razeontherock
Well-Known Member
What do you mean, we can't base everything off assumption anymore? Listening is a lost art?
You make an awfully good showing, for an atheist
You make an awfully good showing, for an atheist
Upvote
0
Considering that this very forum we are posting on uses a lot more narrow definition of "Christian", to the exclusion of a lot of people who would fall under this dictionary definition, I don´t think that it is so easy.I suppose if you can give me another option, I am more then willing to listen, but, a term like "Atheist" should have a definition, don't you agree?
Just like Christian.
God Bless
I think that is a good question, and that it would indeed show your distinctions as "too simplistic".I see it more simplistically (Too simplistically?)
Agnostic = I don't know if God exists.
Atheist = I know god doesn't exist.
Theist = I know God does exists.
It really comes down to how we think/feel we "Know" something, but that is a separate question.
Considering that this very forum we are posting on uses a lot more narrow definition of "Christian", to the exclusion of a lot of people who would fall under this dictionary definition, I don´t think that it is so easy.
Do you think that those "personwho believes in Jesus Christ" that are excluded from posting in the "christian only" parts of this forum are hiding something or don´t know what the term actually means or are to lazy to clarify their own position.... or that they simply work under a slightly different definition from the authorities of that forum?
Ok, definitions get trickier now. Knowledge, understanding, and wisdom are clearly defined in the book of Proverbs. If you're trying to talk to Christians, you just used "knowledge" in a way that will cause communication breakdown. Our usage of the word would make your last sentence a true statement: yes we CAN have a distinction in KNOWLEDGE, proving not only theism but Christianity over atheism.
We just can't prove it to YOU, because you have no such knowledge
I have been on this board for over eight years... and I have seen a lot of people talking about "true" christians and pseudo-christians and the distinction between Christians and Catholics... and somehow everyone of these self-proclaimed Christians assumes that the non-believer should see the obvious truth of his position and the falsehood of what he argues against.It is Simple. You are just trying to over think it, and make it into a gobblygook mess.
Why?
I don't know., but there can be no good motive behind it.
Now that IS indeed simple. There are people who use term X in a certain way. There are people who use term X in a slightly different way. There are conflicts arising from these different ways. Is it apples and oranges when we use "Christians" and "Atheists" in these situations? I don´t think so.First off, you're arguing apples to oranges, thus you are being argumentative for the sake of it.
As you completely misrepresented my point, I don´t think you can decide whether it is "invalid anyway".Secondly, Everyone that posts in the Christian only section meets the requirements of the definition of Christian, thus your entire point is invalid anyway.
God Bless
I have been on this board for over eight years... and I have seen a lot of people talking about "true" christians and pseudo-christians and the distinction between Christians and Catholics... and somehow everyone of these self-proclaimed Christians assumes that the non-believer should see the obvious truth of his position and the falsehood of what he argues against.
And then there are those who get angry and offended when a non-believer starts to ask questions.
Now that IS indeed simple. There are people who use term X in a certain way. There are people who use term X in a slightly different way. There are conflicts arising from these different ways. Is it apples and oranges when we use "Christians" and "Atheists" in these situations? I don´t think so.
Point: everyone posting in the Christian only sections meets the requirements (with that I guess you mean according to your dictionary definition).
Point: there are people who meet this dictionary definition who are not allowed to post in the Christian only sections.
Point: this forum uses a different, narrower defintion than your dictionary.
POINT: people use different definitions of terms.
So let´s see....Issues of Doctrine and Adherence have nothing to do with a definition, as the "Christians" being discussed need to meet the basic definition of what is a Christan, to be considered a Christian at all.
The problem is, that Atheist tend to try and be liquid about the very basic, primal, foundation definition of what exactly (at minimal) an Atheist is.
Like I said, is it dishonest to try and play games with what Atheist means.
This is the Definition.
It is what I, you, anyone, should mean, when they use this term.
If you want to add on more strict requirements for yourself (or forum you might make), like "Strong Atheist" or follow some moral code like Social Darwinism, that is fine.
But you do not to get to play with the definition of the word. Is you say I am an Atheist, this is what EVERYONE should think when they hear that term.
Playing with it, at that level, indeed means you are being dishonest.
So what does the definition say?Freodin said:I am an atheist. I state "I don´t believe in God, yours or anyones."
The definition from "your" website - meaning, the website that you quoted as your souce: "An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God..." A narrower definition, but close and not contradicting.Eudamonist said:...agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge in divine beings...
Atheists know that God doesn´t exist? Where does dictionary.com mention that?Atheist = I know god doesn't exist.
Atheists must be certain that God does not exist in order to be called Atheists, else they would be Agnostics?Jig said:[Atheists]must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist.
Loaded question?Like Loaded Questions?
One can assume, after eight years, you know when your question looks like horse pucky, and when they look legit.
As I have shown above, it is not me who uses different definitions.There are also people who can't use a dictionary and, Yes it is Apples to Oranges.
If you are not using the same dictionary as me, you know, like Websters, that would explain why you have no idea what words mean.
Oh my! Different connotations. "Your" as in "your post - that post you made." "Your dictionary - the dictionary you linked to".There is no good that can reflect on you, when you use the line "Your dictionary" as I use standard ones. (Have linked them twice in this post)
I see that the forum policy on that point seems to have changed, now considering the "unorthodox" Christians as Christians for posting requirements. That wasn´t always the case. Sorry that I am not up to date on a point that doesn´t touch me.No, they set additional requirements to post in their private area for people who meet the basic requirements.
If you made an Atheist site and required everyone that was to post in the "Atheist Only" section believe in Evolution, that would not redefine what Atheist means, now would it?
God Bless
I think they're actually attempting to give atheists more credit than is their due, frankly. Agnosticism- saying that one simply doesn't know- is a more honest position to hold.
So let´s see....
So what does the definition say?
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
That´s what I said, isn´t it? I proclaimed my disbelief in the existence of the supreme being called "God". I could have used "deities" instead... the meaning would be the same.