From atheism to tentative agnosticism

[Cyberman]

So you would use 'theist' to refer to someone who believes in the Greek gods would you? Or Thor? Really?

Yes, those people would be theists. They wouldn't be xtians, obviously, but since they believe in gods, they would fit the definition of 'theist'.

Odd. I don't think I'm going to understand a lot of what you say.

Well that is why it's important to agree on what words actually mean, instead of making them up to fit our purposes. If I define the word 'banana' to mean sex toy, would that make every similarly phallic-shaped toy edible? If nothing else, it would make for some pretty interesting misunderstandings in the fruit and veg aisle.

I said that I thought it would be unusual for someone who believed in, say, Thor to describe themselves as an 'atheist'.

Yes, you did set up your strawman that way.

You say "Such a believer could be quite entitled to call themselves an atheist about gods they consider fictional. Interestingly and on the same point, it seems the early xtians were among the first to be referred to as atheists by the Romans, because they didn't believe in the Roman gods."

Well, anyone is 'entitled' to call themselves whatever they want. The point, though, is that it would be grossly misleading - it would invite misunderstanding - to call oneself an 'atheist' if one believed in Thor or the Roman gods or some such.

And here you knock it down. Awesome!

If you declare yourself an atheist most people are going to think you mean you don't believe in the existence of any gods, aren't they? that's because whatever you say you mean by the word 'atheist' most people understand it to mean 'the belief that no gods exist'.

Ok, let's go over this again. Remember, these are your words and not mine:

"If you declare yourself an atheist most people are going to think you mean you don't believe in the existence of any gods, aren't they?"

Was this the same person who immediately contradicted himself with:

"that's because whatever you say you mean by the word 'atheist' most people understand it to mean 'the belief that no gods exist'."?

Just in case you missed it: in one paragraph you assert that atheism is the disbelief that gods exist and the belief that gods do not exist simultaneously. Headache much?

Tell me, if everyone - everyone in the world - believes that god exists, but in fact god does not exist, is atheism true or false?
It is 'true' isn't it? So atheism's truth does not depend upon anyone having any beliefs at all.

On the contrary, atheism depends upon - totally relies upon, actually - theistic beliefs. As you just illustrated so extremely.

No, you know what I mean by atheism because I have told you.

And I have told you that your definition of it is fundamentally flawed, thus making any conclusions drawn from it suspect to say the least.

And I am arguing that morality provides some reason to think atheism is false.

Are you by any chance related to ShockOfGod of YouTube fame? Atheism is neither 'true' nor 'false'; it is the response to theistic claims and nothing more.

You can use 'atheism' to mean 'tuesday' if you wish, but I am using it to mean the view that no gods exist.

Appeal to ridicule. Classy.

But let's go with it for a moment. I could as you say use 'atheism' to mean 'Tuesday' and come up with a whole page of reasoning to justify, say, not allowing myself to eat bacon today because of it being a Tuesday (say I believed I might explode or something). Then someone points out that my original definition is flawed, and it's not actually Tuesday. Am I still justified in holding to the conclusions I drew and, in this case, forbidden to eat bacon today?

---

Also, please learn to quote properly. It's really not that hard - here's a short BB Code Guide to help.