angos Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Secondly, please explain the difference between 'Person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists' which is the Oxford English Dictionary definition & what I said This is a claim that you know something of the nature of God. 'I don't know whether or not God exists'. This is just a claim that you don't know if God exists, and is a reasonable stance which makes you an atheist. Seems perfectly correct to me. What does your final sentence mean? Not started 'speaking in tongues' have you? To me it makes perfect sense, I just redefined all the words. To you it may appear to be gibberish because I haven't told you what each word now means. This is the reason we have an agreed definition for each word, it making communication much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 This is a claim that you know something of the nature of God. This is just a claim that you don't know if God exists, and is a reasonable stance which makes you an atheist. To me it makes perfect sense, I just redefined all the words. To you it may appear to be gibberish because I haven't told you what each word now means. This is the reason we have an agreed definition for each word, it making communication much easier. Are you a fan of Richard Dawkins by any chance? If you are you will probably be aware he regards himself as an agnostic. http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Are you a fan of Richard Dawkins by any chance? If you are you will probably be aware he regards himself as an agnostic. http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic No, I hadn't heard of him until I joined this site, and I haven't listened to anything of his. But based on this he clearly doesn't know what the words mean. RICHARD DAWKINS, usually labelled an "outspoken atheist", has raised eyebrows after describing himself as an agnostic and admitting that he cannot disprove the existence of God. He doesn't need to able to prove that God doesn't exist to be an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Which makes it a Belief that there is no God. As I keep trying to get through to you if you cannot prove an assertion which you make, then it becomes a Belief. You're really not getting it at all. Not having a belief in gods is NOT an assertion that they don't exist. Believing that there are no gods IS an assertion that they don't exist. You can play around with semantics all you wish, but the fact still remains that the sentence ' Atheists do not Believe in the existence of God(s).' is one that all normal people would accept. That's correct, which is different to what you've said previously. ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:41 ---------- This is a claim that you know something of the nature of God. No, it's a claim that he believes nothing can be known ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:42 ---------- This is just a claim that you don't know if God exists, and is a reasonable stance which makes you an atheist. No, his absence of belief is what makes him an atheist ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:44 ---------- He doesn't need to able to prove that God doesn't exist to be an atheist. It's the media that (deliberately) got it wrong. Dawkins identifies himself as an agnostic atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 What about the line before that? Why do you insist on using the second subset definition? The inferior definition? The definition that I don't apply to myself, nor know any atheist who does? Strewth, ... and you complain about being labelled. The version which I have to hand contains that definition & no other. Why do you think that would be? Could it possibly be because it was felt that that was the essential point about Atheists, the fact they believe there is no God? Or do you think they would include the 'inferior' definition as a bit of a laugh? It also gives the Greek source a-without + theos-God. Couldn't be much clearer really, could it? Why do you insist on continuing to argue against all the evidence that atheism isn't a belief? The word belief or believe is used in virtually every comment on it. You have even used them yourself in previous posts. What does it matter? You believe in the non existence of a God whilst millions of people throughout the world believe there is such a thing. Neither you, nor they, can provide proof of your assertions but all of you continue to believe them anyway. Some of us on the other hand, without proof take the attitude that the Juries still out. What always amuses me is that when the inevitable happens, the religious will never know if they are wrong, & the atheists will never know if they are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Firstly, I didn't say it was a definition did I? It is however a perfectly valid explanation as to an agnostic viewpoint. It pretty much is Secondly, please explain the difference between 'Person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists' which is the Oxford English Dictionary definition & what I said 'I don't know whether or not God exists'. I wouldn't bother trying to argue definitions with MrSmith/Maxmaximus/Angos, he loves to derail a thread by arguing semantics. Unlike the difference between "not believing in gods" and "Believing there are no gods", the two examples I've bolded actually ARE a only a semantic difference (almost anyway, there's only a slight difference which makes no difference in the way it's meant in this discussion). ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:51 ---------- It also gives the Greek source a-without + theos-God. Couldn't be much clearer really, could it? So you understand now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 No, it's a claim that he believes nothing can be known believe accept that (something) is true, especially without proof. That would make being agnostic a belief. No, his absence of belief is what makes him an atheist I didn't say anything to the contrary what I said was correct, as is what you are saying. It's the media that (deliberately) got it wrong. Dawkins identifies himself as an agnostic atheist. Thanks for that. ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:55 ---------- It pretty much is I wouldn't bother trying to argue definitions with MrSmith/Maxmaximus/Angos, he loves to derail a thread by arguing semantics. Unlike the difference between "not believing in gods" and "Believing there are no gods", the two examples I've bolded actually ARE a only a semantic difference (almost anyway, there's only a slight difference which makes no difference in the way it's meant in this discussion). ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:51 ---------- So you understand now! Now see what you did, you turn a reasonable discussion into a troll fest, know all we can talk about is your trolling activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 No, I hadn't heard of him un til I joined this site, and I haven't listened to anything of his. Then you really don't know what you're missing. http://aatheism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/dawkins-attacks-john-lennox-in-latest.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 It pretty much is I wouldn't bother trying to argue definitions with MrSmith/Maxmaximus/Angos, he loves to derail a thread by arguing semantics. Unlike the difference between "not believing in gods" and "Believing there are no gods", the two examples I've bolded actually ARE a only a semantic difference (almost anyway, there's only a slight difference which makes no difference in the way it's meant in this discussion). ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:51 ---------- So you understand now! I always did , it was the nitpicking lovers of semantics who were being deliberately obtuse in order to prolong the argument that caused all the bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 believe accept that (something) is true, especially without proof. That would make being agnostic a belief. Yes, a belief about knowledge. Not a claim that they know something (which is what you claimed) I didn't say anything to the contrary what I said was correct, as is what you are saying. You said "a claim that you don't know if God exists, and is a reasonable stance which makes you an atheist" which it doesn't. It doesn't matter what you know, theism/atheism is about what you believe (with regards to the existence of gods) Now see what you did, you turn a reasonable discussion into a troll fest, know all we can talk about is your trolling activities. I think, if it hasn't happened already, people will be able to make their minds up very soon about who is the real troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.