Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,643
This sounds like word play with the intention to shift a burdon of proof onto someone who isn't buying a claim. That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Well if I said werewolves were real, opened up large buildings across the world dedicated to helping people protect themselves from werewolves and held weekly morning group meeting for people who have had encounters with werewolves. I'm quite sure that if someone on here called me an idiot, you wouldn't be here, page after page, arguing the toss and nitpicking about it.
A theist is someone who believes in a deity.
An atheist is someone who is not a theist.
it's really simple.
Last edited:
It is simply the active participation of the observer in determining their own belief or lack thereof.
I assert that imaginary beings definitively don't exist. Whatever happened at the start of the universal expansion is most likely (let's say 5 Sigma level of certainity) not something a random animal on a random planet is imagining 14b years later, much like Aristotle could not imagine black holes 2300 years ago.
Could I be wrong? I suppose I could be but the odds are so low that they aren't relevant. Quantum tunneling theoretically allows matter to pass through a solid, brick wall but you're still an idiot if you claim you did it and more so if you build a belief system around it.
Last edited:
New here I suppose..I am even more likely to argue against religious interpretations than non-religious. As any theist will tell you or a quick search of relevant threads will illustrate.
I'm neither a Theist or Atheist...
If you must attach a label...I am an Ignostic for all intents and purposes.
You're an atheist.
Well clearly....that statement doesn't actually answer the question, it avoids it. Basically then God doesn't exist if he is imaginary, but does if he is not...
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,521
- Location
- Woking
No I am not. I neither reject, accept or define an absence of belief in God(s), Deities or Godhead. I make no assumptions as to the relevant theological positions as there is no coherent definition to assess. It has no literal application.
Superb analogy
Except it is misplaced (as well as quoted wrongly, as the original intent of the quote was to illustrate that Theism is not the default position and atheism is not simply another religion, not to validate a disputed definition of atheism) as I was not referencing a claim but the requirements of holding a theological position.....
Besides, I was not the one making a claim..Zethor was. Just because the claim is 'God doesn't exist therefore all who believe otherwise are idiots' doesn't mean the person making it is not required to support it. That is a fallacy, Onus Probandi. And is as relevant to an atheist as it is to a theist when making such statements.
Last edited:
Ah... Ignosticism... for the Agnostics that like to shop around for the highest fence to sit on
It is simply the active participation of the observer in determining their own belief or lack thereof.
Not sure I should've said anything now, but in for a penny...
I can see why it's convenient to label those who definitively assert there is no god as a type of atheist, and also those who reject the idea, but the definition of atheist has nothing to do with that, nor does it mention anything about active participation. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods so by the literal definition, you're an atheist..?
Last edited:
Not sure I should've said anything now, but in for a penny...
I can see why it's convenient to label those who definitively assert there is no god as a type of atheist but the definition of atheist has nothing to do with that, nor does it mention anything about active participation. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods so by the literal definition, you're an atheist..?
No I am not...it is as simple as me asserting I am not. An atheist rejects, denies or has an absence of belief..the position is one that requires the individual to make a defined philosophical position...I have neither rejected, denied nor do I have a defined absence of belief in any God(s). Atheism is an active position..I have not made an active position as yet.
I do not have the knowledge, nor do I think any currently exists to define my philosophical position in such terms.
I am not an atheist.
Last edited:
Ah... Ignosticism... for the Agnostics that like to shop around for the highest fence to sit on
A thus the thread turns into a nonsense. No one is actually interested in a sensible reasoned discussion anymore..just interested in trying to impose their views and attempting to tell me and others what They believe or disbelieve...or how they should define those beliefs. It has simply degenerated into ad hominem.
Therefore I'm out.
Last edited:
I'm not interested in such rubbish, I'll gladly debate with anyone willing to consider other perspectives and argue from their own...elmarko is a fine example, we might not always agree, but it is done with mutual respect and consideration for each other's position. Besides I have other things to do and the discussion has gotten circular.
Then again this is GD, so I should not have such expectations in the first instance. If it picks up then I'll return, but for now it is meaningless banter.
Last edited:
Did you ever wonder why it doesn't work the other way around? Why don't believers laugh at atheists?
I'm starting to think there's a bit of "can't" in there as well as don't want to with them.
They do, as I've said, both lots are as bad as eachother.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,521
- Location
- Woking
Some of us have had a reasonable discussion, though I'm still waiting for a response for the evidence for evolution from kedge.