What being an atheist means in practical terms

There is a day v night difference.
atheists accept the position of 'God does not exist' = valid = true
agnostics reject the position of 'God does not exist' = not valid = not true
and of course
agnostics reject the position of 'God does exist' = not valid = not true

 

Simply put, atheism is a very strict ideology that hates religion and Gods.

WTF, Buddhists believe in the God Buddha.
Scientologists believe, for example, aliens intervened in human development. I mean, alien intervention is the very definition of intervention by a God.

 

One can't see an atom and on can't ascertain the results of atom influences, for examples, so the atheist wouldn't/shouldn't (if the atheist is consistent) believe in the existence of atoms.

...But the atheist does believe in atoms. The atheist may also believe that too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe. The atheist may also believe in bigfoot...The atheist does believe in conspiracy theories. Just not the religion or God conspiracy theory. One thing which distinguishes all atheists is they disavow vehemently the existence of religion and Gods...It really isn't all that difficult.

 

Really?

 

I was a practicing Buddhist for years. I never met a Buddhist who believed that Buddha is God. The rest of your post is equally nonsensical.

 

No it's not a night and day difference. Agnosticism is just a brand of atheism.

 

I still don't understand what do you believe in Atoms means is Atoms like some God or something?

Not all of them do some atheists are agnostic.

All atheist means is you don't believe in God.

 

You have to exercise faith repeatedly to plant the seed, to water it, to nourish it, to weed around it and wait upon it. It doesn't happen on its own. The miracle is in its growth, along with our opportunity to participate in it. And the final reward is in its fruit.


If it isn't faith unto knowing, faith for faiths sake is pointless, fruitless, repetitious and vain, How can one be called to serve if one knows not whom one serves, and neither is known by ones lord and master in whose service one serves. The world is teeming with copycats who repeat the testimonies of Gods chosen servants, and then presume themselves the Lords speakers, conjuring up emotions like actors in a play. It is silly, really....and folly. If anything reduces the value of faith and God, it is this fruitless vanity.

At any rate, to say that science cannot prove or disprove God is to have never personally applied science by first exercising faith in the experiment. "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God." Luke 8:11

 

Buddhists see Buddha as an extraordinary man, but not a God. There is no need to believe in any God to be Buddhist. But there are supernatural aspects of the religion.

You equate aliens to Gods? If we visit another planet and find life there, does that make us Gods?

The above shows you really need to define your terms precisely.

 

Again, it depends entirely on how you choose to define the words. There is little to be gained in squabbling over wording.

There are people who aren't theists. Some call that the definition of atheist. And a common meaning of the word agnostic fits neatly into that as a subcategory.

There are also presumably atheists (though I have yet to meet one) who claim with certainty that there are and can be no Gods. Some call that the definition of atheist, so it would exclude agnostics.

Not a problem so long as we all know what is being said in any given case.

 

I always go with common parlance.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostics lack of belief in the existence of God therefore by definition they are atheist.

I would be willing to accept an esoteric definition if someone couldn't make it a valid argument for one.

These hair splitting distinctions I understand them but according to common parlance agnostics are by definition atheist because they lack belief in God that's what atheist means.

If someone believes in God they can't be agnostic.

So the only way you can show me someone is not atheist is by showing me that they believe in the existence of gods.

Does agnosticism include the belief in the existence of gods?

If not then they're atheist.

 

stanford explained why attempting to use flews opinion as a definition for atheism does not work. Thats why we turn to philosophy to sort the nonsense out since dictionaries merely report usage.

lack of belief is a fallacy when its attempted to be used as a negation for theist and likewise agnostic as was argued in my thread.

Words do make a difference!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ional-religion.564784/page-94#post-1073242612

 

I go by common parlance. Atheism means a lack of belief in the existence of gods agnostics lack the belief in existence of gods.

Vis-à-vis agnostics are atheist.

 

I team up with the universities, I prefer a more educated approach.

I was a little late posting the whole explanation so maybe you didnt see that.

Vis-à-vis agnostics are absolutely not atheist by any 'reasonably applicable' definition, any more than not going forward means you have to be going in reverse

 

that's fine that's your business.

But again common parlance of the word atheist includes agnostic you cannot argue with that it's absolutely true.

You can have some philosophical deeper discussion with people who care I simply don't. You haven't convinced me that I should it still seems like you're just splitting hairs.

maybe I didn't miss it tell me what post number it is and I'll go check it out.

I would consider common usage a reasonably applicable definition.

And the common usage of the word atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of gods.

So again the question is do agnostics believe in the existence of gods so yes or no question if the answer is no then There are atheist by the common definition.

You will never in a million years convince me of what I just said isn't true because it absolutely is. And any endeavor to attempt to do that will be foolish because I've already told you there's no winning in that scenario.

If you want to show me that the common usage of the word is inadequate that's fair, so far you haven't.

There is no neutral here you either believe in the existence of gods or you don't. If you're not sure and you're not going to make any overtures to profess a belief in the existence of gods then you don't.

 

Stanford did, yes I added it late, sorry.

I rarely if ever argue 'common parlance' when academic/judicial et al, official definitions exist because there is no answer better than another in common parlance.

If common parlance defines it as oogla-boogla-boo-boo its a total waste of time for me to argue its really wano-banno-beenie.

Im sorry but common parlance is **** that the more you stir the more it stinks, at least official definitions have an endpoint solution.

 

no you haven't.

If you did I would be agreeing with you in this exchange it wouldn't be happening.

I routinely operate in either layman's or professional circles so I have no need for academic language so I don't really value the definitions that academic endeavor must have if I'm not speaking academically and I'm not it doesn't matter.

If you want to communicate with people and be understood you have to use common parlance. If you refer to yourself as gay people are going to think you're homosexual even if you didn't mean that.

So you have to say that you are married or happy that's common parlance for you. If you refuse to do that you will be misunderstood and it will be entirely your fault.

If you were only one to speak academic definitions you need to find someone else to talk to because I will not it's just far too stupid and meaningless for me to give that much of a crap about to learn this academic special language you want to use.

 

Its all about context, common parlance is misapplying it, if that is your choice thats fine, the debate ends with me saying its a fallacy.

stanford is about the strongest source you can get to make the point, if you diss it out of hand and prefer a janitors common parlance there is no intelligent on point subject matter argument to be made, as stanford pointed out. With common parlance you may as well be arguing science using 'God said' as your source reference.

In fact you already defied your common parlance by applying your personal definition to agnostic rather than acknowledging the actual definition found in the dictionaries.

 

that is an assertion you have failed to support.

If you had a good argument for this you would actually change common parlance so get cracking what are you waiting for?

since it's you trying to make the argument for this it is your failure.

Make the case that it is a logical fallacy.

you keep referencing some guy named Sanford I don't know who that is and why should I trust him?

Why can't Sanford and all of his wisdom come up and make the case? I think you're appeal to Sanford and their authority is a logical fallacy.

I didn't apply a personal definition. Agnostics lack belief in the existence of God that's not my definition. Are you arguing that they do believe in the existence of gods? I would argue that that is a deist.

You can look in the dictionary and it gives you synonyms and antonyms. The synonyms for agnostic are the same as the synonyms for atheist the antonyms for agnostic are the same as antonyms for atheist.

There's a little more to agnosticism but it's still a version of atheism.

You can squawk at me about your friend Sanford or how wrong I am or how I didn't apply definitions I know better and those arguments all fall flat on their face.

I want to be convinced show me that agnostics believe in the existence of gods. That's the only way you show me that they are not atheists because atheist means lacks belief in the existence of gods.

 

Jesus was a 'man', too??

 

Anyone with superior knowledge to humans that aid humans can be (and should be) considered gods.

 

Newsflash; An agnostic isn't sure of the existence of God.

 

An atheist states they don't believe in God 'cause there's no evidence of God (this isn't true, BTW, that atheists don't believe in God 'cause there's no evidence of God).
Yet, an atheist believes that too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe where there is no evidence that too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change catastrophe. Atheists believe in the existence of atoms even though atoms can't be quantified.

 

So they lack belief in the existence of gods?

Or is it like a rotational belief they only believe in God on Tuesdays and Thursdays or the third Sunday of every month?

 

An agnostic readily agrees there is no evidence of God but refused to close the door on the existence God.

EDIT: If you wish for me to be snarky like your post I quoted, let me point out that atheists believe in conspiracy theories just not the conspiracy theory of the existence of God.