Yeah. I was just being stupid

I like nulltheist. That's my best for now. That'll confuse everyone.

Why use atheist at all? If someone was to ask me on the street if I believed in God, I would answer with, "I hold that the case for the existence of a god is underwhelming and not definitive." This likely to undercut the negative connotations and baggage most Christians and etc bring to the word.

Well, you know what's coming

You can be ignostic, and just dismiss the question entirely as meaningless. It's drivel and doesn't even deserve an answer until it makes sense and is falsifiable.

Whether you need to even say ignostic atheist I dont know, or if just ignostic covers it. I haven't answered the question at all, because it's a broken question.

(February 12, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Why use atheist at all? If someone was to ask me on the street if I believed in God, I would answer with, "I hold that the case for the existence of a god is underwhelming and not definitive." This likely to undercut the negative connotations and baggage most Christians and etc bring to the word.

Sure, and that' fine if you want to say that. But again, in a discussion about these topics I at least like to have some terms upon whose definitions we can agree, because they're helpful shortcuts.

It's like if someone says to me "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" I don't answer. It's a bad question.

Do you believe in God equates to, "Do you believe in something that it's impossible to know anything about?"

It's broken.

---

All this goes to show the importance of agreeing definitions with whoever you are discussing with. As long as you both agree what a word means, then it's cool. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

The original definition of atheism was that it was denial of God's existence. Sometimes people refer to atheists as that definition.

(February 12, 2015 at 3:36 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, you know what's coming

You can be ignostic, and just dismiss the question entirely as meaningless. It's drivel and doesn't even deserve an answer until it makes sense and is falsifiable.

Because then I would have to defend the Logical positivists' theory of language.

Right. Well if both people in a debate agree to that definition, then things are fine.

(February 12, 2015 at 3:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The original definition of atheism was that it was denial of God's existence. Sometimes people refer to atheists as that definition.

Yeah, and 'bimbo' used to mean 'small male child'. Words change over time, and we're trying to discuss definitions today.

And..when/where was the 'original' definition of atheism 'denying that god exists'?

(February 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 3:36 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, you know what's coming

You can be ignostic, and just dismiss the question entirely as meaningless. It's drivel and doesn't even deserve an answer until it makes sense and is falsifiable.

Because then I would have to defend the Logical positivists' theory of language.

P.S. I don't think logical positivism is true. I'm okay with there being meaningful untestable claims like "multiverses exist."