By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nem on 13 January 2018
Edit Thread
Azuren said:
Nem said:

In bold, it's wrong. It's a million times wrong. There is no belief in something that doesn't exist. It's the default position. 

Do you declare you don't believe the pink space unicorn? Flying pigs? Talking butter? No, because it is obvious they don't exist until proven otherwise.

What is so difficult to understand about this? Seriously... the poison they put in your heads... 

The ones that make the claim that god exists are the ones making a claim. The default position of any claim is to not believe it until proven. Therefore believing in the non-existance is completely redundant and doesn't have a part in this. That does not make sense (how could one even prove something doesn't exist?) and is not the definition of Atheism, no matter how much religious people want to misuse it.

No, it's not. It's literally what the name draws from in Latin. Someone who doesn't in believe in a god or multiple gods.

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.

WolfpackN64 said:
Nem said:

No. Words are not dictated by their misuse. (yes, because these words have a meaning and are used with their correct meaning by everyone except religious people)

You don't get to say Apple now means Orange and people now have to accept that.

Words are already defined. Find a way to say what you mean with the existing ones. I know it's something of a challenge for religious leaders to do, but they have to try a bit harder.

You can twist and turn what I meant all you want. All it goes to show is that you don't really care about the linguistics. That and your definition of agnosticism was largely skewed anyway. So if we can't "make up definitions" as you put it, you'd still be wrong.

And don't bore us with a

Oh you got it wrong. You are the one projecting religious people as the people of the world with the power to make up and change the meaning of words. Religious people are only a sub-set of people. You don't have that power and the atempts just end up as humor to the rest of the civilised world.

I do care about linguistics. But what you are talking about is, as usual for religion, to give special treatment for a few. Wich the rest of us reply with a clear: NO! You are not special cause you are grown people who believe some fairy tail book and you will not receive special treatment. 

Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018