Nem said:
JWeinCom said:
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.
|
The definition of Atheism has always been the same. There can be no debate if you want to make one up for your your convenience.
Agnosticism is simply not a thing. Agnosticism and atheism are the same position.
And no, i didn't contradict myself. You can not believe on the absense of something. The absense is the default state. Ergh... this is why it's vexing to debate with Religious people. You don't know concepts and you don't understand logic.
Here, go read something: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
|
"Agnosticism is simply not a thing."
this is the funniest thing i've read all week, thank you
