Defining "Atheism"

[theVOID]

Let me provide you with some reasoning children...

The thing that always stuck with me is the idea that the cat (Erwin Schrödinger's cat) is BOTH alive and dead until it is observed.

*sigh*

This false interpretation is never going to die is it?

The cat is either dead or alive, it's as simple as that, the whole point is that we could not know the outcome of a random event until we have observed it.

God both exists and doesn’t exist.

That is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on these forums, I genuinely worry for the mental health of the person who wrote this....

The difference is that we have no way of looking into the box. While proving whether or not the cat is alive or dead is easily determined by observation (and in fact, determined by observation), in the case of God, that observation, the thing that makes it one or the other, is robbed from us because there is no way to prove of disprove the existence of God. So God both exists and does not exist eternally. While Pandora’s box is one we can never close, God’s box is a box we can never open.

Do we have an award for most profound display of idiocy? We should create one just for this.

This is why I can say that I neither believe in the existence of God nor do I disbelieve the existence of God. My belief is absolutely neutral because God simultaneously exists and does not exist.

A 'neutral' position regarding the existence of God is still atheism because the person in question is "without belief in god(s)"

You can never know that the cat is alive in the box DBP. The fact is missing. The presented facts have no bearing on that question.

So now you get it right? Because this is NOT the same thing as you said earlier that the cat is BOTH dead and alive simultaneously.

Another statement he made was even more fascinating. He said the essence of agnosticism amounts to the following principle: "I cannot know, nor will I ever know; therefore, I can never say. I must, logically, remain neutral on the matter." This is fascinating because what he has done is make knowledge a predicate of belief; i.e., he must first know in order to believe. This confronts him with an intractable problem: if knowledge must come before belief, then he can never know anything and, thus, cannot believe anything. This agnostic principle he describes actually strips his empiricist epistemology of all meaning; as the very axioms upon which it must be built cannot be known (by definition, being axiomatic), he therefore cannot believe them. A system that cannot even start is permanently incapable of meaning.

Perfectly said.