Do you know that in science, if you are holding a glass over a cement slab and let it go, it would be incorrect to say with a 100% certainty that the glass will land on the cement slab? The best science can say is that we can predict (with incredible accuracy) that the glass will end up on the slab. But there is STILL a possibility of some other result. It's possible that an earthquake will cause the glass to land somewhere else. That gravity will be suspended somehow. That a sudden gust of wind will blow it into a wall. There is even some possibility that all the molecules in the cement will simultaneously shift from under the glass.

In science, it is NEVER correct to say anything with 100% certainty. You always leave room for some other possibility. That doesn't mean we don't trust science. We still get into airplanes and launch people into space. We trust what we've learned. But ever event is just another experiment that verifies a prediction.

Again, if you want to get into semantics fine. But it's perfectly reasonable for me to acknowledge a slim possibility for god, while not holding a belief that god exists. I am a non-believer, which is good enough to be called an atheist.

I am not sure I follow your point. I did not mean to imply that this forum had a definition of atheism that was unique and unknown elsewhere. I would say that there are some within this forum who appear to deny that there is an uncertainty or ambiguity in the term apart from a few theists.

There does seem to be a definition of the term that is acceptable to the self-identified atheists on the site. I honestly did not think I was applying that definition to them. What I was trying to do was just accept the definition.

Your joking, right? As someone else already pointed out, the pattern of adding a- to the beginning of a word to create a negation is very common. Typical for example, and atypical or moral and ammoral. Why is the negation of theist with atheist different?

This is barely coherent, but I'll try to interpret it. You claim that if the atheist acknowledges that there could be a God, then the atheist doesn't lack a belief in God, and thus is not an atheist by either of the stated criteria (absence of belief in God or belief that there is no God).

This is, however, false. This was part of the point of my even-numbered star example. Let me explain:

You do not believe that the number of stars is even. Another way of putting this is that you lack a belief that the number of stars is even. However, you acknowledge that the number of stars could be even. If this case is parallel to the your argument about atheism, then this would meant that you do believe that the number of stars is even or you don't know whether you believe that the number of stars is even. Since this is absurd (you clearly don't have that belief and do know that you lack such a belief), this implication must be false.

In fact, this seems apparent. I do not believe that the Mariners will win the World Series this year. However, I also believe that they could win the World Series this year. I do not believe that you are a woman. However, I also believe that you could be a woman. I can continue giving examples of this sort all night. The implication from the fact that x could be true to a belief that x is true is bad. Furthermore, the fact that x could be true is not a reason to believe that x is true. Therefore, if I do not believe that x is true, and you correctly point out that x could be true, you have not given me a reason to accept any beliefs about x being true at all.

Also this:
regarding conversational and logical implication is false. You have not shown any awareness of the distinction between the two.

I kind of doubt it. Most atheists know there are different meanings to atheism and it could mean you deny the possibility of God or just hold no belief in one.
But the thing is you cant just accept and have one definition of atheism and apply it to all anymore then i could just have one definition of Christianity and do the same. Some self identified atheists will inevitably not fit if you have a strict definition if the word.

Also im not trying to get on your case if you weren't trying to marginalize atheists on this site by saying you accept the term on this site, it just felt like thats what you were doing.

Belief and knowledge are 2 different things, so this statement of yours is incorrect.

I do not know your gender, but I believe that you are a man. I do not know how many WSOP events you have played in, but I believe the number is 0. I do not know that God exists, but I believe that He does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist).

Ah, but typical and atypical and moral and amoral are useful definitions.

Would you really go around calling people a-astrologists, a-numerologists, a-gremlinists, a-lochnessmonsterists, a-bigfootists, a-teapotists, a-toothfairyists, a-vampirists, a-withcraftists, a-voodooists, a-martianists, a-venutianists....

It's redundant and unnecessary. Unless you are the one making a claim or purporting to be something, it is not necessary to identify yourself. We can take it further...

I'm an a-boater, a-carpenter, a-physicist, a-dentist, a-bookkeeper, a-magician, a-flutist, a-artist, a-vollyballist, a-chefist, a-cementlayer, a-zookeeper, a-astronomer, a-chemist, a-homosexual, a-flowerist, a-photographer, a-farmer, a-ventriloquist, a-podiatrist...

It's absurd going around identifying everything you're NOT. Tell me, what aren't you?

"I'm some things. How about you?"

"No, I'm not those things."

I think it's useful. And my self-conversations are incredibly boring. Except to me.

Thats how i used to do things. But after a while of saying i dont believe in Jesus or the bible and being called an atheists i figured id just call myself one and save all the trouble. Plus i do fit the definition.

Makes perfect sense. So what are some of the things you didn't do today?

You missed my first line of my conversation.

I apologize if I misunderstood. I took it you meant that you're willing to say what you are and upon request, happy to divulge what you're not. And in the end, you find labels for what you're not useful.

I am also happy to mention upon request what I'm not. "What's your position on god?", I'm a non-believer. "What do you think of astrology?", I think it's a crock. But I think it's silly to have to label myself a non-believer in god and a non-believer in astrology at the outset. That's all I'm saying.

Some of the greatest minds of all time, past and present, who have accomplished far more intellectually than you or I ever will, believed in God. For that reason I have never liked arguments that condescendingly refer to believers as stupid.

this whole debate on the word "atheist" versus "agnostic" is ****ing stupid.

atheist == a-theist == non-theist == not a theist.

therefore if you reject theism in any way, you are an atheist. there are different kinds of atheism, since people can reject theism in different ways. positive and negative atheism, for example:

Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is at least one god" is a false statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false. source

agnosticism, the way people like gunth are trying to pin people down on in this thread, is essentially equivalent to negative atheism. either way, it is still atheism.

the end.

Obviously the word is useful. Thats why it exists. If it was not useful no one would have created it. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Bigfootist? Is that a word? If you Google it you get German language sites with "Bigfoot ist ..."

Isn't this kinda hard though? I mean if there's some random number of stars in the universe, there's a 50/50 chance of it being either odd or even.

So I can't say I don't believe it's even. It equally may or may not be. I just don't know. I don't believe it is, but I don't believe it isn't. Unsure would be the correct answer.

People who have worked on an airship might disagree with you there. The point is, it has multiple meanings. It can refer to an automobile, or it can refer to part of an airship.

Atheist can refer to the belief there are no gods, or it can refer to the lack of belief in gods.

I don't get why you're being stubborn about this. It's not like we care. If atheist really didn't mean that, we'd just stop using the word. It's not like we have some tie to the word "atheism".

I contend it is not a useful term. It's just a label. An unnecessary one at that. It was created because the majority of people on this earth believe in mythical sky gods. But majority should have nothing to do with it. If the majority of people thought astrology had merit, I'd feel the same about having to label myself a non-astrologist. I think you would too (assuming you don't also believe in astrology).

It is true that the fact that the majority of people on earth have come to some level of awareness of the existence of God is related to the existence of the term. It exists though because people have found it useful. Your contention is unfounded.

For that matter, what is the word for someone who believes in astrology? Astrologer and astrologist (the latter does not appear in many dictionaries) appears in dictionary entries to be a person who does astrology calculations. But someone who believes in astrology but does not know how to do the calculations is not labeled as far as I can tell.

But I would repeat, if you feel the word is not useful then don't use it and you will prove your point.

Yea but the belief otherwise is not absent.

And what does the dictionary call someone who doesn't believe in astrology? How can I prove my point any better than that?

I actually try and use it as little as possible. I think theists find it more useful than atheists. They use it as a derogatory term. He's an atheist?

Here's a link that pretty much describes the silliness of it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0

That's because believing in god, even as little as 100 years ago, was standard with what humans knew. Now, anyone who believes is borderline crazy/completely uneducated about the subject

Has God posted yet itt?

You have not proved anything unless you are claiming that the word theist is silly also.


You're argument would be more convincing if you had written the sentence without using theist once and atheist twice.

Why would theist be silly? That's who you need to identify. Maybe what I'm trying to say boils down to this...

The default assumption should be that there is no personal god. So we shouldn't need to identify those who don't believe. Only the ones who do. This is the way it's done in every other dogma from astrology to witchcraft. Again, I'm sure you don't feel a need to identify yourself as someone who doesn't believe in witchcraft. If you're in a roomful of people who do, it might be a good idea, but outside of that there's no reason for you to carry that label. That's all I'm trying to say.


Of course, I'm making a bigger deal of all this than I think it is. But there are so many different interpretations of what an atheist is, I think it's confusing and would be less confusing if it were just understood that you believe in something and I don't and left it at that.