So?

"the part of an airship or balloon that carries the passengers and cargo"

By this definition, you do not drive a car, correct?

All this 'considered by most people' fol-de-rol is new, and as such will be disregarded. Maybe you're just the latest in a line-up of people ITT who have trouble with 'OK, I was wrong.'

Yes. No.

No, i believe there could be an even number of stars. Also i believe there could be an odd number of stars. But for me to believe that there isn't an even number or that there isn't an odd number, is not something i should be believing in since i just do not know.

You are obviously a smart guy. I can't believe you are lowering yourself to continue with this ridiculous line of questioning, which is not relevant to this discussion.

This is a definition issue. You & AIF, evidently, think "atheism" is an "absence of belief" when I, and most people on the planet, imo, think it's "The belief that there are no gods."

Whatever, this is getting stupid.

Lets say you have never seen your roommate take his/her shoes off before. Do you believe if you asked that person if they took their right shoe off first when they walked in the door, they would say yes?

But this is not the accepted definition. You are being disingenuous again. The only definition that matters is the one that is commonly accepted.


You are the one who is wrong. You're cherry picking an unused and unaccepted definition of a word you want to associate with yourself. This is just terrible.

Exactly atheism is the absence of belief that there is no god. If they believe that there could be a God, then they are not atheist, since the belief that God exists, is not absent. Good game, you can go catch your flight now AIF.

Why should you be allowed to have a different definition of Christianity from the majority of what Christians think if you wont allow the same privilege to atheists. The majority of Christians dont see some sects of Christians as Christians so if you're going by majority rules (as you do with atheists) you shouldn't either.

I agree. You should not believe that there is an even number of stars. You should not believe that there is not an even number of stars. That is why I have been trying to get you to acknowledge that in fact you don't believe that there is an even number of stars, just like you also don't believe that there is not an even number of stars.

In other words, there is an important logical difference between saying:

1. I believe that there is not an even number of stars.

and saying

2. I do not believe that there is an even number of stars.

(1) asserts that you do believe something about how many stars there are. (2) only says that you do not believe something about how many stars there are. Now, you might say (2) because in fact you believe that there is an odd number of stars. Maybe sometime in the future we'll count them all and find out there there is an odd number of stars. The star-counter can then justifiably also say (2). However, you might say (2) right now if you do not have any belief about how many stars there are. By saying that you do not believe that there is an even number of stars, you are not thereby logically implying that you do believe that there is an odd number of stars. You might just have no belief at all.

Are we good?

I am establishing that the same word can have different definitions. The concept seemed to be giving you trouble. Glad I could help.

NO U

So, I am an atheist. You're prepared to accept that now. Awesome. My work here is done.

I admit, in this case, that my definition of "Christianity" differs from most.

If you are willing to say that your definition of "atheism" is not the same that most hold, that would be acceptable to me. It would bring up the question of why you are choosing your definition instead of the accepted one, especially to describe yourself, but it would be acceptable.

No, you are agnostic. I AM prepared to accept that you think you are an atheist, though. I think that is the default self-definition for most pseudo-intellectuals these days.

Please define 'agnostic'.

Edit: LOL @ UGC 'dictionary'.

You are wrong in my view. I think this is a logical issue, not a definitional one. That is, I think you actually use the same definition as AIF and I. You just haven't thought through the logical implications of that definition. That is, I think nearly everyone will agree with me and AIF that if you don't believe that there is a God then you are an atheist. However, if that is true, then all that is required to be an atheist is that you lack a belief in God for basically parallel reasons to my example of not believing that there is an even number of stars.

I really think you should just agree with us. Seriously, acknowledging that you are wrong every now and then does wonders for your credibility. And since this issue doesn't affect your own beliefs in any important way--but is mainly a matter of self-understanding for atheists, it is a low cost time to do it.

No ****? Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, why not stick with the commonly accepted definition?

The best and most ironic thing about this discussion is some believers dont agree lack of belief is atheism but i cant count how many times before i called myself an atheists me saying i lacked belief in God resulted in me being accused of being an atheists.

Seriously. If there was a pole taken asking believers what they would call someone who doesn't have a belief in God i would bet good money they would call them atheists. GG Christians.

Actually i wouldn't agree. Most atheists dont hold to your definition. And most theists, in my experience, when i say i lack belief call me atheists.

Because the alternative you provide ('agnostic') does not completely describe my position. I am an agnostic, but, as has been explained, 'agnosticism' speaks to knowledge. 'Atheism' does not speak to knowledge, but to belief. It is possible to believe that there is a god, but not to claim knowledge. Ask Jib about 'Necessary Epistemic Distance', or google it.

Consider this. Most people use 'ironic' where I would use 'co-incidental'. People using 'ironic' in this way are neither referring to 'irony' as the dictionary defines it, nor as I understand it. Am I wrong to continue using 'ironic' to describe situations where I perceive an irony? After all, the 'commonly accepted definition' of 'irony' clearly looks something like 'a synonym for co-incidental'. So by your reasoning I should only use 'ironic' in that sense, right?

Sigh. This is tedious. If I thought I was wrong, I would say so. I do not use the same definition as you & AIF. I have stated at least 3 times now which definition I use. By THAT definition, neither of you are atheists.

OK. That's good enough for me. I give up. I still think you're wrong, but I can see that you aren't going to agree with me either.

AIF, sorry I got a bit hostile. It's not typical for me and I can see you're obviously a smart and passionate guy, too. Good night, gentlemen.

Actually you are being called agnostic in this thread.

Not to most Christians and believers outside of this forum, which was the point.


I just want to add your not asking why we hold to a view most dont hold. Which would be fine even though its wrong because most atheists dont hold the view there is no God. Your saying we cant call ourselves atheists and we're agnostics. There is no room to get to your question of why we call ourselves what we do.

Actually I think I made a valid point. You have asked: "Do you believe there are an even number of stars". You have argued that if he has no information about the total he should answer "No, I do not believe there are an even number of stars." I think that is open to misunderstanding. I used the following example:

You ask me: Do you believe it is going to rain tomorrow?" If I have no information at all, should I say:

A. I do not believe it is going to rain tomorrow, or

B. I have no idea whether it is going to rain or not.

Yeah. The false assumption that you are making is that you understand the definition of the words you use. I mean, on one level you do understand them, otherwise you couldn't use them. But on another, you might not. You'll notice this if you try to explain the meaning of a word to someone who is not familiar with it. You might know the meaning, but not be able to say what the meaning is. That is my claim. That you "know" what the meaning of "atheist" is, but when you try to explain it to people (like you are here), your explanation is incorrect. I have shown this by demonstrating that your explanation of the meaning of "atheist" is logically inconsistent.

You don't get to decide what the word means. The prefix "a-" means "not-". It is that simple; it is just a negation of the following word. An asexual organism is a not-sexual organism, an atypical situation is a not-typical situation, and an atheist is a not-theist, i.e. someone who is not a believer in god. The end.

The distinction between agnostics and atheists is a false one. If someone says, "I don't believe in god, but I'm open to the possibility, and if shown proof, I'll believe", they are an atheist. If they say, "I don't know, I'm withholding judgment about the existence of god", they are an atheist.

Some might prefer to call themselves agnostics because they don't want to be associated with the stigma of the word "atheist" in certain circles, or they don't want to offend the theists, or they want to sound open-minded, and that's fine. But anyone who does not believe in god at this moment is by definition an atheist.

Here's the definition of religion:

What people (anywhere from crazies to very smart people) believed 2000+ years ago when we lacked tons of information that we have today (earth isn't flat, 100 billion solar systems and 100 billion galaxies, we aren't special at all, etc.)

Think about it logically, people have been like WTF how the **** did we get here since humans can think. People like to know the answers to things. There are crazies in the world. People like having power. It's not too complicated to see how religion came about.

Guess what reres, no one knows that answer to that. The best way to explain it is "variance." Variance explains everything pretty damn well. "God" on the other hands, is an explanation people used 2000+ years ago, when we didn't know what we do today. "God" creating us brings upon more questions and things that don't make sense than "Variance creating us" does.