|
Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|
The entire community of "atheists" who are telling you this definition is true are talking nonsense. They are either ignorant of what atheism means, or they have succumbed to convenience over rationality.
Can you tell me why, when someone's view is covered by agnosticism, they want to label themselves and others as atheists? 
Because the term "agnostic" is far too broad and vague.
Lemonvariable72
Copenhagen School  Religious Views: Its all bullshit to keep you handing money to the usher. RE: Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
November 13, 2013 at 1:52 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm by Lemonvariable72.)
(November 13, 2013 at 5:18 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The entire community of "atheists" who are telling you this definition is true are talking nonsense. They are either ignorant of what atheism means, or they have succumbed to convenience over rationality. Oh and why is the traditional definition more rational?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. 
What Vinny "thinks" this all means:
Theist<---------------Agnostic-------------->Atheist
What it really looks like: Gnostic
| | | Theist-----------------Atheist | | | Agnostic Four basic choices here: Gnostic theist Agnostic theist Gnostic atheist Agnostic atheist If Vinny can't grasp that, I say no loss on our part. 
Good afternoon everyone. My first post here. It is good to participate in this.
I always think of the gumball model when I think of this issue. Let's say you have a jar of gumballs and you do not know how many are in there. There are either an odd number or an even number of gumballs. That is a true dichotomy. Now if I say that I believe there are an odd number of gumballs without presenting any justification for that belief, you can easily say that you have no reason to believe that there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. That does not mean that you automatically believe that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. In fact, you could easily say that you have no reason to believe that there is an odd number or an even number. AND.....you do not know the exact answer. Because of this, you do not believe AND you do not know. There is no contraction here. The same applies to God. There either is or is not a God. This is a true dichotomy. It is just as easy for an atheist to say that he/she does not believe one exists and also say that they do not know either way. 
Kinda sucks for you 'athiests' to be corrected when you butcher the language. Now you guys are complaining that you weren't hung with s new rope.
 ![[Image: pkr9f.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.meme.li%2Fi%2Fpkr9f.jpg)
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura
(November 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Kinda sucks for you 'athiests' to be corrected when you butcher the language. Now you guys are complaining that you weren't hung with s new rope. Not really, no. Call me whatever you want, it won't change what I am. If you want to get into a pissing contest over the "correct" definition of atheist then knock.yourself out. I don't believe in any gods. I have no justifiable reason to believe in any gods. Whether that makes me an atheist, an agnostic or dyslexic spidermonkey, it won't change the fact that I don't believe in any gods. Have fun arguing about that.  RE: Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
November 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm by Simon Moon.)
(November 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Kinda sucks for you 'athiests' to be corrected when you butcher the language. Now you guys are complaining that you weren't hung with s new rope. This coming from a guy who has this as his signature - atheism = nihilism Talk about butchering the language. 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. 
Dishonest theist is dishonest.
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
