RE: Is atheism a belief?
January 23, 2019 at 6:31 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2019 at 7:30 pm by EgoDeath.)
(January 23, 2019 at 5:41 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: -The problem isn't the "theists", but rather the "atheists" wanting to change it from meaning what it really means. That's why we have a bazillion new definitions that not even the atheists can agree on.What are you talking about? I'm not trying to change the definition. An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. Show me one atheist that would disagree with that. You can't. On to your next point.
(January 23, 2019 at 5:41 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: -Your claim of "zero evidence" is nonsense. More likely a lack of your understanding.
Do you have evidence for a god? If so, you're the first theist in history to obtain such evidence. Please show us the evidence now so we can all stop the debating/discussing. Except, I'll bet everything I own you have no evidence, so let's move on to your next point.
(January 23, 2019 at 5:41 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: -Saying "atheism" is "inactive position" sounds like an empty claim. Maybe expand on it if you believe it to be true. If it's inactive, please also explain why you demanding religious rights? If it's "inactive" why would you need special protections and tax exemptions?
Atheism is an inactive position. Are you actively not believing in magical space elves? No. You simply live your life as if they do not exist. Are you actively not being a coin collector? Are you actively not being a car salesman? No. So let's move on.
I'm not "demanding religious rights," what are you talking about?
(January 23, 2019 at 5:41 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: - If the court had no evidence about Mark, then it would be "agnostic" or "ignorant." It doesn't have to necessarily be out of intent. I could be agnostic about a view, but it may be due to unintentional lack of consideration of it because I was focused on something else.Except that gnosticism versus agnosticism addresses the issue of knowledge. Theism versus atheism addresses the issue of belief. If you're gnostic about god's existence, you have knowledge that god exists. If you're agnostic about god's existence then you do not have knowledge that god exists. If you're a theist, you have a belief that god exists, if you're an atheist, you do not have a belief that god exists.
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive ideas. While "agnostic" has, in recent years, taken on a colloquial meaning that's different from the technical definition, the correct way to identify yourself would technically be either an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, and an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.
Is this honestly that hard for you to understand? If so, you're way out your depth in this conversation. Now that we've cleared that up, on to the next point.
(January 23, 2019 at 5:41 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: - Your position isn't "inactive" it's competing. Not only that, it's a lot of copying. The difference between atheists and theists is you say "no god", theists say "God" or "gods." Everything else, you pretty much copy. We have churches, you have churches. We have religious rights, you demanded and received religious rights. We sing hymns in churches, you sing hymns in churches. We talk about God, and you do the same. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.
Dude, what are you talking about? I do not attend a church or sing hymns or anything that you're saying. What the fuck are you talking about?
If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.
