are you atheist or believer

Ah, finally someone willing to discuss the topic with quotes other than his own.

From your quote:

And from the dictionary:

If an Atheist believes that no deity exists, and an agnostic believes that the existence of God is unknown, those to belief systems naturally conflict. One claims to know, one claims the answer is unknown. If the two belief systems were in fact the same, we would frankly have no need for the second word.

 

You're avoiding the rest of what was discussed above, though. As your excised portion above states, "Most of the American public defines"...which is an argument to popular usage; you then drop that and ask for a dictionary definition, and and were provided with one - which includes the definition as "an absence of belief in deity," as I've also long said. The American Heritage dictionary includes:

Hence, even relying on AHD (which can be more "common usage" oriented than the OED, which has tended to be more prescriptive), the meaning is clear - that it includes the notion of an absence of belief in deity.

Which makes sense, since it's etymology, as stated, is precisely that - the greek a- (without), and theos (I only read in the Homeric dialect, but suspect it's the same in all attic Greek, θεος).

Bottom line, who cares? I'm comfortable calling myself an atheist, because I do not have a belief in deity.

 

either you masturbate or not

 

aturbation. From the greek, a-, without, and -turbation, the act of turbating.

 

I'm Atheist i dont believe there is no god... I KNOW there isnt! otherwise things would have gone more right in life if you really thought someone was guiding you.

i believe what happens, happens, and theres nothing you can do about it.

B.

 

Actually, I'm not.

From your ODP:

You can dig back to the greek to more narrowly define the word, but in the expressed current understanding of the word via common knowledge or the ODP, it has a serious conflict with the belief system known as Agnostic, and there is simply no denying that.

On this point I can agree with you. I spend the time to argue with stOx, because this particular subject epitomizes how he forms his arguments. He works diligently at narrowly defining, or redefining things in such a way so as to support his hate based allegations. I doubt anyone who has read any of the threads here would say I share beliefs with stOx, yet he tries to define things in such a way as to arrogantly claim my belief system is a subset of his. Time and again, his flawed arguments are refuted and he retreats to nuance and tries to declare victory. Ironically, it must be quite a bit like arguing with a chimp.

You mentioned he is a Brit, and I think that explains a lot. It seems the UK is struggling to get their arms around the whole issue of religious fanaticism, specifically radical Islam. Since the bombing of the train station, and the discovery of a number of hotbeds and breeding grounds of terrorist culture, it seems the UK has been searching for answers, including denial of entry to those having views some would controversial. I imagine the attack of all things religious is a natural sequitur. Hey, I understand. Every front line has to have it's starry eyed believers/mindless drones to send out as cannon fodder.

 

I say "you're avoiding the rest," because you didn't originally include the ODP definition in your reply.

But now that you do, I'm puzzled. Does not the ODP definition - a lack of belief - precisely square with what we've been saying, which is, well, a lack of belief? Wasn't this the sticking point for you regarding atheism?

Actually, I include the greek etymology precisely because it doesn't narrowly define the word, quite the opposite of what you have said. The proper definition is unchanged - despite whatever is in current, popular use. And again, whether relying on the Oxford Dictionary or the American Heritage Dictionary, the dictionary meaning includes the notion of a lack of belief in deity.

Maybe it's picayune, and you find it irksome, but on point of fact, sorry, man - Stox is right here, and I share the idea, as I've called myself atheist for some time, having no belief in deity.

 

Sorry,I provided the whole quote from the OED, from which you had quoted only the first bit. I will provide the quote again, including the latter half you omitted. I will bold the portion which conflicts with your assertion.

Again, I absolutely do not believe there is not a god, nor does any other agnostic, by definition of the word. Shall we then narrow the current meaning of the word (as defined by the OED, or any other dictionary) to suit stOx's argument? It is what will be required to substantiate his claims. Unfortunately, your other quotes from common understanding clearly would put that type of definition in the minority position.

 

But you do lack the belief that a god exists. Which makes you atheist.

 

Firstly, I didn't quote the OED, I quoted the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, as well as the American Heritage Dictionary, both of which define an atheist to include someone who lacks a belief in deity.

Secondly, Holy cow, man - you do understand that "or" means that either term on either side of the conjunction suffices, right? In other words, in the phrase, "he is a man or a mouse," it means the dude in question can be either (a man) or (a mouse), right?

And in the sentence,

Atheism would include EITHER a lack of belief in a god, OR a belief that there is none?

Give it up, man - stick with the attempt at mocking Obama, his supporters, his views, etc. An atheist very definitely includes folks who simply lack a belief in deity.

 

Agnostic Jew

 

Your frustration is showing. I can only imagine Sisyphus had similar frustration.

So to summarize your position, you acknowledge that agnostics have a belief system that directly conflicts with the beliefs of atheists as defined by half of the "Or" you pointed out(the half more commonly accepted as the definition of Atheists today by your own quote), and have a belief system that is not mutually exclusive, however not defining with the other half of that "or". And based on that, you define the two as being equal. I get it.

/Steps slowly away from the zealot.

Its ok man, I wasn't trying to step on your faith by pointing out that even though the color white (in the sense of light) is the presence of every color including blue, the color blue is not the color white, nor is the color blue the color white. But feel free to go with whatever belief system does the trick for you. And regarding Obama, I voted for the man. How can one argue with that?

 

Sisyphus has nothing on this corner of the universe, which is why I rarely post here any longer, to be honest. "Politics and Religion" should be termed "drink molten iron for pleasure," except the former can be damned addictive.

Perhaps I've missed something? I had thought the whole bone of contention here, Obamanation, is that you dismissed an atheist defining himself as "atheist" if he simply lacks belief in deity?

I ask, because to...

-which is correct. To that, you replied with....

Can I help clear this up?

A person who lacks belief in deity is an atheist, literally, "a-theos," without belief in god(s).

As well, a person with a religious statement of belief - stating, without proof, that there is definitively no deity - this person is defined as an atheist.

An agnostic is defined as someone who states no certainty of the belief or disbelief in deity.

To have no certainty in something is to lack belief in that something. It's also to lack disbelief in that something.

The overlap - the logical intersection - between "atheist" and "agnostic" is precisely in the realm of disbelief - both an agnostic and atheist do not have a belief in deity.

Can we all hug, now?

 

Definition of Agnostic : an atheist without balls.

The whole concept of god is so stupid and so human-selfish it's ridiculous. OF COURSE there can be so many things out there that we don't don't understand or are outside our scope, so am I an agnostic? I'm an athetist because I say that ALL gods described by humans are pure bullshit, no exception. And if there's something out there, probably is, given we give no definition of what this things can be, then so be it, but for sure there's absolutely not an ounce of truth in the stupid religions we know.

 

As a liberal, I'm always up for hugs!

Actually, the quote you posted is one from stOx, who has been posting that same quote over and over again in an effort to drive home the idea that Agnostics are in fact Atheists. It seems he feels this will strengthen his argument in hatred of religion by somehow or other associating more people with it.

There you go using the less commonly accepted definition of atheism again. How is that going to clear anything up? Did you even read my last post?

 

I do believe in God and He is only one in this universe, called in different language but just one.

 

Obamanation, you're attempt at mockery of the liberal view was sorta' seen about a millisecond after your first posting. But by all means, do keep playing.

Hmm. Was this not dealt with? You did ask me if I actually read, something to that effect?

Hmm....why yes I did, indeed, read your last post. Would you prefer that I just post what I know to be untrue, in order to make you feel better, or something? My understanding pretty much squares with the English language, which is the language I use. Or,

And so on, and so forth.

 

Gotcha. At some point, it seems you and stOx need to resort to quoting yourself, because your quotes from the ODP and other sources fail to back your claims. Its ok, I understand. To acknowledge the commonly accepted definition of an atheist today is that of a person who believes god does not exist, and to acknowledge that an agnostic does not believe god does not exist, would make it impossible for the two to coincide. If the two don't coincide, your fragile factless based belief system could crumble, and I'm just not that type of guy. Per your request, I'll give up the ghost. Can I offer you a hug instead?

 

Well, geez, my conservative colleague, you seem kerfluffled. if dictionary definitions trouble you, perhaps you shouldn't be demanding we use them?

I believe Stox and I are in agreement, that an atheist is someone with a lack of belief in a deity. As well, an atheist is someone who denies the existence of god. Not sure which one you'd like us to shoo under the carpet, but after demanding we use the dictionary, you reject those definitions?

What, exactly, would make you happy here? That you're agreed with, even if wrong? Did you really believe that simply saying "the dictionary doesn't support your views" would mean much, when it precisely does, and can easily be seen, by reference to most common (and not so common) dictionaries?

Sorry, man, but that doesn't make any sense.

 

I rejected neither definition. From my post earlier:

In small words, the more commonly accepted definition of an atheist, from your dictionary quote, is a person who denies the existence of god. Agnostics claim nobody can currently know if god exists. Those two are by definition mutually exclusive. Agree or disagree?

The other definition of an Atheist, and the one you and stOx keep emphasizing, is that of a person without belief in a diety. As I pointed out, that definition neither excludes, nor defines the complete beliefs of agnostics, yet you and stOx keep asserting that this definition makes all Agnostics Atheists. Would you equate the color white to the color blue as well?

Since I doubt you are going to back down on your insistence in equating the two, why don't you address the apparent paradox between the other more accepted definition of an Atheist and what Agnostics believe. You certainly wouldn't be trying to "sweep that definition under the carpet" like so many other rabid evangelistic Atheists, would you?