Vincenzo "Vinny" G. ' Wrote: 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.
Then, by your reasoning, shouldn't be using the original definition of atheism as coined by the Greeks? They defined the Christians as atheists because they did not believe in the Greek gods.
The definition you want to use is also a relatively new invention.
Quote: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.
You seem to be applying the colloquial meaning here, and not the formal one.
But tell me, how can the word 'gnostic' (or agnostic), which means 'pertaining to knowledge' have anything to do with belief or disbelief?
I get the feeling you might not understand the difference between the meaning of the words 'knowledge' and 'belief'.
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.
