Thread: Richard Dawkins... Yippy. :D

next you'll hear about someone who is both a theist and an atheist

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

PS. This is really only a problem when people have conflicting opinions on the meaning of the word

which is why I provided definitions, I would have hoped that would clear things up a bit... I guess not, people like to believe a word means whatever they want to.

Originally Posted by yay

Did you not read my next post? It has the definition of Atheism . Ill post it again for you. "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
I don't believe there is no God, so I am not an Atheist.

You're arguing semantics here.
1. Atheism = a-theism = the absence of theism = not believing in God.

2. If you're living in such a way as if God doesn't exist, you are believing that he doesn't exist. Get over it, that the state of the matter. You can't have no belief about it.

It's only that positive belief automatically implies a positive claim which negative belief doesn't. Believing that no God exists is the status quo of the rational mind because that's what you're born with and for which there is no contradictory data at hand.
It's only that positive belief requires evidence, which negative belief doesn't.

I was saying that people claim they are atheists. Which they are not if they believe in the possibility of God existing.

Great. Another person who just randomly assigns new definitions to words so as to be correct. Sorry, but 99.9% of atheists disagree with you PERIOD.

And I don't believe anything. I have ideas. And not believing does not mean Atheism. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist, as clearly stated in the definition.

That you dug up your ass.

Did you ignore my whole second post or something? I don't believe in God, nor do I not believe.

That is logically and psychologically impossible. Sorry to break it to you, but you're an atheist.

If you don't believe that God exists, you're an atheist.
If you don't believe that God doesn't exist, you're either an atheist or an agnostic atheist.

I just don't know,

Belief != knowledge.

Agnostic : "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
Agnostic second definition: " a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study."

That's the de-facto standard of science. No need to overload our language with nonsense like "agnosticism". We already have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism
and probably more.

Originally Posted by yay

I see Agnosticism as the middle ground. Where theists believe 100%, Atheists believe 100% and Agnosticism is where you can believe any percent, except 100%. Like I would consider 99% sure God exists as Agnostic, and 99% God doesnt exist as Agnostic.

A definition of Agnostic is "a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study."

I think if anyone who doesn't believe something , or anything 100% is agnostic.
And Atheism definition: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
And for good measure, belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

I think you are stretching the definition if you call yourself atheist but don't believe it. Belief is different than an educated guess, or an idea. Theists have belief in God, Atheists have belief in no God, and Agnostics have no belief.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

I don't believe in Osiris, but I do believe in Zeus, I'm also uncertain regarding Thor. What does that make me?

Halfway to the Psych-Ward?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Halfway to the Psych-Ward?

Seconded.

Now, I'm seeing that quote of mine everywhere I see a post of yours, so my name catches my eye and I say, "What the fuck?" for a second before I realize it's me being sigged.

Then I say,

maybe they should introduce strong and weak Atheism, then we could have the following:

Agnostic: Is not sure whether or not God exists as it is inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual.

Weak Atheist: Looking at the evidence they have a strong opinion God does not exist, however they will admit they cannot be certain( so the whole, 99% no God but as i am logical i will not say 100%)

Strong Atheist: Believes 100% that heir is no God, thee is no question in their minds of this at all.

lol still i don't like my own definitions, but that could be an idea.

"yay," you are wrong. "Belief" (or lack thereof) does not imply certainty. I can "believe" there is no god, but still not be positive. That is to say, I believe in unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster just as much as I believe in the possibility of god. An atheist "does not believe in god." This is true. According to you "the definitions are very clear." But where, pray tell, in the definitions is there any implication of certainty? If you can find some, please tell. But the fact is, an atheist believes there is no god, but doesn't have to be "positive." As an atheist, I am fairly sure there is no god. But I am also an agnostic because I know it is impossible to know. In fact, even if I WERE certain, I could still be classified as an agnostic. Say, hypothetically, I were certain there was no god. I can still say "it is impossible to know." Please tell me: how does agnosticism reflect a belief or disbelief in god? It doesn't.

Your belief that agnosticism is the "middle ground" shows your vast misunderstanding of the definition of agnosticism, theism, and atheism (as many do misunderstand the term). Agnosticism is not the "middle ground." Nor is agnosticism a term reflecting exclusively uncertanity. Agnosticism is strictly defined as saying it's impossible to know. NOT "not being positive."

So in short: You are wrong, and I am both an atheist and an agnostic. Understand now?

PS: Cuddley person: As I said, agnosticism IS NOT I repeat IS NOT defined as "not being sure." Agnosticism has NO RELEVANCE TO HOW SURE ONE IS ABOUT THE STATUS OF GOD. Sure, agnostics might be often be not sure, but that does not mean agnosticism is defined as unsureness (if most people who eat bananas are gay, that doesn't mean being gay means you like bananas, now does it?).

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Halfway to the Psych-Ward?

Been there, got a "not insane" diploma do prove it.

Originally Posted by yay

people like to believe a word means whatever they want to.

Which it does.

So if people disagree about the meaning of a certain word, don't use that word! You may have provided definitions, but others don't seem to agree with those definitions.

PS. This thread is stupid.

Originally Posted by yay

I see Agnosticism as the middle ground. Where theists believe 100%, Atheists believe 100% and Agnosticism is where you can believe any percent, except 100%. Like I would consider 99% sure God exists as Agnostic, and 99% God doesnt exist as Agnostic.

A definition of Agnostic is "a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study."

I think if anyone who doesn't believe something , or anything 100% is agnostic.
And Atheism definition: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
And for good measure, belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

I think you are stretching the definition if you call yourself atheist but don't believe it. Belief is different than an educated guess, or an idea. Theists have belief in God, Atheists have belief in no God, and Agnostics have no belief.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

I disagree. An atheist does not necessarily believe 100%. He/she just believes strongly enough for the view to qualify as a conclusion. An agnostic has not formed a conclusion.

I don't believe anything 100%, not even the idea that I exist. However, I believe that I exist. Similarly, I believe that God does not exist, and a theist believes that God does exist. An agnostic does not believe either.

Many theists are not 100% certain that God exists, their faith does quiver, does that make them not theist?

I am an Atheist, give me proof of theistic beliefs and I'll gladly fall in line, no proof no complacency I'm afraid.

Meanwhile I'm with Mes T.

I decided to

What horrible kind of act are you trying to atone for by digging up this, dead, semantics-ridden thread?

Originally Posted by Sandform

I decided to

Why?

I heard rumors that Dawkins (or some other famous atheist) is going to be in on the ACA's lecture series...

Turns out though the truth is it is going to be Donna Howard. So I guess beating the dead horse was pointless.