The knowings and Unknowings of our Existence

[Filo]

You cannot contend "I don't believe in it" about something you ignore even theoric eventuallity.

Pretending your "islanders" are atheists is strange, I'll say quasi-dishonnest.

[Acriku]

The word atheism does not require the positive statement "I don't believe in god."

[Filo]

Although Nema's definition, that's true.

You use a language and don't accept its basic rules, so how can we communicate?

Whoa, fed up anyway of this hollow endless dispute.

[TMA_1]

duh acriku.

To not believe in a God, you have to choose not to believe in a God.

To be ignorant of any deity means that you dont even know if there is or isnt a God, you dont even know what the concept is.

They cant choose not to believe in a God, or to believe in a God. Why is this so hard for you to understand?lol

[Acriku]

Although Nema's definition, that's true.

You use a language and don't accept its basic rules, so how can we communicate?

Whoa, fed up anyway of this hollow endless dispute.

Well, since you're not an atheist by your own standards you may not feel the need to prove my point. I am, so I do.

To not believe in a God, you have to choose not to believe in a God.

This is an utterly false statement. I do not believe in an infinite amount of strange beings that can be made up with our imagination, and yet I do not know but a very small percentage of them.

To be ignorant of any deity means that you dont even know if there is or isnt a God, you dont even know what the concept is.

And therefore void of any belief of it. What's that called again? Somebody who is without a belief in a god? Hmm...a means without, and theism means the belief/doctrine in/of a god, so could it mean atheist? I certainly think so.

They cant choose not to believe in a God, or to believe in a God. Why is this so hard for you to understand?lol

Because you're using warped logic and you yourself are not understanding what I am saying.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dogs are ignorant of the concept of a God... so they are unable to believe in him...... does that make them atheists too?

[TMA_1]

acriku...lol I have not heard anybody use your weird use of semantics before. You are twisting words.

Every athiest I know says they are athiests because they say they DONT believe in a God.

Those that say they arent sure if there is or istn a god therefore they cannot say either way call themselves agnostics or they are searching.

Those that are ignorant of the entire thing are true agnostics, they just dont have an idea of things of that sort. They cannot choose so they cannot have the capacity to believe or not to believe, which is what athiesm requires. You are the one that believes this idea, I havent heard anybody else say this.

I have even shown you dictionary words and you say that the dictionaries are wrong! this is your own opinion of things. YOu have created new terms and ideas for these words and that is pure semantics. arguing around the meanings of words. aciku you are an ideologe, you cannot be convinced of anything that you dont believe in, you are stubburn as heck man.lol I still like ya though, even if you are a bit silly at times. ;)

[Acriku]

acriku...lol I have not heard anybody use your weird use of semantics before. You are twisting words.

How am I twisting words TMA? A means without, does it not? Theism means the belief in a god, does it not? So how am I twisting words when I define atheism as without the belief in a god?

Every athiest I know says they are athiests because they say they DONT believe in a God.

That's just a play on words meaning the same thing, and your statement is not in contradiction to the definition I proposed.

Those that say they arent sure if there is or istn a god therefore they cannot say either way call themselves agnostics or they are searching.

Good for them, however since they are without the belief in a god, they are atheists.

I have even shown you dictionary words and you say that the dictionaries are wrong! this is your own opinion of things.

You're appealing to authority, which you should know is fallacious. Are dictionaries made by human beings, who are fallible to their own notions and beliefs?

YOu have created new terms and ideas for these words and that is pure semantics. arguing around the meanings of words.

I have created nothing, this is what most experienced atheists agree with. Why just look at this link:

http://www.geocities.com/atheist_anon/terms.htm

Atheism

    A lack of faith in a god, supernatural being, or deity.  This is a neutral position in regard to the question, "Does god exist?"  It does not affirm any belief in god's non-existence despite many people's claims.

So, it is not just my "warped play on words." As I've said countless of times, this webpage agrees that the term atheism is a neutral term.

GUNWOUNDS, it's a little strange applying characteristics meant to apply to people to dogs, but technically you're correct.

What I've seen here a lot is people taking their preconceived notions and applying it to their definition of atheism, and I'm here to set it right. Nema used very loose definitions, probably for simplistic purposes. Now TMA, why haven't you even referred to what I've said before:

And therefore void of any belief of it. What's that called again? Somebody who is without a belief in a god? Hmm...a means without, and theism means the belief/doctrine in/of a god, so could it mean atheist? I certainly think so.

My argument is valid, now why do you not think so?

[GUNWOUNDS]

GUNWOUNDS, it's a little strange applying characteristics meant to apply to people to dogs, but technically you're correct.

My argument is valid, now why do you not think so?

heheh i was just being a smartass ....

but if technically i am correct .. then i am starting to see what your saying.

but this arguement reminds me of something Filecore

[Navaros]

you know what just to expand to that, even "extremist" is not a good word to use as an insult to someone because the Koran and the Bible and the Torah are all EXTREME books - all of them command their believers to do EXTREME things.

[GUNWOUNDS]

you know what just to expand to that, even "extremist" is not a good word to use as an insult to someone because the Koran and the Bible and the Torah are all EXTREME books - all of them command their believers to do EXTREME things.

[Filo]

Not bad.

By this way, we could now speak about *warped* atheists and *warped* theists, uh?

[nemafakei]

Ok, let's revise some mathematics.

A number can be positive, negative, or one other state: Zero.

Just so, If someone asks me how I am, I could be bad, good, or indifferent.

If, on balance I have no reason to be good nor bad, then why must I class myself as one or the other?

And so it is with religion. I could believe that the evidence is weighted in the favour of releigion, and depending on the mangintude of such a weighting, I could be classed as more or less religious.

But if I believe the evidence is pretty much even, I am neither Atheist or Theist.

(Deja vu... Hm...)

[Acriku]

Nema, what are you saying exactly?

[Anathema]

Acriku, your argument is stupid.

First of all, a word is only a collection of letters, what matters is the meaning people attach to it. To assign a different meaning to a word then the established meaning is pointless and only results in confusion.

Secondly, it seems to me that you're only arguing this to lump all agnostics in with atheists to make it look like a greater part of the people are atheists, and that the meaning of the word is no longer relevant.

It must really pain you to be part of such a small minority, namely dogmatic atheists, but that's the way it is.

[Acriku]

Acriku, your argument is stupid.

Gee thanks Earth, you're really beginning your post maturely.

First of all, a word is only a collection of letters, what matters is the meaning people attach to it.

And when the meaning has nothing to do with the actual word, it's only right to correct it.

To assign a different meaning to a word then the established meaning is pointless and only results in confusion.

That's why I am trying to relieve the confusion. I've been doing that for the past 2 pages, but stubborn people won't cease to add preconceived meanings to certain words that aren't even there.

Secondly, it seems to me that you're only arguing this to lump all agnostics in with atheists to make it look like a greater part of the people are atheists, and that the meaning of the word is no longer relevant.

Completely bullshit, Earth, and you should know better. It's true, that with the definition I am asserting includes all people without the belief in a god with atheism, but that just makes sense.

I'm not doing this to make it look like there are more people that are atheist. You're construing what I am doing into something that I'm not, and frankly that's low. You don't have an argument here, you're just being immature. Grow up Earth.

It must really pain you to be part of such a small minority, namely dogmatic atheists, but that's the way it is.

Ah yes, just continuing to swim in your own immaturity eh Earth? Of course I'm a minority. Why would I think any different? I'm not trying to get into the majority by warping the definition of atheism, even if those who profess that they are agnostics only are lumped with atheists, it's still a strikingly small minority. It'd be futile to make it any different. This has nothing to do with this. Once again, grow up and try not to be so bigoted against me next time.

[nemafakei]

My point was if you wish to talk about all those without a faith in a god, don't confuse the issue by calling both groups a name which refers to but one of them, for elsewise, if division is necessary, it creates twice as much work for people trying to refer tone the groups Atheist and Agnostic individually. If you wish to talk about the two, just say 'both atheists and agnostics' or something similar.

[SurlyPIG]

I can't help but laugh at the hypocrits in this thread who wish to use the more accepted but not techinally accurate definition of the word atheist, but are so adament about preserving the techincal definition of the word marriage.  The least you could do is be consistent.

[Acriku]

My point was if you wish to talk about all those without a faith in a god, don't confuse the issue by calling both groups a name which refers to but one of them, for elsewise, if division is necessary, it creates twice as much work for people trying to refer tone the groups Atheist and Agnostic individually. If you wish to talk about the two, just say 'both atheists and agnostics' or something similar.

Why would you even refer to agnostics and atheists separately when agnostics are atheists? You can just refer to "atheists." When you want to get more specific involving agnosticism, you would then refer to "agnostic atheists." It isn't confusing at all if you know the real meanings of both characteristics.

[nemafakei]

Why do I even bother posting?

[SurlyPIG]

Because, somehow, you figured most people would listen.  Try not to let the brick walls discourage you.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why do I even bother posting?

dont worry nema .. we are listening.

[Anathema]

Acriku, you claim to be solving the confusion but if anything you have created it. There is no reason to correct harmless, widespread misusage of words. It is not right to do so because it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Besides that, the word atheist comes from the ancient Greeks who used it on anyone who didn't believe in the Greek pantheon. And who knows the original meaning better then those who created it? By that definition we're all atheists.

If you dissect the word you can come to the conclusion that atheists includes all non believers but why bother- the greeks didn't, and what's more, it doesn't even originate from the language we are using.

Ace, I think modern society watered down the meaning of "marriage" enough to justify the term "gay marriage". Nor do I think there are any ethical objections to it.

[TMA_1]

acriku, you said it perfectly  you are "warping" terms.

no matter what your words mean, it isnt what people think or feel.

You are just defining terms to fit your beliefs, and putting those terms onto other people, evne if they disagree. Even if you were right about the terms being incoherant, that doesnt mean that agnostics are athiests, because they do not believe in the terms that you set up, and do not consider themselves athiests. You are creating new terms and are playing semantics, dont you know that this is silly and illogical?

Agnostics that do not believe we have enough information to know if there is or isnt a God, is not an athiest. The dictionaries out there state the truth, you even reject the dictionaries. Acriku how is it that everybody is wrong and you are right?

[Acriku]

Why do I even bother posting?

Just because I questioned your post doesn't mean you should give up. Not everyone considers you as the all-knowing Nema.

ACE, I am being stubborn - but only because I think I am right.  :-*

Acriku, you claim to be solving the confusion but if anything you have created it. There is no reason to correct harmless, widespread misusage of words. It is not right to do so because it serves no purpose whatsoever.

You have to create some confusion in order to bring people into enlightenment. Also, just because it has no purpose to you does not mean it has no purpose to me. It's entirely ignorant to say that Earth, and frankly I can't help but not be surprised after seeing your previous post.

Besides that, the word atheist comes from the ancient Greeks who used it on anyone who didn't believe in the Greek pantheon. And who knows the original meaning better then those who created it? By that definition we're all atheists.

They used it, as far as I am aware, to represent the lack of believing in specific gods, nowadays when we have more than just Greek gods we must use it more generally, to involve all gods. However, they used it correctly, as I can explain. Say I'm Jewish, and you're Islamic (and assume the gods are not the same). To me, you are an atheist to my god, you lack a belief in my god. I am an atheist to your god, I lack a belief in your god. As long as it is in the right context, it can be used differently to signify any specific god(s).

If you dissect the word you can come to the conclusion that atheists includes all non believers but why bother- the greeks didn't, and what's more, it doesn't even originate from the language we are using.

So you agree with me that atheists include all nonbelievers? Well, aren't agnostics nonbelievers? They don't believe - whether or not they think that they have enough knowledge to believe or not, at the moment they do not believe.

no matter what your words mean, it isnt what people think or feel.

So, you're saying that no matter how right I am, if it isn't what people feel or think I am wrong?

You are just defining terms to fit your beliefs, and putting those terms onto other people, evne if they disagree.

An outright false assertion. I dissected atheism plenty of times in this thread for you to know that it follows what I say it to mean. It is you who is defining it to fit your preconceptions. But I won't hold it against you, after all human beings are fallibe.

Even if you were right about the terms being incoherant, that doesnt mean that agnostics are athiests, because they do not believe in the terms that you set up, and do not consider themselves athiests.

I can be delirious and not consider myself white, but I am still white. No matter if I *feel* or *think* I am not white, the fact is: I am white. The truth may hurt, but it's still the truth. Creating your own reality is not beneficial to anybody. People who consider themselves only agnostic are atheists because they do not positively believe in a god. It's not a hard concept to understand. Atheism is not a negatively asserting concept, it's neutral. Theism is a positively asserting concept.

You are creating new terms and are playing semantics, dont you know that this is silly and illogical?

Of course this is semantics, but it isn't illogical. I'm not entirely sure you know what illogical means, or atleast how to use it. Anyways, I am not creating new terms, we've already discussed this and you were wrong. Are not reading my posts now? I show the courtesy to read every word of yours, you should show the same.

Agnostics that do not believe we have enough information to know if there is or isnt a God, is not an athiest.

I believe that there is not enough knowledge we contain to know if there is a god in this universe or beyond. Therefore, by your definition I am an agnostic. However, I also do not believe in any god - a conflict. When your definition arrives at a conflict, and mine doesn't, my definition has more credence.

The dictionaries out there state the truth, you even reject the dictionaries. Acriku how is it that everybody is wrong and you are right?

So whatever the dictionary says is automatically correct? Please TMA, don't be so naive. They do revisions on dictionaries all the time, they aren't infallible creatures working on Mt. Olympus. And I guess by your last statement sanity is truly statistical, in which case if I am outnumbered by people who think I am wrong, then I must be wrong.