(July 20, 2022 at 5:00 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(July 19, 2022 at 11:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Because it is self-protective in-group bullshit for intellectual pansies who would rather pride themselves in a quality they share with cabbages, i.e. lack of belief, than openly take a stance with all the attendent responsiblities for that stance. Just because you repeat and insist on redefining common words to avoid criticism or from some misguided attempt to secure the mantel of normative belief...talking louder does not make it true.
Theist: A person who believes in a God or gods.
Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in a God or gods.
No cabbages referenced. And atheists have been using the term this way since the 1800s.
The Atheist does not say “There is no God,” but he says, “I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.” Charles Bradlaugh, 'A Plea for Atheism', 1864
I can't speak specifically about Neo, but every time in the past, when I encounter a theist that talks in terms of atheists being "intellectual pansies", or not "taking a stance", as if we are trying to avoid saying, "gods don't exist", theists are coming from the position of atheism being a worldview.
They think, because their theism is a worldview, then our atheism must also be a worldview. So, they are expecting atheists to defend our worldview, we have to claim the opposite of theists. As if we are defending our 'no god" hill, against their "there is a god" hill.
Many really are unable to get the concept of simply disbelieving their god claims, based on a valid and sound epistemology, i.e., demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.
So, the bottom line for Neo-Scholastic's benefit, is:
I don't claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist.
This defines me as an agnostic.
I also currently disbelieve any gods exist.
This defines me as an atheist.
Therefore, I am, wait for it, an agnostic-atheist. Where is the oxymoron?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
