ATHEISM Explained

ok, so you dis-believe. which means you believe it's counter part (or opposite). You can't run from it, you do believe something.

 

For fuck's sake...

Look. You said "belief" and then equate that with "knowledge". It is not the same thing.

Agnosticism says "I don't KNOW if there be any gods"

Atheism says "I don't BELIEVE there are any gods"

 

are you talking to me or Soulless||Chaos?

because I never used that word combo. I said that there is not enough information to prove either.

 

Refer to the other thread, there is as much evidence for as against, as in absolutely no evidence either way.

 

That is just the way you choose to understand it, how it must suck to be constrained to but a single viewpoint.
Agnosticism you are close enough, and that is the one under which you belong. You say yourself you doubt there are gods, therefore being only doubt and not belief, you do not know. You filthy agnostic. :$ Atheism you choose to interpret that way, though it could just as soon be "I believe there are no gods"

 

lol! (just @ the fuck's sake, I never heard that before)

anyway,
be·lieve

[size=-1]VERB: [/size]
[size=-1]be·lieved[/size] , [size=-1]be·liev·ing[/size] , [size=-1]be·lieves[/size]
[size=-1]VERB: [/size]
[size=-1]tr. [/size]

1. To accept as true or real: [size=+0]Do you believe the news stories?[/size]
2. To credit with veracity: [size=+0]I believe you.[/size]
3. To expect or suppose; think: [size=+0]I believe they will arrive shortly.[/size]

knowl·edge

[size=-1]NOUN: [/size]

1. The state or fact of knowing.

know

[size=-1]VERB: [/size]
[size=-1]knew[/size] (n, ny) [size=-2]KEY [/size], [size=-1]known[/size] (nn) [size=-2]KEY [/size], [size=-1]know·ing[/size] , [size=-1]knows[/size]
[size=-1]VERB: [/size]
[size=-1]tr. [/size]

1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: [size=+0]I know she won't fail.[/size]

They are very much not equal. I think a lot of problems in america are due to the everyday continued demolition of the english language. I'm even considering taking proper english classes myself. Although spanish seems like the wave of the future.

 

Libertine, these are your own words. You originally said that agnosticism was a claim, but right here you just admitted that agnosticism was coinced to describe a person who COULD NOT CLAIM to know for sure whether or not a higher power exists.

You are a bit incorrect here.

Agnosticism says "I don't BELIEVE that there are, or aren't, any gods."

And this lack of BELIEF is *stemmed* from knowledge, but agnosticism does not describe a position of knowledge alone.

Atheism does not say "I don't believe there are any gods," atheism says "I believe that there are no gods."

The difference between the two statements is that yours, the first one, lets open the possibility that an atheist could also say "I don't believe that there are no gods." That's a double negative, which would allow an atheist to allow the possibility that a god exists, which atheists strictly believe that a god doesn't exist.

The second statement doesn't allow this condition to take place.

-----

This is what I learned in a critical thinking class in college. Bear with me.

When confronted with a question, an individual will recall all of the information that they have gathered regarding the answer to that question. All of this information is called "evidence."

Take the question of, "Is John a man?"

The first thing that pops into my mind is, do I know John? Let's pretend I don't. The next thing I think is, do I know what a man is? Yep. A man has a penis. Sorry if that's too graphic for you.

The next thing that pops into my mind is, does the name "John" describe a male or female entity? I know that every person named John that I have ever met has been male, and that a female who is named John would probably be made fun of, so a parent would likely not name a female John.

Therefore, I have evidence supporting the idea that the person named John is a man. Because I have this evidence and no contradictory evidence, my evidence is stacked in favor of him being a man, so I can say "I believe that John is a man." Since I don't know John, I can't say that I KNOW for certain, but I can say that I believe it, that is, I think that the statement is probable or true.

Let's say, this question was posed to a person who had never heard the name "John" before. They would not be able to answer this question affirmatively or negatively. This person would be considered to be "in suspended judgment" because they do not have enough evidence to make a judgment for or against the statement.

Anyway, now take the question, "Do any deities exist?"

Since none of us can prove the affirmative or the negative, none of us can *know,* we can only believe one way or the other, based on evidence we have gained (whether logical or perceptual). Each person's evidence will be different than the next person's, because they all have different perceptions and have been exposed to slightly different variations of logic.

Thus ... a person who has more evidence that a deity exists, would believe that they exist. This person would be called a theist.

A person who has more evidence that a deity does not exist would believe that they do not exist. This person would be called an atheist.

A person who *DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE* is where "agnostic" comes in. An agnostic is a person who does not have enough evidence to believe or disbelieve in a deity. Their best answer would be, "I don't know," which can be translated to mean "I don't necessarily believe that either case is truer than the other."

-----

Main Entry: the·ism
belief in the existence of a god or gods

Main Entry: athe·ism
a disbelief in the existence of deity

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

-----

Those are the dictionary entries. You can argue that they are wrong, but ... that'd be a bit pointless.

Anyway, I hope we cleared this up.

The etymology of the "a-" prefix that precedes "theism" in "atheism" suggests that the "a-" is derived from a Greek "anti-" or "opposite." The "a-" prefix does not mean "lack of."

After all, I doubt they'd write "This product may or may not freeze" on a bottle of anti-freeze.

 

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge. Period. The agnostic claims it (knowledge of God) cannot be known.

How fucking hard is that to understand?

The "A" literally means WITHOUT, ok? WITHOUT! That is LITERAL FUCKING DEFINITION. Like it or not...that's the way it is.

I have never in my life met so many people who could not accept elementary definitions of words. Where the fuck did these morons come from claiming "lack of belief" as a "belief"??

You are the one who made the incorrect statement of the definition of atheism. I suggest you read the etymological definition before stating such asinine claims as "An atheist MUST..."

Atheism is LACK OF BELIEF in theism. It has NOTHING to do with knowledge, it is about a "belief".

You are ATHEIST when you are born.

 

You're wrong. I am agnostic, and I don't claim that the knowledge can't be known. I claim that it is unknown, and I claim that evidence for or against it is non-conclusive regarding beliefs surrounding it.

And, I mean, you can argue all you want, but you're just flat-out wrong. I don't want to come off sounding arrogant, but you can check the dictionary entries, the etymology of the Greek roots, you can do whatever you want, but all evidence suggests that you're wrong.

What the hell do you think I did, man? LOOK at my dictionary entries!

Mirriam-Webster has done far more research than you or I, and I quoted Mirriam-Webster's dictionary entries right in my post.

If you are choosing to ignore both the definition and the etymology, that's your own fault, brother.

 

Incorrect. When you are born, you can't even comprehend the question "do any deities exist?" Which means, you can't answer yes or no to that question. Which means, you don't believe that either case is truer than the other. Which makes you agnostic, by definition.

 

It's no use, Libertine will remaining clinging to his position no matter how reasonable or logical you are.. I think it';s now more a matter of pride and not wanting to admit defeat.. That is a major flaw of yours, you seem too attached to your own ideas..

 

Non-Conclusive? Where's the evidence of the claim of theism? Theism is a claim. Atheists doubt this claim. When you make a claim the burden of proof is on you! Atheism is not a claim. Antitheism is a claim.

What evidence? Present the evidence!

And here's your fucking "a" prefix:In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods".

 

Atheism: LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS.

You are atheist when you are born. You either have belief or you don't.

Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods".

 

But to say you are without gods you must believe then that there are no gods.. You take the more complicated interpretation in an attempt to twist it into what you want it to mean.

 

Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods".

PERIOD.

 

Okay, that statement just makes me laugh. You are not athiest when you are born, because you lack knowledge, so by your own definition that makes you agnostic at birth as Hikaru has already stated.

 

It's not about KNOWLEDGE. You lack belief.

How many times can you confuse the two?

 

Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknowable.

 

How can a newborn believe or disbelieve something they don't even know of the existence of the concept of?

 

Well do you know that there is no god?