What is god though?
This is really straight forward, 'God' is a narrative many people use to help them get through life. No more, no less.
does God exist in space?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
This is really straight forward, 'God' is a narrative many people use to help them get through life. No more, no less.
This is really straight forward, 'God' is a narrative many people use to help them get through life. No more, no less.
Is it?
That is a simple interpretation based on your assumed atheism, not a definitive conception of 'God'
And by your conception that God is a 'narrative', thus we can conclude that God is real.......or not as any 'narrative' can be factual or fictional in nature.
So ultimately your post is so ambivalent on the validity of a positive or negative conception as a basis for that 'narrative' as to be meaningless.
Last edited:
The point is that God IS a narrative. Who cares if it's factual or fiction, that's irrelevant and impossible to ever prove. What we can say with certainty is that God is a narrative that many people use to help them get through life.
I quite agree, however you quoted me, which was in reference to another's claims regarding their being a definitive fictional basis to that narrative.
In fact on further thought, it is religion or more accurately the belief that is the narrative, rather than the conception of God itself.
Brilliant!
I would have said "all", but I haven't checked every one. So I'll go through the ones that you have chosen as supposedly proving me, the OED, most atheists, etc, etc, wrong about what atheism is.
Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.
Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.
Agrees with me, not with you. They have reversed the order of the two possible meanings, but both meanings are still there.
Agrees with me, not with you. They're also using the reversed order and they've added a third meaning ("a godless person"), but the same point stands again - they don't agree with your position that there is only one possible meaning.
Agrees with you.
An unclear definition that is clearly wrong according to their own definition of "disbelief". Why are you citing that as an example of a good dictionary?
They don't all give the same definition.
The fact that one of two or more definitions of a word exists does not prove that is the only possible meaning of the word. Many words can have more than one meaning - the existence of one does not negate the existence of the others. Including one meaning in the definitions does not exclude the other(s). You're familiar with English, so you must be aware of that fact.
Did you just assume I wouldn't check?
Some of them included in their definition of "atheist" all theists not of the Abrahamic religions. Which is accurate in the sense that some people think that way, but it's not what the word actually means.
It is possible for an atheist to believe in the non-existence of any and all gods.
It is not necessary for an atheist to do so and many don't.
Why are you writing that in reply to me? Not only did I not make that claim, I explicitly stated what agnosticism is and that it is not limited to religion. It's a general approach to everything.
Did you read what I posted.....
I did not say there was one possible meaning, and ALL those links support my assertion that you were attempting to redefine atheism to include agnosticism. When they are distinct from each other.
Not one of those links states otherwise.
OED said:
OED said:
two distinct definitions.
In fact they all contradict your erroneous etymology for the word Atheist as well.
Atheism is not Agnosticism and AcidHell2 is correct to point that out.
Last edited:
Yes God exists in space & yes you can be judged so put those porns to one side...I'm glad you asked this question here as we on here are all experts in the knowledges of the existence of god etc so can answer you wisely. & no....don't try & kill yerself for your god...you won't find any virgins...(in case the dark side ventures)
Yes you did - belief in the non-existence of all gods.
I never claimed that atheism includes agnosticism and AcidHell2 did not point out that they're not the same. Only one of those links agrees with your redefinition of atheism and that just means it's wrong as well.
You posted links to 6 definitions that you claim prove your point when in fact 4 of them explicitly disprove it and 1 of them is unclear at best. I checked them. You got caught out. If you carry on claiming they say something else, I'll carry on pointing out that they don't.
You can't possibly think I'm trying to redefine atheism to include agnosticism when I'm not trying to redefine atheism (you are) and I have repeatedly explained the difference between atheism and agnosticism and that agnosticism has a much bigger scope (it's not just about religion). How can atheism include agnosticism when agnosticism is a different thing that covers a vastly bigger set of ideas?
Are you trying to troll me?
My etymology wasn't erroneous either - the 'a' in atheist is a prefix indicating a lack. It is not, as many people wrongly think, short for 'anti'.
Last edited:
Castiel is suspended so I'll pick up the baton.
He posted links which defined atheism as meaning both, at no point did he say anything otherwise.
You claimed that Acidhell was wrong in pointing out agnosticism is not atheism and you are wrong as all those examples prove.
Then why did you state Acidhell was wrong to point that out?
Now in this you are most certainly wrong, I remember Dolph pointing this out many times.
The word Theist is derived from Atheist not the other way around. Atheist comes from the greek Atheos which means not God and is not as you state a prefix added to the word Theist. Theist didn't exist until at least a century after Atheism.
Castiel did not state it meant "anti" either.
I think you both have confused what the other was arguing about, it seems you think Castiel is arguing against a definition of Atheist when he is actually arguing against lumping in Agnostics with Atheists, and he thinks that you are arguing against a seperate definition of agnostic when you only has issue with the latter part of Acidhells post relating to his definition.
Last edited:
That is not true.
That is not true.
That is not true.
I see no point in continuing. Please stick to things I've actually written.
Last edited:
That is extremely ironic considering that you are arguing against something he never said, and only you assumption of it.
He never stated a singular definition of Atheism, neither did he state it was simply anti-theism.
He did give an explanation and definition of Strong and Weak Atheism in his original post on the subject which clearly states otherwise, and indicates that you have obviously got the wrongvend of the stick here.
Why? You have already been shown that the positions both of you are arguing are confused and not the same.
You originally stated this:
Angilion said:
That is not strictly true, Theism is derived from Atheism, thus the 'a' is not a prefix to theist. It is derived from Atheos which is a singular word also meaning 'not god' or 'godless'.
It certainly sounds like you did.
No he didn't:
That is what he said in his original post. He also gave references for everything in relation to that statement.
That is because he wasn't arguing about that, but your contention that Acidhell was wrong about Agnosticism, hence this being posted in the original post he made also which clearly intimates that you are both arguing slightly different things which is causing some confusion.
I would suggest that it is not pertinent to continue a debate about 'who said what' when it is clear that both of you are confused over what each person is debating.