Ryedo40 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 However, clearly an atheist who believes God doesn't exist, is in a different category to one who doesn't believe in God- the first is making a positive claim (God doesn't exist), the second is making no claim. I believe god doesn't exist. I also don't believe in god. I haven't made any positive claim that a god doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I believe god doesn't exist. I also don't believe in god. I haven't made any positive claim that a god doesn't exist. I believe in god, but not how atheists or theists seem to describe it I also believe you come back as something else when you die, not necessarily you yourself comes back To describe it simply Think of a pot where when you die you get mixed in but the pot itself is spitting every known creature on earth out of it, so you yourself is mixed in and spat out as something different, this would also include aliens if there is life on other planets so in my theory you can be born on a different planet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I meant the narrow category of insisting that 'atheist' means 'without belief in God'- i.e. those who ignore the other, equally used definition of atheist as 'believes God does not exist'. If that is what you meant then why did you claim that there are many atheists out there who do not fit into my 'narrow category'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 This is the whole point that you don't grasp and seem to be unable to accept. It doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. It's not about opinions. It's about factual information-some words get misinterpreted and misused leading to confusion over terminology. For you to keep saying that you don't agree doesn't change that fact. Yes, when a slang word is accepted by a society as a whole then it becomes accepted as a word with a usable meaning. Until then slang like innit is slang and will always remain slang. So to repeat again, this is not some party political broadcast where you vote for how you want to use a word. My opinion doesn't matter and I tend not to have opinions anyway. I simply give out factual information. To have an opinion usually means you have some emotional attachment to it and I'm not interested in that, I'm only interested in the truth. Once again I've added to your statement so it reads more accurately. On top of that, the whole point of education (outside of the arts and to some extent the humanities) is not about opinion. It's about understanding the world around us in the most realistic way possible. Therefore opinions are irrelelvant. It's a shame you seem to be trapped in this mindset of 'everything is just an opinion and mine is just as relevant as yours' culturally relativistic claptrap. That's probably why people with your mindset are dismissed as wrong, deluded or stupid. Concerning opinions- I have some, and you have some- clearly we differ. What you consider to be a 'fact', I, and others, may, and in fact do, dissagree with your assessment. You for example, seem to consider it a fact that 'atheist' means , exactly, and only, 'lacks belief in God'. Whereas many, me included, consider that to not be a fact, as we know that it can also mean 'believes god does not exist'. So, we do not acknowledge your 'fact' as a fact. If you offered valid proof for it, I would change my mind, but, what you have offered thus far, does not convince me. So, the reality is, that we dissagree, and, however much you continue to post your opinion as fact, it will not make it a fact- unless you produce the convincing proof. There is plenty of evidence out there that there has been an attempt to redefine atheist from quisquose's post about the use of the term during the McCarthy years to conflate atheism with communism. A clear as day example of how attempting to redefine a word can do so much damage. I've never looked into that theory- as far as I know, maybe during the maCarthy years, such an attempt to conflate atheism with communism was made- it wouldn't surprise me. However, if it was true, it clearly doesn't mean that current attempts to inform the sceptical community that there are 2 valid definitions of atheism, would relate in any way to what happened back then. Much as you strongly dislike the promotion of the fact that there is another definition of 'atheism', I would hope that you can see that at least some of those involved in it, are doing so for good intentions i.e. in my case, because (however misguided you may see me as being) I genuinely believe in will facilitate productive discussion on these issues, and, because I know how many people routinely currently use the 2nd definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I believe god doesn't exist. I also don't believe in god. I haven't made any positive claim that a god doesn't exist. I think you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 If that is what you meant then why did you claim that there are many atheists out there who do not fit into my 'narrow category'? I didn't Jimmy. I used the phrase 'narrow category', refering to that group of atheists who are in the sceptical movement (as opposed to that much greater number of atheists not in the sceptical movement, who often consider 'atheist' to mean 'believes God does not exist). It's an open source phrase- just because you later used it to mean something different, doesn't mean that when I used it I meant it in the sense you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I think you have. Saying I believe god doesn't exist isn't the same as saying god does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Paul says no one can not claim to have not seen God Which I know what he means by that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 So not only is onewheeldave still keen to promote the narrower definition of atheist, he has also admitted that he actually places himself firmly in that category to prove that such atheists do exist. That's quite a dogmatic position he has chosen for himself there. Even more so than the Royal Archpope of Atheism himself, the reverend Dawkins of Oxford. It would be good if could now convince me why I should lose my agnosticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Saying I believe god doesn't exist isn't the same as saying god does not exist. A totally different argument that I'm not going to get involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts