Atheists who attack atheists

yes, i believe... i believe that you are faking human intelligence or you wouldn't have posting huxley's quote without realizing that rather than supporting your argument, it illustrated that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Stop dodging. Are you a theist, Jauani?

i'm not dodging. i already answered this question to you a long time ago.

the existence of god is unknowable.

No, you dodged it last time just like you are now. It's a yes or no question. Are you a theist?

N/A - not applicable

I repeat! Holy crap.

haha, yeah, you're not dodging at all.

i know it's tough for your dialectic mind to fathom.

From the American Heritage dictionary:

disbelieve -- to refuse to believe in; reject

You can't figure out the meanings of words by picking them apart. Or do you believe that "hardly" means "in a hard manner"?

Word meanings are arrived at by consensus. If, even with the most meticulous logic, you decide on better meanings for them, you will only make it more difficult for people to understand you.

When I hear the word "atheist" I think of someone who rejects a belief in God; and I use the word the same way. As far as I can tell, I'm in the mainstream.

Please feel free to mentally translate my posts into your own ideosyncratic dialect before interpreting them.

Yes, it's much more sensible to just invent brand new words because you're uncomfortable with the consensus definition of words that apply to you.

Here's another word for ya...

Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

You make it sound like the existence of god is fact and atheist simply refuse to believe in this "fact".

Briana Dawson

I understand what you're trying to say, Finning, but the problem is that I basically just disagree with you as to what constitutes a proof. I see it is wholly unproveable for reasons I already explained, but that shouldn't be confused with my legitimizing religion. I give it about as much legitimacy, given presently available evidence, as belief in cartoon characters really existing.

I'm stunned, but I should have known, in hindsight, that there'd be a site for it.

Oh you ain't seen nothin yet

Again, I guess I should have known ...

Geesh.

God only knows

Is this meant to be sarcastic? Because I have to admit it went over my head.

If it is meant to be sarcastic, then I must have either invented a new word or been uncomfortable with a definition; but I don't remember doing either.

Are you saying that most people agree with your definition of the word? Because I've been asking around and I haven't found anyone yet who does.

What I'm uncomfortable with is people deciding that the concensus definition is dumb, and making up their own. And I'm only uncomfortable with that because it's going to create confusion and misunderstanding. And there's plenty enough of that to go around, just in this thread alone.

--Allie

Didn't mean to. Sorry.

edit:

Wait. Is this better?

An "atheist" is someone who denies the absurd notion that God exists.

have you checked a dictionary? oops they don't agree with his definitions either.

Which is exactly what happened with the invention of "agnostic" because someone was uncomfortable with being rightly called an atheist.

When atheists attack agnostics do they run into battle shouting "Diagnostics!!" ?

Dammit, I was in a bad mood - thanks for ruining it!

Contrary to what was posted earlier, the lack of belief is not the same as a belief against.

there are 3 states to opinion on everything, its not a binary thing.

you either believe the affirmative, believe the negative, or simply have no belief whatsoever.

Unfortunately, historically the term "atheist" is defined incorrectly. The way most people define/understand it, a more correct term would be "anti-theist".

Atheism is a lack of theistic belief, not a belief against theism, in just the same way that Asexuality is a lack of sexual identification or proclivity.

I do not believe that Atheism is the opposite of Theism, atheism IS, or *should* be the neutral territory.... if we're to use the "a" prefix correctly.

IMO Agnosticism is a form of Atheism, just as humanism may apply to agnostics or atheists or any combination therein.

In summary:

While it is possible, in fact likely, that atheists are also "anti-theists" (in other words militant atheists), that is not the sole colour in the spectrum.

I completely agree with that. The point I'm making is that the language itself is binary, not the belief or lack thereof.



Exactly. Why agnosticism bothers me is because much like the theist position it treats atheism as a binary. That's correct in terms of the word but in terms of practice it's a gross oversimplification. Atheists are more likely (in my experience) to hold almost exactly the same position as agnostics.



Again I agree completely. It's the opposite only in dialect.



Anti-theism isn't mutually exclusive to the neutral position. I'm "anti" to many dogmatic positions of theism and to most of the reasoning of it, but my reasons for being an atheist are quite unrelated, and are, in fact much the same as agnosticism. I am certainly not alone among atheists.

Thank you. I was beginning to think I was speaking martian or something.