Post by b***@m.nuOn Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:19:47 -0800 (PST), someone
Post by someonePost by hypatiab7Post by b***@m.nuOn Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:36:59 -0800 (PST), someone
Post by someoneIf a person does not hold the belief that God exists but does not hold the belief that God doesn't exist either, should they be considered an atheist?
You just need to get your terminology correct.
Atheist is a person that has no belief in a fairy/fairies. There is no
strong or weak atheist. There is atheist or not atheist
As far as what you described a person that has no belief in a
fairy/fairies but does not rule out its existence is an agnostic,
which is exactly what you described
The group that believes in fairies, magic, harry potter, tinkerbell
...etc.. are called theists
Not all atheists agree on what an atheist is. Basically, an atheist is
someone who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. If anything
is added on to this, it is generally by theist trolls.
Well given the replies so far, not all seem to agree on what an atheist is.
Even your earlier response seems quite confusing. You wrote earlier that
you wouldn't consider a newborn child to be an atheist, even though
presumably it doesn't believe in God.
Only because Spigel is a pig-ignorant moron incapable of thinking
outside the theist box.
Post by b***@m.nuWho said that? Of course all newborns have no belief in a fairy and
could be considered an atheist.
They are trivially atheist until they are taught to be theist - in
exactly the same way they are trivially amoral, apolitical etc.
Post by b***@m.nuPost by someonehttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/OWtqklDtguA/glVPJAf_DQAJ
Seem to consider those that lack a belief in God, and lacking a belief in
God not existing are agnostics not atheists, and they don't seem to be a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/OWtqklDtguA/HFtX_KsADgAJ
For fuck's sake, why can't these morons simply accept that atheists
are simply people who aren't theist, ie they are outside any theist
paradigm, not just his.
And that outside it, the very concept of gods is different to that
inside it.
Theists are too
stupid to understand that the very word "God" doesn't even mean the
same thing inside and outside the theist's religion...
Cut'n'pasted from the late Cliff Walker's excellent web site at
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9161.htm
[The Internet Infidels have been maintaining his site, but the link is
currently broken. You should be able to find it at the Internet
Archive]
Here is the Merriam Webster's definition for the word God:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped
as creator and ruler of the universe
Encarta World Dictionary (print edition) defines the same word as
follows:
the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam,
and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the
universe, worshiped as the only god
The Oxford American Dictionary defines it this way:
the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and
Muslim teaching
Were I to use your [the person to whom he was responding]
understanding of the role that dictionaries play in determining
word meaning, and were I to rely solely upon the Merriam Webster's,
I'd be in big trouble, because this dictionary expresses its
definition as fact, rather than reporting it as the opinion of some
people. I'd have to believe that a "God" exists because the
dictionary does not qualify its definition as the opinion of some
but not all people.
The other dictionaries are more responsible than this, the second
reporting that this description is "believed" by certain groups, and
the third that this is according to the "teaching" of certain
groups. So, as a man who is proficient in the English language, I
would reject the first definition as patently biased, and would
accept the second and third as being accurate reports of how people
use this word.
[Me again...]
In other words, it is only seen as real inside those religions, and
outside them it is merely something they believe.
The belief certainly exists - but that's all it is. because the object
of that belief never reaches the level of something that could exist.
But most theists can't get their minds around this.
Post by b***@m.nuPost by someoneIt seems to me that the issue is whether agnostics are atheists or not.
That if they are not, then atheism entails the belief that God does not
exist. If agnostics are a subgroup of atheists, then they are a subgroup
that, unlike the other atheists, does not entail the belief that God does
not exist. So whether atheists as a whole are identified with a belief
depends on whether agnostics are considered to be a subgroup. If an
atheist is not in the agnostic subgroup, then they are identified with
a belief.
Only by pig-ignorant, stupid, nasty, sociopathic theists.
Post by b***@m.nuNo an agnostic is NOT an atheist. they simply think that the existence
of a god can be proven. they don't "believe" in a god/fairy, but they
can not rule out its existence, as I said before.
Atheism is about whether or not one is theist.
If one isn't theist then one is atheist. The two are complementary -
that's what the "a-" prefix does.
Agnostic is about claims to knowledge about something that is only in
the theist's worldview/ Most atheists don't have gods in their
worldview in such a form that they could be agnostic about them.
But stupid theists can't understand this because they cannot grasp
that gods don't mean the same thing outside their religion as inside
it.
Post by b***@m.nuBasically an agnostic does not have faith <belief> in a god, but will
not say it does not exist.
Most people who call themselves agnostics, do so because they've
fallen for the theist's false dichotomy of believing it doesn't exist
or not knowing that it doesn't - both of which are emotionally
prejudicial to the point of falsehood because most atheists don't see
it those terms - it's merely somebody else's religious belief that
doesn't reach the level of something which could or couldn't exist.
The belief certainly exists, but that's all.