I actually agree with this. I'm a huge proponent of religion and science in their purest and intended forms. But I have no tolerance for those who chose to use them as tools for manipulation or ridicule.
Anyone who acts like they know for sure God exists or anyone who acts like they know for sure God does not exist is a douchebag either way.
Trust me when I tell you I'm not remotely interested in arguing with you...and frankly, if I weren't waiting for opposing counsel to call me with a settlement counter-offer I wouldn't be in this thread, as I've tried to avoid these little "debates" for quite a while now on this board... but your definition of atheism is my understanding of agnosticism. I could absolutely be wrong...but what you're calling atheism, I call agnosticism, and I think a lot of people do...or at least others I know who call themselves agnostic. My understanding is that there is: theism -- positive assertion of faith in a god or gods... agnosticism -- neutral assertion..."I don't know...I'm not sure.." atheism -- assertion that there is no god Not asking for sake of argument...but for sake of understanding..and sharing my view.
I understand, thank you. The 2 terms are not mutually exclusive, Ive included a chart citing the relations of agnosticism and atheism.
Linguistically you are correct since "a" is used as a prefix meaning not or without, so "atheism" can be defined as "without God".
Ok, thanks. I have friends who claim to be agnostic who are adamant that they are not atheists. I think there are people who post here who feel the same way.
Max, this settlement wouldn't have any relationship with Prosperity Bank would it? Crazy coincidence if so....
Ha! No, it wouldn't. I've represented banks in my career, but never Prosperity. That would be hiliarous, though.
Yeah, my attorney is waiting on a settlement offer from the prosperity bank attorney as we speak for a relatives estate. lol
The rest of your statement is heavily biased, you call it ignorance to not choose a side? I call it be true to yourself, why would anyone pretend that they know without having solid evidences to back it up? Oh yea, its called faith. That's why I did not want to respond to that because it's pointless. Faith in non-existence? Did you mean one claims that there is no God/GODS? Am I interpreting it right? Then yes, if anyone make that assertion, then its faith based because there's no way of knowing it for sure.
Yeah it just all depends. If theism means "belief in a God" then atheism can mean "non-belief in a God." Non-belief meaning simply still awaiting proof; non-belief does not mean a belief in the opposite of the original belief.* So I think what Akim is saying could be correct. But then if you use the root word atheos, which literally meant no God, then he would be mistaken. I think. *What?
Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information: "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures". So yes I do call it ignorance, because that's what it is. A lack of knowledge, which ALL people have. Just like I said in my post. You're arguing with the wrong person here, becuase there isn't one to be had with what I said. Other then the Respect part.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Agnostics tend to focus on what they dont know and atheists tend to focus on what they do know. If I had to categorise myself then Im an agnostic atheist. Btw congratz on your new real estate purchase.:grin:
Yeah, I'm less concerned with breaking down the word objectively than I am understanding subjectively what someone means when they actually use it in a sentence. An agnostic (as I define it) is still an agnostic (as I define it) by any other name.
Context. Lack of knowledge or information of what? Unproven superstitious claims? That would make all 3 cases ignorance.
