"duke" <duckgumbo32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:l9fpq3thpacr8ndvhnk147svp990u7riv2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:25:07 -0600, "The poster formerly known as
> Colleyville
> Alan" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"duke" <duckgumbo32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:8uloq3lhtpjipm4o3493q6mq0q3743juvr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>BTW **** for brains, an atheist is simply someone that does not
practice
>>>>any form of theism. There is no "wannabe" about it, you ****ing
moron.
>>>
>>> NO, an atheist is one that denies/rejects the existence of God. You
>>> have
>>> no
>>> sup****t for such a stupid idea other than your imagination. You have
>>> no
>>> sup****t for that foolishness.
>>
>>So you have decided to create your own definitions.
>
> No, you too can use an online dictionary.
>
>> There are people that
>>do not "reject the existence of God" but who simply do not believe in
God
>>as
>>they have been presented no convincing evidence.
>
> They're agnostics, not atheists.
> An atheist rejects, an agnostic is unsure.
No, a is the latin prefix for "not" so, for example, amoral means not
moral
which is a different concept than immoral. Likewise, atheist means not a
theist, i.e. not someone who believes.
>> At this newsgroup they go
>>by the term "atheist", i.e. not a theist.
>
> But, by the dictionary, an atheist rejects.
Depends upon the dictionary.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "godless, not believing in the existence of
gods) 1a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the
doctrine
Wester's 20th Century Dictionary, 1933
atheism [Fr. atheisme, from Gr. atheos, without a god: a, priv. and theos,
god] The disbelief of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent
being.
atheist One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent
being.
These definitions draw more of a distinction between disbelief and
unbelief,
rendering disbelief as a positive rejection rather than a broader absence
of
belief. Despite this, the distinction isn't as sharp as it initially
appears. First, unbelief is still given as a synonym for disbelief (and
the
reverse is true). Second, one definition of unbelief is "In Scripture,
disbelief of the truth of the gospel." In religion, at least, the two may
have been close; today, the difference practically nil - we hardly ever
hear
"unbelief," just disbelief, which covers both.
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001.
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
disbelief: 1. lack of belief 2. astonishment
Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Gordon Stein.
If theism is the belief in the existence of God, then a-theism ought to
mean
"not theism" or "without theism." Actually, there is no notion of "denial"
in the origin of the word, and the atheist who denies the existence of God
is by far the rarest type of atheist - if he exists at all. Rather, the
word
atheism means to an atheist "lack of belief in the existence of a God or
gods." An atheist is one who does not have a belief in God, or who is
without a belief in God. The im****tance of these distinctions is that one
cannot understand what one cannot define accurately. An atheist cannot
deny
the existence of that which he finds to be without meaning, namely the
term
God.
>>Since you have redefined the term
>>atheist, what term do you use for those who do not believe in God and do
>>not
>>believe that the evidence that theists present is sufficient to convice
>>them
>>otherwise?
>
> Agnostics
Really? Someone who does not believe in God and thinks that the evidence
they have seen is completely inadequate to substantiate such a belief is
the
same as someone who says I cannot tell one way or the other?
>> Oh, and please no insults in reply to this; an answer like "I
>>call them idiots" is not a real answer.
>
> No problem.
>
>>Please be reminded that looking at evidence and saying that it is not
>>convincing is quite different than accepting convincing evidence and
then
>>saying "I choose not to believe".
>
> Huh? Who looks at convincing evidence and chooses "not to believe"?
Nobody that I know, but it is a claim that theists often make towards
atheists, that we are simply ignoring "mountains of evidence". BTW, I was
raised in Catholic schools and was an altar boy so I do know the tall
tales
of the Christians and the supposed evidence as taught by the Baltimore
Catechism, as well as more sophisticated attempts at proving that a
supernatural ghost created and runs the universe. I also know how to tell
God how unworthy I am in Latin; a skill which is not in great demand at
the
present.
> A theist accepts the evidence/an agnostic is unsure of the evidence/an
atheist
> rejects the evidence. All have the same evidence.
>
> An atheist goes into the game with no sup****tive evidence for his
> rejection.
Since you cannot prove a negative, why would you have "sup****tive
evidence"
for not believing that the evidence is adequate? I imagine that you do
not
believe in Thor, Loki, Hermes, Ra, or any of a number of gods whose
existence was believed by ancient man. Do you "go into the game with
sup****tive evidence" for your "rejection" of these gods?
|
