Atheists Gone Wild

mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
beardo said:
It's not me telling you this time.
Click to expand...
I didn't respond to his post, I was responding to yours. I know other people are misinformed as to the correct definition of atheist and agnostic. However, it has been clearly explained to you yet you make idiotic statements such as, "The RIU atheists don't agree with our definition. "

"OUR" definition clearly implies that you are being contrary on purpose, most likely to propagate an agenda. Why else would you continue to mis-define a simple word just because you personally don't like the implications the actual definition brings?
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
I didn't respond to his post, I was responding to yours. I know other people are misinformed as to the correct definition of atheist and agnostic. However, it has been clearly explained to you yet you make idiotic statements such as, "The RIU atheists don't agree with our definition. "

"OUR" definition clearly implies that you are being contrary on purpose, most likely to propagate an agenda. Why else would you continue to mis-define a simple word just because you personally don't like the implications the actual definition brings?
Click to expand...
I standby the definition of atheist as someone who claims no God exists- and an agnostic as one who is uncommitted one way or the other and requires further proof. Agnostic think it can't be proven or dis proven Atheists claim God and Religion are false.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
beardo said:
I standby the definition of atheist as someone who claims no God exists- and an agnostic as one who is uncommitted one way or the other and requires further proof. Agnostic think it can't be proven or dis proven Atheists claim God and Religion are false.
Click to expand...
Yet you provided a link to definitions that contradict what you 'think' the words mean. Agnosticism is all about knowledge, not about belief. Continuing to think agnostic is some sort of middle ground of belief when you have been shown it is incorrect just shows you are willing to ignore evidence to support what you want to believe. I already showed you how the man that invented the word agnostic doesn't use the word that way. Your own wikipedia links says you are wrong. Grow up and listen to what the adults are telling you and quit picking a subset of atheists as a definition for atheism. That's like me saying that the definition of Christian is someone that believes in a triune.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
Yet you provided a link to definitions that contradict what you 'think' the words mean. Agnosticism is all about knowledge, not about belief. Continuing to think agnostic is some sort of middle ground of belief when you have been shown it is incorrect just shows you are willing to ignore evidence to support what you want to believe. I already showed you how the man that invented the word agnostic doesn't use the word that way. Your own wikipedia links says you are wrong. Grow up and listen to what the adults are telling you and quit picking a subset of atheists as a definition for atheism. That's like me saying that the definition of Christian is someone that believes in a triune.
Click to expand...
The definition said exactly what I was saying-And we went over this at length.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
beardo said:
The definition said exactly what I was saying-And we went over this at length.
Click to expand...
Yes, because you ignored the second half of the definition. Quit being an idiot. Why do you care so much about the definition of atheist when you aren't one? Why are you so resistant to let the atheist explain his or her position for you and accept it? As explained, definitions are only useful when people agree on a definition. Arguing with an individual about what their personal beliefs and position is is the stupidest thing I can think of.

Joe grew up in the Amazon. He never even heard of the concept of an outside force like a god. What do you call him?

Tim grew up Christian however during his adult life he never believed any of the stories. He doesn't think there's a god but doesn't really give it much consideration either way. What is he?

The term 'theist' is a description of a person that actively believes in one or more deities. A person is either a theist or not a theist. This is a simple concept that you seem to ignore. They are two mutually exclusive ideas. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist, BY DEFINITION. Calling them agnostic may or may not be true but without more information on that person's position on whether we can 'know' or not, you can't call them agnostic. The definition of agnostic you presented explains this very clearly. A person can be agnostic on many issues, not just god. It is about KNOWLEDGE, not BELIEF. Get that through your head. You are confusing two related but separate ontological questions. Continuing to argue this just makes you look more and more stupid.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
Yes, because you ignored the second half of the definition. Quit being an idiot. Why do you care so much about the definition of atheist when you aren't one? Why are you so resistant to let the atheist explain his or her position for you and accept it? As explained, definitions are only useful when people agree on a definition. Arguing with an individual about what their personal beliefs and position is is the stupidest thing I can think of.

Joe grew up in the Amazon. He never even heard of the concept of an outside force like a god. What do you call him?

Tim grew up Christian however during his adult life he never believed any of the stories. He doesn't think there's a god but doesn't really give it much consideration either way. What is he?

The term 'theist' is a description of a person that actively believes in one or more deities. A person is either a theist or not a theist. This is a simple concept that you seem to ignore. They are two mutually exclusive ideas. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist, BY DEFINITION. Calling them agnostic may or may not be true but without more information on that person's position on whether we can 'know' or not, you can't call them agnostic. The definition of agnostic you presented explains this very clearly. A person can be agnostic on many issues, not just god. It is about KNOWLEDGE, not BELIEF. Get that through your head. You are confusing two related but separate ontological questions. Continuing to argue this just makes you look more and more stupid.
Click to expand...
Whatever makes you happy.
You can call things whatever you want.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Here, let's refer to the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H Smith.

The Meaning of Atheism

"Theism" is defined as the "belief in a god or gods." The term "theism" is sometimes used to designate the belief in a particular kind of god-the personal god of monotheism-but as used throughout this book, "theism" signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheist, therefore, is the absence of a theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.

Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absense of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god....

..."Theism" and "atheism" are descriptive terms: they specify the presence or absence of a belief in a god. If a person is designated as a theist, this tells us that he believes in a god, not why he believes. If a person is designated as an atheist, this tells us that he does not believe in a god, not why he does not believe.

There are many reasons why one may not believe in the existence of a god: one may have never encountered the concept of a god before, or one may consider the idea of a super-natural being to be absurd, or one may think that there is no evidence to support the belief in a god. But regardless of the reason, if one does not believe in the existence of a god, one is an atheist; i.e., one is without theistic belief.
Click to expand...
Will that resolve your dispute?
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
beardo said:
Yeah thanks for your post- I had already had a huge debate trying to explain this.
Click to expand...
No you're not, you have been trying to explain how atheism is denying that there is a god. You can't even understand the quote that sync0s just provided, the same explanation everyone was trying to get you to understand in the other thread.

Take a look at this part again, "Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism."


You have been arguing that the misleading definition is the only correct one! You are some piece of work.

It appears the biggest problem is that you don't read other people's posts thoroughly enough to understand them.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ok that proves what UB said about you beardo..You do have a understanding of alot of things but like to play "devils advocate"..I guess I need to learn to laugh a little more...but still OBAMA 2012:lol:
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
No you're not, you have been trying to explain how atheism is denying that there is a god. You can't even understand the quote that sync0s just provided, the same explanation everyone was trying to get you to understand in the other thread.

Take a look at this part again, "Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism."

You have been arguing that the misleading definition is the only correct one! You are some piece of work.

It appears the biggest problem is that you don't read other people's posts thoroughly enough to understand them.
Click to expand...
Mindphuk beardo is right on this one guy
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Mindphuk beardo is right on this one guy
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Beardo defines atheism as belief that there is no god. He defines agnostic as someone that thinks there might be a god but is 'unsure' (hint, that's still a theist)

He is partially wrong on the first (he only describes a subset of atheists), and completely wrong on the second, misunderstands that agnosticism isn't about belief.

Whatever you think he's right about, you should check out the thread where multiple people tried to explain it to him. https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/443636-choice-i-never-made.html
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Keep in mind that in the book I quoted George H Smith argues that agnosticism is a form of atheism

I do recommend this book, by the way.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
What are you talking about? Beardo defines atheism as belief that there is no god. He defines agnostic as someone that thinks there might be a god but is 'unsure' (hint, that's still a theist)

He is partially wrong on the first (he only describes a subset of atheists), and completely wrong on the second, misunderstands that agnosticism isn't about belief.

Whatever you think he's right about, you should check out the thread where multiple people tried to explain it to him. https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/443636-choice-i-never-made.html
Click to expand...
yes you are right about agnostic for it is more about knowledge ( or lack of)...I guess I misunderstood the debate. I was speaking more on the broader level and to those who have ZERO clue of the word agnostic...in fact one can be considered agnostic atheist or in short both.. I myself always explain myself to people as being agnostic to keep it simple, but in fact there are many varibles of agnostic..again sorry for entering the debate without reading all that was said before..Now I will back the phuck out of this convo and go smoke-out until I see god or I get hungry and go fix some breakfast ( which ever comes first ).
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
NoDrama said:
I'm not religious.

8)
Click to expand...
me neither. i just get a little stale as soon as someone wants to compare every religion against muslims. talk about stuff that happened centuries ago and then go on apologizing for a religion that is doind the exact same thing now.

all other religions are completely different in these days to radical islam.

its an entire different agenda that we havent seen since the crusades. its fucking evil.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
jeff f said:
me neither. i just get a little stale as soon as someone wants to compare every religion against muslims. talk about stuff that happened centuries ago and then go on apologizing for a religion that is doind the exact same thing now.

all other religions are completely different in these days to radical islam.

its an entire different agenda that we havent seen since the crusades. its fucking evil.
Click to expand...
You might as well be religious. Your intolerance and lack of understanding of what being a muslim is all about is due to the fact that you follow propoganda and choose not to learn about the culture instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top