RE: Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
November 20, 2013 at 8:14 pm
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2013 at 8:15 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
(November 20, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Agnosticism is a more rational position than atheism anyway.
They are not mutually exclusive.
But of course, you've been explained why many times, yet you refuse to understand or accept the explanations.
Hypothetical conversation:
Theist: Do you believe a god exists?
Atheist: I disbelieve a god exists. (this statement defines one as an atheist)
Theist: How do you know that a god does not exist?
Atheist: I didn't say I claim to know that a god dies not exist, I said I disbelieve a god exists. (this statement defines someone as agnostic)
Whenever you read or hear the word 'know' think gnosticism/agnosticism. Whenever you read or hear the word 'believe' think theism/atheism.
A belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a proposition to be true.
Theism is the psychological state of accepting the proposition that at least one god exists to be true. Atheism is not having that psychological state with regards to gods.
Actually they are mutually exclusive, unless you are confusing atheism with irreligiosity.
In that sense, someone can be an irreligious agnostic, where they are practising "nones", although they are agnostics in the sense that they believe it is neither true nor false that God exists.
I know you feel like you know everything about this, but I think it's unlikely that you do. If you just read the OP, it makes it clear that the definition of atheism being used is a new invention. It just isn't the proper definition.
I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.
