Drone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Like it or not, if you don't have a belief in God or gods, you are in fact an atheist. Somebody can be an atheist through decision/conclusion or they can simply be atheist by default, without giving it any thought, like a newborn baby. You can also be an atheist and be open minded that gods MAY exist. You can call yourself a free thinker and be an atheist, the two things go hand in hand. If you class me as atheist, that's up to you, I mean I'm not religious anyways so the term atheist to the regular atheist means nothing anyway. All I have been saying is that the meaning of the term has changed to fit all no believers, you say it means lack of faith and you can be it by default as a baby, but baby's don't feel lack of faith, they just think freely, and anyways atheist has too many meanings now, which shows the term is a load of #$?$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but you seem to be adding an unnecessary step to me. A. Do you believe in Zog? B. What's Zog? A. I don't know, I can't define it. B. Then the answer is obviously no. B. cannot assert that Zog does not exist of course, but doesn't need know what it is and be able to define it to lack belief in it. "B. Then the answer is obviously no." doesn't follow from the previous statements. The only answer you can give is "I don't know", which is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore until Zog is defined the whole concept is somewhat meaningless. jb It's also valid to say "no" with respect to belief, as well as "don't know" with respect to knowledge, since B would lack belief in the meaningless concept he has just been presented with just as he lacks belief in all those infinite number of concepts, meaningless or otherwise, that he hasn't been presented with. I agree that he can't take the definite position to say it doesn't exist, and that it can't be known, but he can say he doesn't believe and it's unknown. I'm puzzled how a sensible chap like you is siding with Mr Smith on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 It's also valid to say "no" with respect to belief, as well as "don't know" with respect to knowledge, since B would lack belief in the meaningless concept he has just been presented with just as he lacks belief in all those infinite number of concepts, meaningless or otherwise, that he hasn't been presented with. I agree that he can't take the definite position to say it doesn't exist, and that it can't be known, but he can say he doesn't believe and it's unknown. I'm puzzled how a sensible chap like you is siding with Mr Smith on this one. In lieu of a falsifiable definition the only rational approach is that of ignosticism. To take Zog as the example, I cannot say whether or not I believe in it as I am ignorant of what it is. Indeed for ANY concept I am ignorant of whether I believe in it until such time as a coherent, falsifiable definition is provided. For those concepts which lack a falsifiable definition I class them as meaningless and incoherent, making it pretty pointless to say whether I believe in them or not. For concepts such as God I remain ignostic for if I were to say I was atheist it would lend credence to the idea that there was something meaningful to actually believe in. jb jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 It's also valid to say "no" with respect to belief, as well as "don't know" with respect to knowledge, since B would lack belief in the meaningless concept he has just been presented with just as he lacks belief in all those infinite number of concepts, meaningless or otherwise, that he hasn't been presented with. I agree that he can't take the definite position to say it doesn't exist, and that it can't be known, but he can say he doesn't believe and it's unknown. I'm puzzled how a sensible chap like you is siding with Mr Smith on this one. Because he thinks freely and doesn't have to be converted by your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 If you class me as atheist, that's up to you, I mean I'm not religious anyways so the term atheist to the regular atheist means nothing anyway. What ? All I have been saying is that the meaning of the term has changed to fit all no believers No it hasn't been changed, it's always applied to all non believers. Including yourself. You say it means lack of faith and you can be it by default as a baby, but baby's don't feel lack of faith, they just think freely Feeling has nothing to do with it, the baby lacks belief in any gods, therefore is an atheist. and anyways atheist has too many meanings now, which shows the term is a load of #$?$ No, you misunderstand the term, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 What ? No it hasn't been changed, it's always applied to all non believers. Including yourself. Feeling has nothing to do with it, the baby lacks belief in any gods, therefore is an atheist. No, you misunderstand the term, that's all. No I not misunderstood the term at all, I know what the term is, but what I'm saying is that I don't agree with it, though that is my choice ,not yours to say I am this or that..i know it applies to non believers and I know the term apply to me though that is put on me by someone else, not me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Referring to the "personal relationship with God" comments, and thinking of the "Do you believe in God" thread,they're were people who posted on there who made vague statements saying God is within us,or words to that effect,but not expressing they were connected to a religion. I understand that, if you think of God as an abstract concept,and not as man in the clouds.It could be what some call the soul (the intellect part of us detached from the body) none of that can be defined either,just as God can't be defined or comprehended, or the spiritual part of our nature that most of us (whether we believe anything or not) connect with from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 No I not misunderstood the term at all, I know what the term is, but what I'm saying is that I don't agree with it, though that is my choice ,not yours to say I am this or that..i know it applies to non believers and I know the term apply to me though that is put on me by someone else, not me So you're now acknowledging that you are an atheist, you just don't like the word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 So you're now acknowledging that you are an atheist, you just don't like the word? No, I acknowledge what people define me as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 No I not misunderstood the term at all, I know what the term is, but what I'm saying is that I don't agree with it, though that is my choice ,not yours to say I am this or that..i know it applies to non believers and I know the term apply to me though that is put on me by someone else, not me If you decided to only define yourself as a pink unicorn, there is little we can do to stop you. Likewise, there is little you can do, regardless of how much you protest, to stop us from from being right in saying you're actually human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.