's the point I was trying to make.  That there is a difference between rejecting (which is active) and not accepting (which is passive).  Most (pretty much all that I've seen) atheists define atheist as someone who does not accept that a deity exists.

I think it does advance the debate, because you need to agree to the terms beforehand, so we don't wind up with the same argument about what atheist means like we did 50 fucking times in this thread.  Once you agree, then you could move on to something of more substance.



JWeinCom said:
VGPolyglot said:

The difference being that an apple is a state of being, something that is composed in a specific matter in a specific way. On the other hand, atheism specifically refers to beliefs, thus you need to have a certain belief in order to be one.  I don't understand your second paragraph, I assume you mean to say that an atheist is someone who believes that God doesn't exist, rather than does exist? I don't have a belief that narrowly defined myself, as mean deities in general. Obviously it's impossible to know every single deity, but if you are actively aware of the deity/deities, and aware that the non-belief of the deity/deities exists, then you can be an atheist if you choose to not believe in the deity/deities. So, he may be an atheist in that he doesn't believe in the deities that he's aware of, but you still can't say he rejects Yahweh if he is not even aware of him. Yes, he may not believe in Yahweh, but not believing in something is not the same as rejecting something. I consider atheism to be the rejection of the existence, as I said before calling a baby an atheist doesn't really do anything to advance the debate.

Apple and atheist are both labels that we give to things that have certain properties.  If the thing has that properties that fit the label, then that's what it is.  

I meant is not someone who does not believe got exists, which is an important distinction from someone who believes god doesn't exist.  I refer to a specific god in this case, because depending on the god you propose, I may or may not call myself an atheist.  

I'm aware that the baby doesn't reject yahweh, and that's the point I was trying to make.  That there is a difference between rejecting (which is active) and not accepting (which is passive).  Most (pretty much all that I've seen) atheists define atheist as someone who does not accept that a deity exists.

I think it does advance the debate, because you need to agree to the terms beforehand, so we don't wind up with the same argument about what atheist means like we did 50 fucking times in this thread.  Once you agree, then you could move on to something of more substance.

You have to be aware of a deity to accept it though? Isn't rejection the opposite of acceptance? I agree that there needs to be clear terms beforehand, but how are we going to determine which definition to use? By the one that has more people that agree to it?



VGPolyglot said:
JWeinCom said:

Apple and atheist are both labels that we give to things that have certain properties.  If the thing has that properties that fit the label, then that's what it is.  

I meant is not someone who does not believe got exists, which is an important distinction from someone who believes god doesn't exist.  I refer to a specific god in this case, because depending on the god you propose, I may or may not call myself an atheist.  

I'm aware that the baby doesn't reject yahweh, and that's the point I was trying to make.  That there is a difference between rejecting (which is active) and not accepting (which is passive).  Most (pretty much all that I've seen) atheists define atheist as someone who does not accept that a deity exists.

I think it does advance the debate, because you need to agree to the terms beforehand, so we don't wind up with the same argument about what atheist means like we did 50 fucking times in this thread.  Once you agree, then you could move on to something of more substance.

You have to be aware of a deity to accept it though? Isn't rejection the opposite of acceptance? I agree that there needs to be clear terms beforehand, but how are we going to determine which definition to use? By the one that has more people that agree to it?

In formal logic, the opposite of A is not A.  So, the opposite of accept is not accept, which is different from reject.

An atheist speaker I like uses this as an example.  Suppose I have a 10 lb jar of gumballs.  I tell you that the jar of gumballs has an even number of gumballs in it.

If you rejected my claim that the number of gumballs is even, then you would be saying that the number is odd.  But you have no way of knowing that.  So, I'm guessing you would instead just not accept the claim.  That doesn't mean you're saying it is wrong, you're just saying that you're not convinced.

As for what definition to use, it depends on what you're arguing.  If you're arguing about what an atheist is, I'd say using the definition that atheists typically accept would be best.  



Who says some random religion in the middle of Taiwan isn't actually the "correct" one and everyone else is wrong?



Bristow9091 said:
Nem said:

Thats a bit of a trap given he was the last one to reply. :p

Anyways i thank you. I have been trying to end the conversation unsucessfully. I was actually already rolling my eyes when i saw the notification and was gonna move away myself. 

The easiest way to end a conversation would be to just not reply in the first place, something you failed to do across multiple posts and pages. Anyway, enough about that, just stop replying to each other in this thread like I said and I won't need to swing this lovely hammer at anyone, lol. 

I actually harbor some hope that when replying people will actually learn or at least question something. It is true that after he several times replied to me without actually trying to advance his case i should have followed through with what i said and ignoring him. Oh well...

 

Ok, as i don't want our moderator here getting nervous with me, i will give one more reply to VG who quoted me. After that i'm out. If you wish to carry on, you are free to send me messages.

VGPolyglot said:
Nem said:

You were wrong. Your definition of atheism was wrong and even your excuse of the latin meaning was wrong as arfy just told me in the previous page. And btw terms don't define themselves, we do.

Your replies for the last 5 or 6 pages have been /pout after that. I made no assumption except you are poisoned with religious definitions. It's a fact, wether you are atheist or theist.

For example VG is an Atheist but his concepts are still unclear or influenced by religion. This is an educational problem at large in the US from what i know.

I'm not a good teacher. I know the logic and i know what's real and how to determine it. I did not learn specifically how to decode the way people think incorrectly and help them fix it. I apolgise, i wish i had that talent, but theres many books and atheists to talk with that will do a better job at explaining these things and i vehemently recommend them.

I only went to Kindergarten in the US though. I don't believe in God, an afterlife, fate, etc. However, what we are not arguing is whether or not atheism is a real position or concept, we are disagreeing fundamentally of what atheism is. How are you going to expect a baby with no concept of god to explain what atheism is? And that is why it is important to have knowledge of the subject. How can you be an atheist if you don't even know what atheism is or means? (By the way I'm not saying this personally to you, I'm talking of your definition where someone who doesn't have the concept of it can still somehow be one).

Ok, so here is the thing. Wether God exists or not, is not dependant on wether we know about it or not. We can agree with that yeah?

What we know to be real, has to be provable. What we can't prove to be real is therefore not real as far as we know.

If the baby does not know god, it is therefore not real to him until he knows about him.

That is why he is atheist unknowingly. Because the concept of atheism is to not have belief in God (google "atheism definition" and it should be the first result).

I feel this is an explanation that i already presented to you and i doubt it will satisfy you, but it is what it is. Maybe you can ask a professor of some sort (theoretical physicist preferably) that can give you a response that may satisfy you better.

 

I hope you do keep this questioning mindset though. I am sure you will get things cleared up if you keep looking for it. :)

Last edited by Nem - on 14 January 2018