Is that a two seater turnip, or four?
It is a loaded definition if it assumes one needs omniscience to to use one's brain, and I don't care who wrote it.
Intrepid wrote:Is that a two seater turnip, or four?
I'd say EB is a sportsturnip kind of guy. Top down, engine roaring.
edgarblythe wrote:It is a loaded definition if it assumes one needs omniscience to to use one's brain, and I don't care who wrote it.
OK, EB.
Merriam Webster is loaded.
If you say so.
I'm an atheist because I believe that there is no evidence which indicates that there is a God, not because I know to a certainty that there isn't. I simply think that it's unintelligent to believe things for which no evidence. And don't you dare tell me that there is evidence, unless you're prepared to list some of it in an oderly fashion.
Brandon9000 wrote:I'm an atheist because I believe that there is no evidence which indicates that there is a God, not because I know to a certainty that there isn't. I simply think that it's unintelligent to believe things for which no evidence. And don't you dare tell me that there is evidence, unless you're prepared to list some of it in an oderly fashion.
Sounds like you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
When I pray, and receive what I have prayed for (something over which I had no influence or control), I consider it good evidence.
Now you may not consider it 'scientific' evidence because it's not repeatable, etc
I have no problem with that.
Not all types of evidence are scientifically testable.
Brandon9000 wrote:I'm an atheist because I believe that there is no evidence which indicates that there is a God, not because I know to a certainty that there isn't.
Sounds like the agnostic position to me.
real life wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I'm an atheist because I believe that there is no evidence which indicates that there is a God, not because I know to a certainty that there isn't. I simply think that it's unintelligent to believe things for which no evidence. And don't you dare tell me that there is evidence, unless you're prepared to list some of it in an oderly fashion.
Sounds like you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
When I pray, and receive what I have prayed for (something over which I had no influence or control), I consider it good evidence.
Now you may not consider it 'scientific' evidence because it's not repeatable, etc
I have no problem with that.
Not all types of evidence are scientifically testable.
I strogly suspect that there is no God, since there is no evidence for one.
Can you give an example of something that you prayed for that came true? I suspect you are attributing to God the random fulfillment of some of your requests.
People in political and religious discussions often try to sew the other up in a cloth of semantics, mainly because they have nothing if not that. Language evolves, as we all know. To use any one definition as a straight jacket on free thought is to doom one to failure.
A theist celebrates his notion of a God and worships Him.
An atheist celebrates his notion of a No-god and worships him.
An agnostic celebrates his inability to make a choice, and worships it.
I might prefer the last except that, as I have accused Frank of many times, that would mean that I conclude that there MIGHT be a God. That makes no sense to me.
Therefore I am, as I've noted many times before, a "soft" atheist: I turn away from the notion of theism because it makes no sense to me (it's not an intellectual issue for me), not because I advocate a "hard" atheism, i.e., the firm belief in a No-god.
JLNobody wrote:An agnostic celebrates his inability to make a choice, and worships it.
Its not about choice its about evidence
That's why one is an atheist. Someone dreams up a notion of god without evidence, then says it's so, because I say it is. Laughable. You are right, BDV, that it's about evidence. The only evidence, however, is over active imagination.
edgarblythe wrote:People in political and religious discussions often try to sew the other up in a cloth of semantics, mainly because they have nothing if not that. Language evolves, as we all know. To use any one definition as a straight jacket on free thought is to doom one to failure.
What is your definition of agnostic Edgar ?
Do you agree that beliefs are just guesses in disguise ?
In the absence of strong evidence for theism, the agnostic--instead of deciding that theism must be rejected because of the lack of evidence to support it--decides not to decide, or 'decides' to sit on the fence because there is no proof for atheism. Ha!
JLNobody wrote:In the absence of strong evidence for theism, the agnostic--instead of deciding that theism must be rejected because of the lack of evidence to support it--decides not to decide, or 'decides' to sit on the fence because there is no proof for atheism. Ha!
Are you saying agnostics are atheists who don't want to admit it ?
I think Frank says the reverse about people like you...an agnostic who wants to be called an atheist because he lacks the courage to admit he is an agnostic.
Word games. Agnostics probably truly think they cannot know. Some would fall on the deist's side in a pinch, the rest to the atheists. Depends on character. I find it interesting that people have to try to define atheists in ways atheists do not define themselves in these discussions.
I think Frank says the reverse about people like you...an agnostic who wants to be called an atheist because he lacks the courage to admit he is an agnostic.
Perfect example. They can't allow us, in their minds, to be what we are, because it makes a rubble of their arguments.
Each person's personal view of things is probably entirely unique in subtle ways, such that no single word or communal concept, can match it.
Even if we could agree on a precise definition of terms, I'm not sure "athiest" or "agnostic" would be a precise label for anyone (upon close analysis).
rosborne979 wrote:Each person's personal view of things is probably entirely unique in subtle ways, such that no single word or communal concept, can match it.
Even if we could agree on a precise definition of terms, I'm not sure "athiest" or "agnostic" would be a precise label for anyone (upon close analysis).
Shouldn't a person have to assert with certainty(at least in their own mind) that there is no God or gods to call themself an atheist ?
Shouldn't a person have to assert with certainty(at leeast in their own mind) that there is no God or gods to call themself an atheist ?
It would seem so to this ole boy.
I'm coming into this discussion late, but would like to add my two cents worth. I consider myself an agnostic, basically because I don't believe we have the slightest clue about any of it. We cannot say there is a God, we can't say there isn't, and we can't say IF there is, what he/she/it is like and "wants" from us. I suspect that if there is "something" out there, it is likely to be a mathematical formula or a scientific principal, certainly not the anthropomorphic, cruel, self-promoting, boastful petty tyrant we have concocted in the Bible. That God would not even be a particularly admirable human being, let alone a deity.
So to me, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the atheist says there IS no God, period, and the agnostic says we have no way of knowing the if or the how.
