Every single able minded human ever has been deluded in some way, to some degree.
And I thought that we are talking about belief. Belief strongly depends on probability of something (not the mathematical one). For example, if I wasn’t asking about the weather in Moscow, but asked about the weather on Sahara instead, then belief that there won’t be raining in two weeks from now wouldn’t be something surprising.
Our misunderstanding comes from different understanding of the term “Atheism”. You treat Atheism as a logical negation of Theism, so if a Theist is a person who accept God’s existence as true, then an Atheist would be someone who doesn’t accept God’s existence as true. This is not the same as accepting God’s non-existence as true, i.e. denying God’s existence, which is my definition of Atheism.
For me an Agnostic is a person who doesn’t believe that God exists AND also doesn’t believe that God does not exist. This may seam contradictory, but if you replace “believe that God exists” with “believe that in Moscow it will be raining” then is starts making perfect sense (at least it does for me).
I’m sorry, but your definition of atheism is just wrong. An atheist is someone who doesn’t accept God’s existence as true.
I’m sure that’s the definition as most theists use it, but their definition is also wrong. Every atheist I talk to do not ascribe to your definition.
Your definition of agnostic is ALSO wrong. An agnostic is someone who says that there’s no enough evidence either way to know for sure if God exists or not. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief.
Your analogy with rain in Moscow 2 weeks from now is also flawed. “Do you believe God exists?” is not equivalent to “Do you believe that it’ll rain in Moscow 2 weeks from now?”.
“Do you believe God exists?” is equivalent to “Do you believe in rain?”.
Definitions of atheist on the Web:
someone who denies the existence of god
related to or characterized by or given to atheism; “atheist leanings”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Versus the definition of agnosticism:
“agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence”
The problem here is that the dictionary uses definitions for terms as people at large use them. It’s quite possible for dictionaries to correctly use wrong definitions for words if enough people use a wrong definition.
Atheists use the term “atheism” to define a lack of belief. When talking with atheists about atheism, it is proper to use THAT definition. Otherwise, we’re going to be arguing semantics until the cows come home.
Surely a word means what the majority of people think it means?
Well, yes and no. It might mean that to the majority of people but when talking to atheists, you need to use their definition.
If I were to use Seba’s definition, then I’m not an atheist. I’m not even sure what I’d be.
Agnostic means lack of knowledge.
Atheist means lack of belief.
I don’t know and I don’t believe.
I’m an agnostic atheist.
I’m not sure why this is so hard…?
Well, I’m an atheist, and I would take atheism to mean disbelief, i.e. believing that there is no god. Then again, English is not my native language.
I do agree that you can be an agnostic atheist.
It’s not hard, we just have a difference of opinion, let’s leave it at that.
That’s the other thing that is a pet peeve of mine. Disbelieving in a god does not mean believing there’s no god.
If I’m not driving a car, that does not mean that I’m driving no car. It just means that I’m not driving a car.
Believing that a god doesn’t exist is some sort of weird gnostic atheism in my book.
Not if the majority is wrong.
If enough people think it’s right, it becomes right. That’s how language works.
Regardless of how I said it previously, I meant I thought of atheism as believing there’s no god.
Regardless of how many people think rape or torture is fun, it doesn’t make it right. Ever.
morality != language
Language = wrong, then.
:facepalm:
Here’s the way I see it: If we can’t agree on definitions for words, then we might as well not communicate at all. We use words to express thoughts. Without mutually agreed-upon meanings for words, a word is simply a collection of squiggly lines. If we can’t agree on definitions for words, then table beach alpha mustard foaming, monitor in flight incredible twelve. Words without meaning are gibberish.
If the majority of people started calling felis catus a “table”, that doesn’t turn my cat into something you eat off of during dinner. I’m not going to put a plate of food on my cat, no matter how many people claim he’s a table.
Alright, I’ll use it with your definition in this thread from now on, mkay?
Sorry. I just don’t know what I’d be in other people’s definitions. If an atheist is defined as someone who believes that God doesn’t exist, then I’m not an atheist; I don’t know what I would be.
But that is what an atheist is…
Sorry, but it plainly isn’t. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god/gods (not a theist/deist). It’d be wrong for me to say “I believe there’s no god”, because I don’t. I just don’t believe in a god.
What would that make me? I want to use terminology other people use so that they can understand what I’m talking about.