Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The only reason it seems like a gross overgeneralization is because of the unnecessary embellishment of an otherwise clear and simple term.Agnostic is more applicable to what? Your gross over-generalization or me?
The one who is complicating it isn't me. The ones complicating it are those who say it means much more than what it basically says.
The only reason it seems like a gross overgeneralization is because of the unnecessary embellishment of an otherwise clear and simple term.
The only reason it seems like a gross overgeneralization is because of the unnecessary embellishment of an otherwise clear and simple term.
Dear Loudmouth, you say that you don't definitively deny God to exist.
So, what do you claim at all if any claim you do have at all, on the issue God exists or not?
2. Lead me step by step to come to also harbor the claim or position or whatever it is, that you are if at all into the issue God exists or not.
Not if you stick to the basic definition as you are supposed to do in order to avoid confusion. If indeed there is confusion I suggest you blame it on your choice to embellish and not on reader incomprehension or irrationality. For all practical discussion purposes merely stating a non-belief in God is sufficient.Do what? How do you define a belief and/or argument to an entire group when the only thing that group shares in common is an absence of a belief in a god?
This would be equivalent with me defining all christians as believing in the same things catholics believe. It is a gross over-generalization of a broad group of people.
Not if you stick to the basic definition as you are supposed to do in order to avoid confusion. If indeed there is confusion I suggest you blame it on your choice to embellish and not on reader incomprehension or irrationality. For all practical discussion purposes merely stating a non-belief in God is sufficient.
I don't see how providing those examples of people agreeing to be irrational changes the irrational nature of the atheist argument.
I don't believe there's a literal Santa Claus that delivers gifts to all the good children on Christmas Eve via chimneys.I don't see how providing those examples of people agreeing to be irrational changes the irrational nature of the atheist argument.
Postulation of a simple non-belief in God is more than sufficient to make a discussion mutually intelligible and avoid sudden and constant interruptions over unnecessary time-consuming unfruitful, meticulous quibblings.Or, an even better example than the latter one in my last post, it would be equivalent with me arguing that anyone who doesn't believe in a specific god (Zeus for instance) all occupy the same group and share the same beliefs and use the same arguments. That lumps literally every other religion in together along with atheists and agnostics. It is a gross oversimplification.
Then the term atheist isn't applicable. The term which is more applicable is agnostic.
Postulation of a simple non-belief in God is more than sufficient to make a discussion mutually intelligible and avoid sudden and constant interruptions over unnecessary time-consuming unfruitful, meticulous quibblings.
If you claim that God doesn't exist, then you are an atheist. Very simple so why complicate it?
That isn't accurate. Agnostics claim not to know one way or the other. So they cannot be classified as atheist because they don't claim that God or gods don't exist. They simply claim not to know. I suggest you Google it.Agnostics are atheists. Agnostic means "without knowledge". They believe that we aren't able to attain knowledge of the existence of deities, so they don't believe in deities.
Atheist means "without a belief in deities". Since agnostics lack a belief in deities, they are also atheists.
It's not that tough to understand.
First, I disagree with not making a clear distinction between atheist and agnostic.
If indeed you don't know one way or the other whether God exists then you are an agnostic in my book.
If you claim that God doesn't exist, then you are an atheist.
Very simple so why complicate it?
So despite my explanation concerning why your choice of definition makes discussion almost impossible now you are accusing me of striving to formally redefine a word? I redefine it for the sake of getting past your constant objections which interfere with the flow of discussion. When I say atheists, I mean those who don't believe in God or gods. That's when you go into a host of explanations concerning refined nuances and the whole discussion comes to a stand stop still.You do realize your opinion of a straw man of atheism doesn't redefine what atheism means, right?
Postulation of a simple non-belief in God is more than sufficient to make a discussion mutually intelligible and avoid sudden and constant interruptions over unnecessary time-consuming unfruitful, meticulous quibblings.
That isn't accurate. Agnostics claim not to know one way or the other. So they cannot be classified as atheist because they don't claim that God or gods don't exist. They simply claim not to know. I suggest you Google it.
So despite my explanation concerning why your choice of definition makes discussion almost impossible now you are accusing me of striving to formally redefine a word? I redefine it for the sake of getting past your constant objections which interfere with the flow of discussion. When I say atheists, I mean those who don't believe in God or gods. That's when you go into a host of explanations concerning refined nuances and the whole discussion comes to a stand stop still.
It makes perfect sense in the context of this scenario.Just to help your understanding . . .
A husband comes home and asks his wife, "Hey Honey, do we have any ham in the refrigerator?". The wife answers, "I don't believe so".
From that exchange, what can you say about the wife's beliefs about ham being in the refrigerator? Is she saying there is definitely no ham in the refrigerator? Doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she doesn't think there is any ham in the refrigerator, but she is also keeping open the possibility that there could be ham in the refrigerator. However, she lacks a positive belief that there is ham in the refrigerator.
The wife would be an ahamist. If the husband opens the fridge and, lo and behold, there is ham in the fridge, the wife would probably shrug her shoulders and say, "Guess I was wrong". She would then become a hamist when faced with the evidence that there is ham in the fridge.
Does this make sense?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?