Dinosaurs are not real :(

[Angilion]

Nitefly, you ruined it

I was wondering how long they would accept me telling them they were wrong before they actually went and found out what they were talking about.

I'm sure they, like me, are aware that some people, like you, don't know what the word 'atheist' means, have made up their own definition of it and insist that everyone else adheres to it.

But you're wrong.

Yet again, bhavv, you have spouted off about something you appear to have no knowledge of. dirtychinchilla you have done the same.

Add me to your list too, as I also know what atheism is. Unlike you.

Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

It is not a belief in the non-existence of gods. Some atheists have that belief, some don't.

Can either of you explain an agnostic to me please?

Agnosticism is the idea that a person shouldn't claim something to be objectively true unless than can provide objective proof that it is. In more casual usage, compelling objective evidence will do. It applies to everything. It is not a religious term. It is not about religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Look at the words:

agnosis: without knowledge.
atheos: without gods.

The words cover different topics. They do not refer to two different positions on the same topic.

Here, I'll give you the definition of agnosticsm by the person who created the word

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

Thomas Huxley, 1899.

I am agnostic and an atheist.

I cannot objectively prove the existence or non-existence of every possible entity that could be considered a god. Since I am an agnostic, I therefore do not claim that I have objective certainty regarding either position.

I do not have faith in the existence of any god or gods. That makes me an atheist. Nor do I have faith in their non-existence. But that's not what makes me an atheist.

No certain objective proof.

No faith.

Agnostic and atheist.

 

[Castiel]

Easy enough to do.

You do not believe in any definition of god, or in any deities as described by any of the worlds religions, but you do not state that they absolutely cannot exist.

Negative atheism = you, positive atheism = me.

I have never stated that I believe or disbelieve in any definition of God....only that I do not believe in the current definitions as they are put forward, namely those of a classical theist definition, which are unfalsifiable and as such come under my theological noncognitvist position.

I maintain that before I can make any meaningful decision on the question..."Does God Exist" that a Coherent and Falsifiable Definition must be presented. Until that time the question is largely meanigless to me on a personal level.

Basically I cannot tell you with any certainty whether I am an atheist (weak or otherwise) or a theist, until a universal, falsifiable and coherent definition of theism is presented.

That is my position whether you understand it, accept it or not.

 

[bhavv]

It doesn't matter whether you think I am a Weak Atheist anyway

As Anglion just clearly described, yes you are an atheist because you are 'without god' / atheos.

I have never stated that I believe or disbelieve in any definition of God....only that I do not believe in the current definitions as they are put forward, namely those of a classical theist definition, which are unfalsifiable and as such come under my theological noncognitvist position.

Yes, and you are still 'without god', which defines you as an atheist. You claim that there is a possibility that some definition of 'god' may be real, this makes you a negative atheist.

Why exactly do you have a problem with being called what you are?

You do not hold any religious beliefs in gods or deities = not a theist.
You do not claim to not know, or that it is impossible to state whether gods or deities are real = not an agnostic
You claim to live without belief in any god or diety = you are an atheist.
You do not dismiss the possibility of some definition of god being possible = negative atheist.

 

[Angilion]

You're not understanding, though, that I don't have to believe in anything in the first place...that's why athiesm isn't a belief. My knowledge that there is no god is based on scientific fact.

No, it isn't.

You're a gnostic atheist, and that is to some extent based on faith.

Science has not (and can't) proven the non-existence of all deities. Science might prove that there isn't any requirement for a creator or creators(*), but that wouldn't constitute proof of the non-existence of deities.

* There is increasing evidence that there isn't any requirement, but it's not yet proven.


The furthest you can genuinely go with scientific fact is Stephen Hawking's stated position, that the simplest explanation is that there is no god. If you go past that, you're not treading on fact anymore. You've gone into the realms of faith. And that's not science.

 

[bhavv]

'Science' does not state or assume any position of atheism, I'd say that the furthest you can go with this is with Richard Dawkin's ideology that the likelyhood of there being a god is equal to the likelyhood of an invisible magical teapot orbiting mars, or invisible pink unicorns.

However, significantly fewer 'scientists' believe in god compared to the general public, and significantly more 'scientists' are atheists compared against the general public.

This is an irrefutable fact, and before Castiel jumps in again with his Eugenie Scott videos, please do clearly read and comprehend the quoted terms of 'science' and 'scientist' correctly for once.

As populations become more educated, belief in religion declines.

 

[Castiel]

Yes he pretty much does. This is what the argument that claims atheism to be a faith assumes, and it is the biggest load of fail ever stated regarding anything to do with religion, or lack of religion.

Yet an even bigger fail is atheists who do not even accept that they are atheists for whatever reason and come up with a load of other terms and definitions to try and describe themselves.

An agnostic would never claim that believing in gods / deities is the same thing as having imaginary friends (Gilly). This is 100% a positive atheist joke about gods and Dieties.

An Ignostic would never feel the need to get drawn into discussions about gods which he neither believes nor disbelieves (Castiel). In claiming that he definitely does not believe in any gods, he is basing this decision on some definition of 'god', which is not an ignostic belief but is pure atheism. In stating that he does not oppose that some definition of 'god' may possibly exist, this is negative atheism belief, because he has first and foremost claimed not to believe in any gods or deities, but cannot be agnosticism because he has already claimed that he defintiely does not believe in any gods / deities himself (an agnostic / ignostic would say 'I dont know', yet Castiel flat out accepts that he does not believe in any god, which is a 100% atheist position).

If you say or believe the following line:

'I do not believe in any gods or deities', then this makes you nothing other than an atheist, this is a pure and simple irrefutable fact.

You and your irrefutable facts.....bhavv, go away and research the terminology a lot more before you decide what constitutes fact...

The fact is that I do not believe in very specific definitions of God, specifically for the purpose of this thread those of Classical theism....that doesn't neccessarily mean I don't believe in a God, it also doesn't mean I do believe in a God either, basically because on a personal level I cannot form an opinion on something that has no specificity, Thus I have no personal opinion on whether God as a concept exists or not....that is being ignostic.

I discuss religion, and to assume an ignostic doesn't discuss philosophical or theological positions is simply wrong....Henry Cadbury for example was a Biblical scholar who also expressed ignostic views.....Karl Popper, discussed religion and theological and philosophical positions at great length, he also expressed an ignostic viewpoint, not to mention Rabbi Sherwin Wine who coined the term in the first place.....

All discussed religion, philosophy and theology at great length and with passion and verve.

 

[bhavv]

I've researched and understand atheism far more than you do.

Which god do you currently believe in? None? Then you are atheos / atheist.

It isnt rocket science like you keep on trying to make it out to be, its such simple understanding of easy words that you and many others fail to understand.

In fact, EVERYTHING that I was taught about atheism and theism in school would define you to be an atheist. Of course, I would imagine that you think that religious education is wrong then.

 

[Castiel]

As Anglion just clearly described, yes you are an atheist because you are 'without god' / atheos.



Yes, and you are still 'without god', which defines you as an atheist. You claim that there is a possibility that some definition of 'god' may be real, this makes you a negative atheist.

Why exactly do you have a problem with being called what you are?

You do not hold any religious beliefs in gods or deities = not a theist.
You do not claim to not know, or that it is impossible to state whether gods or deities are real = not an agnostic
You claim to live without belief in any god or diety = you are an atheist.
You do not dismiss the possibility of some definition of god being possible = negative atheist.

Actually I am not as I am ambivalent about God, I neither live with or without one. As I have explained I am ignostic definitively.

I cannot be held responsible because you cannot understand the difference or that terminology.

 

[Castiel]

I've researched and understand atheism far more than you do.

Which god do you currently believe in? None? Then you are atheos / atheist.

Is that right.....you have a greater level of academic understanding about theological and philosophical positions than someone who begins a PhD in comparative religion, lingustics and theology in january....

 

[bhavv]

Is that right.....you have a greater level of academic understanding about theological and philosophical positions than someone who begins a PhD in comparative religion, lingustics and theology in january....

Dont blame me because you studied a completely useless mickey mouse degree that even a 9 year old could pass.

And if you were as great as you think you are, why do you spend all day arguing on these forums? Surely you would have much more better places to be and discuss such topics.

I dont need to have studied anything to understand that a person who does not believe in any god or deities is an atheist, which by the way, you are!

 

[Castiel]

I've researched and understand atheism far more than you do.

Which god do you currently believe in? None? Then you are atheos / atheist.

It isnt rocket science like you keep on trying to make it out to be, its such simple understanding of easy words that you and many others fail to understand.

In fact, EVERYTHING that I was taught about atheism and theism in school would define you to be an atheist. Of course, I would imagine that you think that religious education is wrong then.

You simply do not understand that a non belief in a specific God doesn't necessarily make you an atheist.

 

[Angilion]

Im not denying Agnosticism. I stated that I believe it to be a state of confusion in which a person cannot make up their mind.

I definitely am however denying your claims of weak and strong Atheism.

And you're wrong on both counts. Although the terms "weak" and "strong" are unclear and disputed, they get the job done. I don't use them, but at least they acknowledge that two different positions are different.

Going by your definitions, you need to find another word to describe your position.

You define atheism (correctly) as a lack of belief in gods. You hold that position.

But in addition to that, you also hold the position that there are no gods. That isn't the same position. According to your own arguments, you cannot call that position 'atheism', because you've defined atheism as something else and you've stated that there is only one kind of atheism. Since your position isn't it, you must have another word for it. You can't use 'atheism' and be consistent with yourself.

Your belief about agnosticism is silly.

Agnostics aren't confused - they are clear about acknowledging when they cannot objectively prove something.

For example:

I have a pen on my desk. You do not have objective proof of the colour of that pen. You don't have compelling objective evidence that it is any particular colour. The furthest you can go with objective evidence is to consider some colours more probable than others, based on knowing that some colours are more common than others in pens.

If you are agnostic, you will acknowledge that you do not know for certain, as an objective truth, what colour this pen is. That does not mean that you are confused.

 

[bhavv]

You simply do not understand that a non belief in a specific God doesn't necessarily make you an atheist.

No I understand that 100% perfectly, you just fail again at comprehension.

Non belief in ANY gods / dieties (I NEVER once stated a specific god) makes you an atheist.

 

[Biohazard]

Dont blame me because you studied a completely useless mickey mouse degree that even a 9 year old could pass.

lol bhavv.

 

[Castiel]

Dont blame me because you studied a completely useless mickey mouse degree that even a 9 year old could pass.

And if you were as great as you think you are, why do you spend all day arguing on these forums? Surely you would have much more better places to be and discuss such topics.

I dont need to have studied anything to understand that a person who does not believe in any god or deities is an atheist, which by the way, you are!

What micky mouse degree would that be precisely Bhavv....

Whenever you are proven wrong, which is often...you resort to personal attacks and virtual footstamping.

 

[bhavv]

And you're wrong on both counts. Although the terms "weak" and "strong" are unclear and disputed, they get the job done. I don't use them, but at least they acknowledge that two different positions are different.

Going by your definitions, you need to find another word to describe your position.

You define atheism (correctly) as a lack of belief in gods. You hold that position.

Your belief about agnosticism is silly.

1) 'weak and strong' atheism were terms that I do not belive in, because they are not actual terms.

2) 'Negative and positive' atheism are terms that I believe to be real.

3) My comment on agnosicism being a state of confusion would be called 'taking the mickey' out of agnosticism. It was not a serious argument

What micky mouse degree would that be precisely Bhavv.....

Anything to do with religion / theology / philosophy is a mickey mouse / completely useless degree.

Whenever you are proven wrong, which is often...

And whenever you're proven wrong which is often, you can never accept it. No one has actually proven me wrong that often unless they are simply confusing a joke comment I make as a serious one, and no one in this thread has proven my definition of atheism to be incorrect, not even you.

You cannot prove people wrong based on personal opinion alone, which is what you seem to think you can. Your opinion simply differs to mine, and that is why your studies are a mickey mouse course because they dont teach any facts, only other peoples opinions which are no more correct, and in a lot of cases with you it seems, far more incorrect than the universally accepted definitions.

 

[Biohazard]

Anything to do with religion / theology / philosophy is a mickey mouse / completely useless degree.

Your qualification for this assessment?

And whenever you're proven wrong which is often, you can never accept it. No one has actually proven me wrong that often unless they are simply confusing a joke comment I make as a serious one, and no one in this thread has proven my definition of atheism to be incorrect, not even you.

He has, by me. He does have the virtue of humility.. well a dash of it anyway.

 

[Castiel]

Anything to do with religion / theology / philosophy is a mickey mouse / completely useless degree.

obvious it is not useless as I start a job specifically utilising those degrees (note plural) that I possess...one of which is in lingustics. How do you use your ordinary degree Bhavv?......

And whenever you're proven wrong which is often, you can never accept it.

Actually whenever I am wrong I will and do concede....unfortunately Bhavv you are hugely out of your depth in the vast majority of the discussions in which we clash.

 

[bhavv]

Your qualification for this assessment?

My opinion that either Dance or Popular Music are far more worthwhile degrees than Theology or Philosophy which are generally considered by most to be 'mickey mouse' courses.

obvious it is not useless as I start a job specifically utilising those degrees (note plural) that I possess...one of which is in lingustics. How do you use your ordinary degree Bhavv?......

I didnt study a degree to get a job. I simply did it because I thought I had to, and had zero motivation in any of it unlike you who is clearly very into your field.

BTW, gratz to you to becoming a catholic priest, or whatever else it is that you want to spend your life doing.

 

[Angilion]

You simply do not understand that a non belief in a specific God doesn't necessarily make you an atheist.

But you don't believe in any of them, do you? Not just one. Which would make you an atheist.

It's probably impossible to create seperate definitions and names for every possible position in a way that has no overlap between different positions.