|
Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|
Lucent..disproving evolution merely disproves evolution...disproving evolution does not default prove that Jesus exists...otherwise someone can claim that disproving evolution proves that Thor exists.
All you are doing is special pleading. 
LastPoet
 Leader of the gang of jerkoffs(tm)  Religious Views: L'Uomo verrà portato dalla sua creazione
Yes, I have repeated this ad nauseum to lucent, it all sounds like a very black or white thought. To him, either there is a god or there is nothing. Sad...
Binary thinking and religion seem to go hand in choirboy.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (December 6, 2011 at 10:51 am)LastPoet Wrote: Yes, I have repeated this ad nauseum to lucent, it all sounds like a very black or white thought. To him, either there is a god or there is nothing. Sad... Aye it is sad.....and an embarrassment. My way or no way. No point arguing with a mind like that. Too immature. Too primitive. Fact is the answer could be X, or Y, or W or Foxtrot. But whatever the truth is, what's true at this point in time is that we don't know. All that's been done so far by the less intelligent ones of us is assume many things, many very improbable things, and accomplished....nothing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity. Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist. You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Not merely improbable - they've picked just about the least probable things anyone could come up with. Tracey Harris, on the Atheist Experience, once said something on the lines of "you accept talking snakes, water into wine and someone rising from the dead as being actually true, but evolution just blows your mind." It's all very sad.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Debate and it's discussion is officially open now.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari  RE: Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
December 7, 2011 at 3:36 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm by Mister Agenda.)
Maybe if we analogize enough, Lucent will get the difference between not believing in God and believing in no God: Lucent, I don't believe you have a $50 in your pocket. Does it then follow that I believe you DON'T have a $50 in your pocket?
Or if we quote enough dictionaries that give different definitions than the ones he cherry picked for having the definition he wanted: Atheism, from Merriam Webster: a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity Disbelieve, from Merriam Webster: Definition of DISBELIEVE transitive verb : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe intransitive verb : to withhold or reject belief (bolding mine) Atheism has two definiions. The more inclusive one is not believing in a deity. That's the one modern atheists use, not because it makes our arguments easier, but because the agnostic atheists don't like it when people only use the definition that excludes us when like many words it has two related meanings, one more general and one more specific. Lucent has commented several times that our use of the atheism is autobiographical, implying that it is a claim about ourselves and not the existence of God. This is entirely correct, when someone says they are an atheist, they are sharing information about themselves: that they are someone who doesn't believe deities aren't imaginary. A theist is a believer in a deity, an atheist is not a theist. The claim is about whether they believe in a deity, and the answer is 'no'. Lucent complains that we won't engage about the existence of God, but he is the one who prevents moving on to that subject because he won't let go of the definition of 'atheist' until we all stop using 'agnostic' as an adjective to describe what kind of atheist we are. And that's weird, because he doesn't believe we're atheists or agnostics, he has claimed several times that we know God exists, so clearly he thinks we're all theists, and not even agnostic ones.
There are atheists that believe a diety is not worthy of belief (that is a belief that something isn't qualified for belief), there are also those that withhold or reject belief in dieties (that is that the null position would be no belief). The former would be hard the latter soft. I don't think it directly needs the agnostic adjective unless one is defining their particular use of atheism. That is fairly standard explanation correct?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari (December 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm)tackattack Wrote: There are atheists that believe a diety is not worthy of belief (that is a belief that something isn't qualified for belief), there are also those that withhold or reject belief in dieties (that is that the null position would be no belief). The former would be hard the latter soft. I don't think it directly needs the agnostic adjective unless one is defining their particular use of atheism. That is fairly standard explanation correct? Its close enough for me.
close enough.. well we all hopefully have a dictionary, but it doesn't always apply the modern connotative usage. Just doing a quick reality check. Always good practice after along tryst down the rabbit hole.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
