False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[ideologue08]

No he is not willfully ignorant of it. He wanted to discuss this behaviorpattern concerning theists specificaly, and doesnt deny anywhere that this behavior does not occure amongst non theists.

Final warning: do not call me a nazi again unless you can prove it.

The very fact that you resort to name calling an insults underlines that you are not here for debate but for the purpose of amusing yourself through flaming up tentions between you and other members.

Yes he is willfully ignorant about it, he's still refusing to acknowledge it.

Final warning? Don't make me laugh. And it was you who called me a Nazi, you stupid Nazi.

Says the person who resorted to insults... irony much?

[Something completely different]

as you wish

[archangle]

I always say that the traits you give god are not supported by observations. Like the stance that if you don't know Jesus you are not saved. Not that there is, or is not, a god. Why in god's name would I claim there is no god. There just isn't any proof of that what so ever. In fact, the evidence suggest that we probably are part of a large system.

[smax]

I don't agree that it's a common mistake among Theists. Every single Theist I know understands the term perfectly well.

Now you are just full of shit! LOL.

William Lane Craig, a well known Christian apologist, defines Atheism as:

"The belief that god doesn't exist."

More?

Like I said before, you're ignorant and you can't be helped.

This coming from someone with an imaginary friend?

LOL

---

No he is not willfully ignorant of it. He wanted to discuss this behaviorpattern concerning theists specificaly, and doesnt deny anywhere that this behavior does not occure amongst non theists.

I don't our deluded friend is even capable of understanding ANY of this, but thanks for trying.

[Statler Waldorf]

Many Theists feel Atheism is the denial of the existence of god, and that Agnosticism represents a completely different perspective altogether.

And correctly so.

It isn't, and it doesn't. Atheism is simply the answer to a question:

Do you believe in god? No.

According to whom? You? I am sorry but you do not have the authority to re-define the term atheism.

The Atheist does not, by definition, carry some burden of proof that god doesn't exist.

Actually when dealing with an interrogative such as “Does God exist?’ the atheist shares an equal amount of the burden of proof as the theist, you should learn your rules of formal debate before you make such silly claims.

Further more, most Atheists are also Agnostic, as Agnostic is simply the answer to another question:

Do you know that god doesn't exist? No.

Again, according to whom? You? Agnostics generally do not appreciate being lumped in with atheists, there’s a reason they have chosen to self-identify as agnostic and not atheist.

"You are an Atheist, so prove that god doesn't exist?"

That’s a fair enough challenge.

"Atheism"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Wait, so he dismisses the existence of all gods because they are not Yahweh? That doesn’t make much sense.

I’ll conclude with the actual definition of atheism…

a-the-ism

The word literally breaks down to mean a belief in no god because “a” is modifying “the” rather than “ism”.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (Webster’s Dictionary)

“Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’- Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy [emphasis added by SW]

Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.’ – Encyclopaedia Britannica

“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Agnosticism
Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society, which flourished for over a decade and to which belonged notable thinkers and leaders of opinion. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.

Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.” - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


So since it’s obvious that you were wrong about the definition of atheism, the burden of proof, and the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, where is your proof that God does not exist Mr. Atheist?

[ideologue08]

Now you are just full of shit! LOL.

William Lane Craig, a well known Christian apologist, defines Atheism as:

"The belief that god doesn't exist."

This coming from someone with an imaginary friend?

Eh..no. I have heard of him, but I don't know anything about him, is he your fuck buddy?

You're ignorant though, and you're still in denial, which is strange

[smax]

I always say that the traits you give god are not supported by observations. Like the stance that if you don't know Jesus you are not saved. Not that there is, or is not, a god. Why in god's name would I claim there is no god. There just isn't any proof of that what so ever. In fact, the evidence suggest that we probably are part of a large system.

I agree. There are a lot of interesting questions that we don't have solid answers for.

That said, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that it is not important to know these answers either.

That's the most significant difference between Theists and Atheists, in my opinion:

Most Theists feel its of critical importance to know, Atheists do not. Atheists are simply curious to know the answers.

[Something completely different]

And correctly so.

Provide proof.

According to whom? You? I am sorry but you do not have the authority to re-define the term atheism.

According to the definition of the word, look into a dictonary, lexica or just google for the definition.

You and your fellow christian Borg are those who redefine the wort so it fits their pathetic agenda by adding the word "rejection"

Actually when dealing with an interrogative such as “Does God exist?’ the atheist shares an equal amount of the burden of proof as the theist, you should learn your rules of formal debate before you make such silly claims.

Nonsence, a person who get`s knowlege from rational empiricism will reject claims of faith and only accept the existance of thing which can be empiricaly proven.

For these individuals the burden of proof lies by those who lack empircal evidence.

Again, according to whom? You? Agnostics generally do not appreciate being lumped in with atheists, there’s a reason they have chosen to self-identify as agnostic and not atheist.

The definition can be found everywhere and most people who actualy can put up the effort to look it up will find it. You on the other hand seem to be to lazy.

Your definition is faulty and absolutly silly because it defines agnostics through the feelings you assert they may have for atheists.

This shows how disconected you are from reality.

Wait, so he dismisses the existence of all gods because they are not Yahweh? That doesn’t make much sense.

Make more sence!

I’ll conclude with the actual definition of atheism…

a-the-ism

The word literally breaks down to mean a belief in no god because “a” is modifying “the” rather than “ism”.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (Webster’s Dictionary)

“Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’- Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy [emphasis added by SW]

Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.’ – Encyclopaedia Britannica

“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Amongst the definitions you gave are such which aprove his point, and yet you have the audacity to remark that he is redefining the definition!

You and your kind are those redefining the word by claiming it to be the rejection of your own god!

“Agnosticism
Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society, which flourished for over a decade and to which belonged notable thinkers and leaders of opinion. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.

Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.” - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


So since it’s obvious that you were wrong about the definition of atheism, the burden of proof, and the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, where is your proof that God does not exist Mr. Atheist?

Worthless information.

[smax]

Now you are just full of shit! LOL.

William Lane Craig, a well known Christian apologist, defines Atheism as:

"The belief that god doesn't exist."

This coming from someone with an imaginary friend?

Eh..no. I have heard of him, but I don't know anything about him, is he your fuck buddy?

You're ignorant though, and you're still in denial, which is strange

You now:

[little_monkey]

Well my position is quite clear. I'm not speaking for all atheists. That's not my job.

I don't know if there is a god, but so far, I have found no evidence or argument to convince me that there is a god. So I choose not to believe.