Bible - Fiction?

[mjw47]

believe

accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

 

That would make being agnostic a belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 20:55 ----------

 

 

 

Who said it wasn't? The belief part is that Humans don't have the wherewithal to understand the nature of God, if indeed there is a God.

 

Incidentally did you ever read 'Alice in Wonderland' as a child? If so presumably Humpty Dumpty had a profound effect.

[RootsBooster]

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.

 

It's not semantics though, there is a very real difference between absence of belief in gods and belief that there are no gods. I think you're refusing to admit it rather than simply misunderstanding.

 

As we already agree the literal translation of atheist is "without God" or "without belief in God".

The "A" prefix is to theist as abiotic is to biotic (rather than antibiotic) and as amoral is to moral (rather than immoral). It means sans, without, absence of.

[angos]

Yes, a belief about knowledge. Not a claim that they know something (which is what you claimed)

A a belief about what knowledge?

 

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)

Yes I can see my error.

 

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.

 

My sentiments exactly, you are the one that resorts to petty name calling and accusation every time you aren't getting your own way.

[RootsBooster]

A a belief about what knowledge?

A belief that knowledge about the nature or existence of gods can't be known

My sentiments exactly, you are the one that resorts to petty name calling and accusation every time you aren't getting your own way.

Can you give an example?

In fact, it doesn't matter. Like I said, people can make their own minds up.

[angos]

Can you give an example?

In fact, it doesn't matter. Like I said, people can make their own minds up.

 

That's a good idea.

[mjw47]

It's not semantics though, there is a very real difference between absence of belief in gods and belief that there are no gods. I think you're refusing to admit it rather than simply misunderstanding.

 

As we already agree the literal translation of atheist is "without God" or "without belief in God".

The "A" prefix is to theist as abiotic is to biotic (rather than antibiotic) and as amoral is to moral (rather than immoral). It means sans, without, absence of.

 

I don't think it is though, it's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin nonsense. The type of absolute Horlicks that normal people have no time for.

The above is of course your personal interpretation which you are fully entitled to.

 

One is saying that there are no Gods. OK that's a clear statement of belief.

 

The other is saying they don't believe in Gods. ok not quite as definite but seriously who gives a ****? I don't, & my advice to anyone who does is 'get a life'.

 

There is no proof of anything to do with religion or lack thereof.

 

Happy Christmas.

[RootsBooster]

I don't think it is though, it's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin nonsense. The type of absolute Horlicks that normal people have no time for.

The above is of course your personal interpretation which you are fully entitled to.

 

One is saying that there are no Gods. OK that's a clear statement of belief.

 

The other is saying they don't believe in Gods. ok not quite as definite but seriously who gives a ****? I don't, & my advice to anyone who does is 'get a life'.

 

There is no proof of anything to do with religion or lack thereof.

 

Happy Christmas.

So, now you're admitting you realise the difference but you don't care?

 

I think that might be the end of that discussion then.

 

It seems, then, that you'd rather sweep the issue under the carpet because you just don't want to admit that you're an agnostic atheist, because you think of "atheist" as a dirty word

[Ryedo40]

No I can't, but it isn't my problem is it? Atheists are the ones claiming there's no God, so it's down to them to work that one out isn't it?

 

Until such time as they do, they will just have to go on BELIEVING that no God(s) exist won't they?

 

Unlike your claim above, where you try to tell atheists what they are or believe, I do not claim a god doesn't exist.

 

So far, nothing has convinced me that a god exists. So I fail to find a good reason to believe in the existence of a god. That's why I am an atheist: not theist.

 

Because I don't believe in the existence of gods, it doesn't mean I don't accept that a god may exist.

[mjw47]

So, now you're admitting you realise the difference but you don't care?

 

I think that might be the end of that discussion then.

 

It seems, then, that you'd rather sweep the issue under the carpet because you just don't want to admit that you're an agnostic atheist, because you think of "atheist" as a dirty word

 

At what point have I ever claimed to care? Why would anyone with any commonsense care about a subject that cannot be resolved?

 

It has simply provided me with a certain amount of amusement, as it did the last time I became involved in one of these nonsensical debates.

 

Did you at some point believe that a conclusion would emerge from this thread?

 

As I keep pointing out, no one, not the Pope, Chief Rabbi, Chief Ayatollah or head of any religious group, or even the Head of Atheism, if such a thing exists, KNOWS the truth.

 

Because there is no TRUTH, just differing beliefs.

 

Marcus Aurelius was the man for advice on how to deal with the presence of or absence of God(s).

 

He was an agnostic as well ,going on his advice.

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 23:38 ----------

 

Unlike your claim above, where you try to tell atheists what they are or believe, I do not claim a god doesn't exist.

 

So far, nothing has convinced me that a god exists. So I fail to find a good reason to believe in the existence of a god. That's why I am an atheist: not theist.

 

Because I don't believe in the existence of gods, it doesn't mean I don't accept that a god may exist.

 

You appear to be an agnostic to me. If you prefer Atheist that's up to you, but as atheists by their very name don't believe in God, & you apparently are willing to concede that there maybe a God or even Gods, I think it kind of rules you out of their gang.

 

As was pointed out previously, from the Greek a- without + theos-God.

 

Welcome to the agnostic club, we're Way more laid back than that uptight crew.

 

Up to you though, don't let me presume.

[Ryedo40]

You appear to be an agnostic to me. If you prefer Atheist that's up to you, but as atheists by their very name don't believe in God

 

I'm an atheist. And yes, I don't believe in the existence of a god because I find no good convincing reason to.

 

you apparently are willing to concede that there maybe a God or even Gods, I think it kind of rules you out of their gang.

 

The majority of atheists I know or have known, all leave a door open for the possibility of a god existing. But, like me, they find no convincing reason to believe one does.

 

Welcome to the agnostic club, we're Way more laid back than that uptight crew.

 

I've come across a lot of agnostics who, like you, cling solely to that label and they always seem to have the same misinformed straw-man definition of atheism that religious apologists tout. Like you, they'll argue for their straw-man view to the teeth - even when their arguments, like yours, have been slapped down on numerous occasions. They are, like you, hardly laid back.