To say Atheistm is a belief system and Agnosticism isn't is very dumb. And the people arguing that are saying they are right because we are right when we say something that makes no sense, but uses the same logic.
The problem with this debate is that ALL sides are biased, some more than others, but biased nonetheless.
Yes, I have made generalizations about Christians very often. I have made very unfair and even offensive generalizations of Christians, and on top of that, I have even made fun of Christianity many many times for my own amuzement !
I have called thier religion a lie, and beleive it is very much so, a lie.
I have never said otherwise.....
However, my point is that you are arguing with LIL B about her making generalizations, while you are guilty of making generalizations yourself.
That's hypocritical. I don't accuse anyone of making unfair or non factual generalizations, but you do, WHILE doing it yourself.
Not really seeing it. Generic atheism compared to generic theism would work. However comparing generic atheism to specified theism i.e. organised religion, as equally irrational or baseless, not so much.
The earth was made in 6 days. Humans were made as is. A man put two of every animal onto an ark. These are irrational beliefs and baseless claims that can be proven as inaccurate or at the very least to be so implausible, that they can be considered impossible. These are the type of claims that I've seen the atheists of this forum predominantly "b!tch about." Not generic theism as a concept.
I probably have made a generalisation or so. I don't think I know anyone who has never made a generalisation. Although I don't recall doing it regularly. Statements of the form "What some religious people believe is lies." are not generalisations.
Atheism is a disbelief in God, not just a lack of beleif in God. A lack of beleif in God requires either a rejection of a beleif in God or a lack of exposure to the concept.
Athiesm requires an exposure to the beleif in God. Atheism is a term relative to the concept of God, and to have a belief relative to the concept of God, you must have exposure to the concept of God.
It's quite simple really, but I'm not surprised that you wouldn't get it.
So you are arguing that a new born baby is Athiest by default ?
You don't know how to answer this question ?
Its quite simple really XYZ... Dead people don't beleive in God. Does that make them Athiest ?
How cute. Your 14 year old sense of humor reveals itself.
This is Christianity and Judaism (as far as I can grasp) and as far as I also understand, it is not viewd by everyone as a literal, but rather a metaphorical ideas. It is the very same ''generalisation is frowned upon'' shite. Which is the very same thing you pointed out in this thread.
Second, it is ridiculous to debate the existance of a deity based on a silly story writen in a Book.
Idea of God did not begin with Christians or Jews or Muslims, nor will end with them.
One who cares not for god, is not bothered by substance of a religion.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Last edited by lil bitchiness on Nov 18th, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
It does not.
Noun
S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
You can't just choose a definition that suites you. Both are applicable. And babies and people that never encountered a belief in a God do not have a belief in God. Therefore they are atheists. Do you ever think?
No they are not. In order to be Athiest you have to be aware of the concept. The term Athiest is only in relation to the concept of God and to its disbeleif.
In order to DISBELEIVE something, you must be aware of it. You cannot "disbeleive" something you never heard of.
You cannot form a "doctrine" of disbeleif when you never heard of the subject.
The first of his definitions contradicts what he was trying to argue. That is why he chose to use the second definition, because it fits his argument better.
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
In order to beleive there is no diety, you have to know the concept of the diety. How many times does it take for you to understand ?
There is no being "Athiest" by default. That's as incorrect and idiotic as saying, "that guy is Gay because he has never seen a woman before. He doesn't know what they are, because he grew up on an island where women don't go. He only knows men. He never had sex with one, but i know he's gay, he has to be"
Although it is something you would say
Your stance is also the same as claiming that someone is homophobic when they never knew homosexuality existed in the first place.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No. As the definition shows you are wrong.
Why do you always argue about words that you do not understand. After being wrong earlier today you feel the urge to again be wrong?
He does not have to choose a definition. Both are acceptable an true. If either of those definitions apply one is an atheist. You are the one selecting a definition to support your (wrong) argument. Just give it up already. Atheism is the believe that there is no God as well as the lack of believe that there is a God. The words are already defined, you do not need to select or make up your own meaning.
Your last few sentences are idiotic again. Since the definition of homosexual is not lack of knowledge of or sexual urge for women. If it was you would be right. But it isn't.
Please, just learn the words you use. You could start by not misspelling the one we are arguing about.
Your concepts are obviously not meaningful in the same way to the others involved in the discussion. You are just talking past each other, not communicating meaningfully.
__________________
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
So if a word has two definitions, you're only aloud to use one even though the argument is about whether the other exists? Your idiocy sticks out like a magnetic thumb in an iron factory.
That's one type of Atheist yes. But I never said it wasn't did I?
When did I deny it?
Go back and play with your 20 year old fr.....oh that's right. You dno't have any friends.
Forgive me if I'm repeating something, but I don't have the patience to read through several pages of, basically, what seems to be quibbling over peripheral issues which only complicate things.
IMO, it's simple...
Theist: I believe in God.
Atheist: I believe there is No God.
Agnostic: I don't know.
Default position: the only way to know this is to raise a child in a society where God is never brought up. My guess...
Because human beings are self-aware, because they can wonder and reason, such a person, by default, would likely ask the same questions about the world our ancestors did 100s of 1000s of years ago, before gods and supernatural forces became concepts to be passed on. It is reasonable to assume this person would reach similar conclusions. Based on this, it would appear that human beings -- by default -- are initially inclined to believe in forces beyond their senses. Atheism arrives later, when the Theistic position "fails to deliver," and especially when under the critical lens of systematic empirical inquiry.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Nov 19th, 2006 at 03:13 PM
KMC Community Forums
Nov 18th, 2006 05:40 PM
