The atheist's worst nightmare!

[anywebsite]

That's what your like to say now but theist. And atheist originally means to either believe or not believe, they is not a 3rd answer which it can mean you don't believe in god but are open minded. They changed the meaning but that does not make me an agnostic atheist, because I didn't want to be forced to either believe or not believe ( the original meaning ) , because they was not a concrete answer I go with science which describes that I'm agnostic alone.

 

You either believe or don't believe. Just like you either feel like you have proof, or you don't. It isn't contradictory to say "I have no belief in any gods, but I can't prove that no gods exist", that makes you an agnostic atheist. It's possible to be an agnostic theist too, you could say "I'm a Christian, but I can't prove that God exists.". A gnostic athiest would say "there is no god", a gnostic theist would say "there is a god".

[quisquose]

So you don’t know if the thing you can’t define exists, yet you can assert that it’s not a table, how can you know what it isn’t, if you don’t know what it is or whether it even exists.

 

I would think the logical answer to the question; do you have a belief in God? Would be, I don’t know, what’s God? Unless you are a theist in which case would know what it is and be able to define it.

 

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.

[janie48]

You either believe or don't believe. Just like you either feel like you have proof, or you don't. It isn't contradictory to say "I have no belief in any gods, but I can't prove that no gods exist", that makes you an agnostic atheist. It's possible to be an agnostic theist too, you could say "I'm a Christian, but I can't prove that God exists.". A gnostic athiest would say "there is no god", a gnostic theist would say "there is a god".

 

But how can anyone prove that God does or does not exist,since no one living ever sees God.

[anywebsite]

But how can anyone prove that God does or does not exist,since no one living ever sees God.

 

They can only prove it to themselves in their own mind, since there don't seem to be any objective scientific tests. Some people claim to have seen God (or even several different gods).

[quisquose]

But how can anyone prove that God does or does not exist,since no one living ever sees God.

 

Exactly, and I would argue that anybody who claims to know is lying or deluded.

 

I've never met a sensible atheist who claims there is no god, but have met a few clerics and people claiming to have a personal relationship with god.

[Drone]

You either believe or don't believe. Just like you either feel like you have proof, or you don't. It isn't contradictory to say "I have no belief in any gods, but I can't prove that no gods exist", that makes you an agnostic atheist. It's possible to be an agnostic theist too, you could say "I'm a Christian, but I can't prove that God exists.". A gnostic athiest would say "there is no god", a gnostic theist would say "there is a god".

But how can I believe or not believe if I don't have a proper answer, science wise they is no real answer so I say " I don't know ", they maybe could be a god or they could not be a god but atheism originally means you don't, not what the English dictionaries say now. And as atheist is a religious meaning, I'm not deemed to be seen as an atheist but the name science uses. Agnosticism just means your not sure, as you don't have proof.. That's all my sayin. Agnosticism is seperate from atheist, they don't go together

[MrSmith]

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.

 

The answer to, do I believe in Zog, is, I don’t know what is it?

 

I might have a belief in Zog, but call it something else, if someone asked me if I believe that tables exist, but in a different language, I wouldn't know until they told me what the ward they used meant, once they said it means table I could answer yes. If I said no before asking want they meant, I would have been incorrect because I did believe that tables exist.

[anywebsite]

But how can I believe or not believe if I don't have a proper answer, science wise they is no real answer so I say " I don't know ", they maybe could be a god or they could not be a god but atheism originally means you do or don't, not what the English dictionaries say now. And as atheist is a religious meaning, I'm not deemed to be seen as an atheist but the name science uses. Agnosticism just means your not sure, as you don't have proof.. That's all my sayin. Agnosticism is seperate from atheist, they don't go together

 

You either believe or you don't believe, that's a binary choice, it's one or the other. It's about whether you put your trust in it being true or not.

 

Being agnostic & being atheist are two separate things, it's possible to be one, both or neither. One is about not knowing, the other is about not believing. If you're agnostic, are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

 

You can believe in a religion without having proof that it's true, just like you can not believe without having any proof of it being false.

[quisquose]

Actually, Drones right. Or rather, you both are, depending on which of the two definitions commonly used in our dictionaries you go for.

 

Some define it as a 'lack of belief'- others as 'a belief that God does not exist': clearly very different definitions, but, as I said, both are represented in current English dictionaries.

 

The 2nd definition is what the majority of the non-specialist population tend to go for, whereas the 'rationalist' movement strongly disaprove of the 2nd and much prefer the first.

 

Drone's wrong, and so are you.

 

"A lack of belief in God" is atheism, and atheism is "a lack of belief in God".

 

"A belief that God does not exist" is atheism, but atheism is not "a belief that God does not exist".

 

Adding the second definition might help explain the meaning but it is unecessary, insisting on it though is misleading.

 

It's like reading a dictionary definition for murder as follows ...

 

mur·der

verb

1.

to kill someone unlawfully with premeditation or during the commission of a crime.

2.

to kill or slaughter barbarously.

 

... and insisting on the second definition, which might exclude the actions of Harold Shipman.

 

Insisting on the second definition of atheism might fit neatly with your narrow stereotype of some dogmatic irrational atheist, but exclude every atheist I have ever met.

 

BTW pick up a dictionary that is more than a hundred years old and you will only find the first definition for atheism, the only one that matters. The second definition, which you like, only began to appear in the last century, and a recent conservative edition of a dictionary that I picked up in the US even added the "definitions" of evil and untrustworthy.

 

See where this is going?

[Drone]

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.

Yes so you are an atheist only, though my answer to those questions would be don't know to both, not a no, zog may exist but until you prove it I don't know but doesn't mean I can dismiss zog as not true