Food for thought.

[Chriliman]

No, everything they believe is considered provisional knowledge. Science by design requires that all knowledge could be inaccurate and subject to revision if new data comes to light. The classic example is Newton's law of gravity. Was newton correct in his law? To a certain degree of accuracy he was. However as we gained knowledge we found that there were some errors cropping up when we used more accurate measurements. Einsteins theories explained the discrepancy. Scientists must always be open to new knowledge overturning previous ideas. There is no "Ultimate Truth" in science.

Agreed.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

My argument is that atheism needs to be redefined...

I've always found that redefining words arbitrarily is dangerous, because once you go down that road, anyone is free to redefine words you associate with in a way you don't like. Like defining Christianity as a mental illness for example.

It's probably best just to leave atheism as a disbelief in gods and leave it at that...

 

[Chriliman]

We could also say this about theists:

All theists have honestly considered the existence of a God that's described as eternal and infinite and have determined one of the following answers:

A: I believe it exists

B: I know it exists

Both are acceptable honest answers because the existence of God can logically only be revealed by God and it's logically and physically impossible to prove that God does not exist.

Note: This has everything to do with belief and knowledge.

 

[Chriliman]

I've always found that redefining words arbitrarily is dangerous, because once you go down that road, anyone is free to redefine words you associate with in a way you don't like. Like defining Christianity as a mental illness for example.

It's probably best just to leave atheism as a disbelief in gods and leave it at that...

It's definition has been needlessly changed, we need to change it back to what it should truly mean.

Amoral: Lack of knowledge of the existence of morality.

Atheism: Lack of knowledge of the existence of God.

Again, makes sense to me, but of course probably not to atheists, but maybe you are an honest atheists.

 

[quatona]

Nice dodge.

I won´t explain Logic101 to you. This is the philosophy forum, not Elementary School.
Maybe you can find yourself a fellow Christian who is willing to walk you through the basics of logic?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's definition has been needlessly changed, we need to change it back to what it should truly mean.

Amoral: Lack of knowledge of the existence of morality.

You don't even have this definition right:

Amoral: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong.

That's from the Merriam Webster dictionary.

Atheism: Lack of knowledge of the existence of God.

Again, makes sense to me, but of course probably not to atheists, but maybe you are an honest atheists.

For as long as I've been alive, atheism has meant a disbelief in a god or gods.

As for what makes sense to you, it's a mystery.

Oh and you still haven't answered my question. Do you care if you're doing more harm than good here?

 

[Chriliman]

Immoral: The knowledge of the difference between good and bad, but choosing bad.

Itheism: The knowledge of the possibility of God, but choosing to ignore the possibility.

I couldn't find a word to describe modern "atheism".

 

[quatona]

Amoral: Lack of knowledge of the existence of morality.

Atheism: Lack of knowledge of the existence of God.

Yeah, 100 points out of 100! And
Anemia: Lack of knowledge of blood.

 

[Chriliman]

You don't even have this definition right:

Amoral: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong.

That's from the Merriam Webster dictionary.

Still works.

Atheism: having or showing no concern about whether or not God exists.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Atheism: having or showing no concern about whether or not God exists.

Christianity: A religion in which people regularly eat babies.

Whee! Making stuff up is fun!

And you still haven't answered my question. Do you care if you're doing more harm than good here?

 

[Chriliman]

Christianity: A religion in which people regularly eat babies.

Whee! Making stuff up is fun!

And you still haven't answered my question. Do you care if you're doing more harm than good here?

Honestly, I don't care what you personally think, I only want to get to the truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you're lacking belief in a subject then you're admitting you don't know the truth about that subject. My argument is that atheism needs to be redefined as not dealing with belief in god at all, but rather dealing with the knowledge or lack there of, of God.

These questions clearly define why this is true.

All atheists have honestly considered the existence of a God that's described as eternal and infinite and have determined one of the following answers:

A: You don't know if it exists

B: You don't know if it does not exist

C: You know it exists

D: You know it does not exist

E: Both A and B (you simply don't know either way)

F: Some nonsensical answer fabricated from your irrational brain

Hint: "A" "B" and "E" are all acceptable honest answers.

Note: This has nothing to do with belief, but rather knowledge or lack there of.

Hey sorry, you don't get to redefine atheism as you wish. What would you think if atheists decided to redefine christianity however they wanted?

I've already told you my position as an atheist. I lack a belief in (any) god.

What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[bhsmte]

Hey sorry, you don't get to redefine atheism as you wish. What would you think if atheists decided to redefine christianity however they wanted?

I've already told you my position as an atheist. I lack a belief in (any) god.

What is so hard to understand about that?

He needs to redefine atheism, to protect his own personal belief.

 

[Chriliman]

Hey sorry, you don't get to redefine atheism as you wish. What would you think if atheists decided to redefine christianity however they wanted?

I've already told you my position as an atheist. I lack a belief in (any) god.

What is so hard to understand about that?

An amoral person doesn't claim to lack belief in morality, they just don't know what morality is.

An atheist shouldn't claim to lack belief in God, they should just admit they don't know what God is. I understand this is difficult to admit, but it's true that you don't know either way.

You do know God is possible, you just choose to ignore the possibility. That's fine, but don't expect to know the truth about whether or not God exists if you ignore the possibility of God.

 

[Chriliman]

He needs to redefine atheism, to protect his own personal belief.

Or did atheism need to be redefined to protect the beliefs of atheists?

Honest question.

 

[bhsmte]

Or did atheism need to be redefined to protect the beliefs of atheists?

Honest question.

What beliefs?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Honestly, I don't care what you personally think, I only want to get to the truth.

You don't get at the truth by being illogical. However, you might be giving someone a reason to turn away from Christianity if they start to believe that Christians are by nature illogical, judging from your posts.

So is that fine with you?

 

[Chriliman]

You don't get at the truth by being illogical. However, you might be giving someone a reason to turn away from Christianity if they start to believe that Christians are by nature illogical, judging from your posts.

So is that fine with you?

A true Christian only cares about the truth.

 

[Chriliman]

What beliefs?

Exactly, atheism doesn't deal with beliefs. It's having or showing no concern about whether or not God exists.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You do know God is possible, you just choose to ignore the possibility.

Nooooo, as I've said many times, I don't know if a god is possible.