JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:
"ou just don't know your terms or were tought wrongly. "Agnostic" is not a noun, it's an adjective. You were tought wrongly by the people that wanted to invent a new meaning for the term and atheism so they could better attack it"
there are plenty of resources that still have that definition(one of which i posted) and 10 years ago the vast majority of them did
"there is no belief that a God doesn't exist"
i'm sure that if i felt like it i could quote people saying this in this very thread... wtf man lol
"If something doesn't exist, by default it's not believed."
didn't you just say that the belief that god does not exist does not exist?
"It's therefore NOT a different position as Atheism."
lol ok, if you want to believe that atheism and agnosticism are the same you are free to do so
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y
This is a pretty good representation, of the atheist view in general. But I'll sum it up...
Basically, you are insisting on holding an inflexible definition of atheism and agnosticism, which happens to be one that many (most from my experience) atheists do not hold.
By doing this, you are preventing any real discussion from happening. Instead of an actual conversation of what someone believes you wind up, as you and others have in this topic, having conversations about the semantics of the word atheist.
Really, what is the point of this? Why not just ask the person what they mean when they say they are an atheist, and go from there discussing the actual beliefs? Doesn't that seem more productive? As long as people in the conversation both understand what the other means when they say they are an atheist or agnostic, then that's all that really matters.
|
"Basically, you are insisting on holding an inflexible definition of atheism and agnosticism, which happens to be one that many (most from my experience) atheists do not hold."
no i'm saying that atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing in disagreement to him claiming they are
even if you want to make the argument that atheism, agnosticism and theism all exist on a spectrum like colour
with colours, for example, we still have clear labels for different points along that spectrum, for example, blue, purple and indigo all pretty much bleed into each other but we still distinguish them with clear labels
what you're arguing is that i can pretty much on a whim just say that indigo is the same as purple and run with that
"Really, what is the point of this?"
uh... i'm giving my perspective... isn't that what conversations are about?
"Why not just ask the person what they mean when they say they are an atheist"
i suppose reasoning like this is why its now law to acknowledge whatever identity someone has in certain areas and that includes identities like worm or dog
if i chose to identify as a worm would you acknowledge that? or would you use your common sense to acknowledge that i'm obviously human?
" Instead of an actual conversation of what someone believes you wind up"
i did not at any point tell him what he believes, that's up to him, all i said is that atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing
