What being an atheist means in practical terms

so do agnostics.

That's your opinion and that's okay I just don't agree with it

Adams can be quantified. Adams are the elements of the periodic table. When they are compounds these elements can be extracted but the elements cannot be further broken down without some atomic change.

 

yeah atheist lacks belief in the existence of God there's nothing after that that's all it is.

I don't care. You may insult atheists to your heart's delight I don't take insults personally and further I'm not atheist.

 

Atheists believe in climate change catastrophe from too much CO2 in the atmosphere when there is no environmental scientific proof that too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe. Atheists believe in bigfoot. Atheists believe the Trump campaign worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. Atheists believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories just not the conspiracy theory of the existence of God.

 

I go with whatever the others in the conversation, or the person making the statement goes with. Isn't what matters the meaning of the conversation rather than the particular wording used? It would be like demanding no French be spoken, when two people who speak both French and English are talking.

The problem for me arises when my interlocutor equivocates between the meanings or contradicts themselves without admitting it (which you are not doing). So long as you give what you mean by the word and then use the word to convey a message and I understand what you mean, that's all good with me.

 

Ok, so Gods don't need to be "supernatural"? They don't have to be all powerful or all knowing, etc? They can just be super advanced civilizations with technology we don't understand?

That's certainly not the definition of God I expected.

So how about religion? Does religion have to be about Gods? Or can something like Taoism be a religion?

 

So?

 

Atheists aren't scientific. They're ideological.

 

Some atheists do, sure. Just as some people with brown eyes do. It has nothing to do with atheism.

 

I actually possess a mind of my own. So I don't ever just go with whatever anyone says. I've stated multiple times to the people making this argument I would be willing to be convinced nobody's willing to convince me they just assert

They're telling me atheist is a certain thing that I do not accept. They are demanding I accepted because it's what they believe. They aren't making a compelling argument or frankly any argument at all.

 

So?

 

Did you just lump all atheists into neat little boxes? Like theists, atheists are individuals. We no more think exactly the same as people that are the same race, color or creed, or people that work in the same field at the same level or anything else.

Where on Earth did you get that "information" or was it somewhere in the galaxy outside Earth?

 

Yes. He was. And most Christians revere him as God in the flesh. The same is not true of Buddhists.

 

well they refuse to take the atheist position because to do so would be a lie, and agnostic stands for absolute truth. Agnostics using any rational usage do not commit to any position but neither, else they are not agnostic. That is common parlance, hence they cannot be atheist.

 

the underlying point however is that to argue the validity of a position one must first understand correct context. These guys are using common parlance as the basis for their context so they can do a dumbed down end-run around the universities which stabbed their fallacious philosophy through the heart.

 

Koko's quotes are usually carefully selected to avoid any argument that contradicts his stance. He probably thinks that other posters are neither intelligent enough, nor patient enough to actually click on his links and read the text he didn't quote.

In this particular case, here's some of the text he didn't quote:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

You are correct, Koko is wrong.

The umbrella term used by scientists for atheists and agnostics is "non-believers".

 

I do understand the distinct difference between atheists that call themselves agnostic and atheists who don't.

 

wrong about what?

Dont you think its a good idea that if you want to stand on your soap box and proclaim someone is wrong to at least let us in on your secret and tell us what you think is wrong?
.

 

oh?

Whats that?

 

She clearly stated why you are wrong.

 

Nope sorry, no argument was made.
nice try at covering for her though.
she left, she needs some time to figure it out.

 

that distinction should be loads of fun though!

I popped some corn!

Probly the same one you use?

I know what it is too, its called sitting on the fence and hedging your bet out of fear God might exist and hear you claim atheist

 

Well, generally speaking, almost everything is wrong in your posts*.

My post refuted your assertion that the scholarly source you used rejects the meaning of the term "atheist" in common parlance (as used by many ordinary non-scholarly sources in daily life). Au contraire, it endorses it.

Following are links to the relevant posts:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ractical-terms.595820/page-21#post-1073281215
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ractical-terms.595820/page-21#post-1073281235

Please refrain from trying to get me stuck into a semantic he-said-she-said-nobody-said quagmire. I won't play.

* you asked for it

 

Philosophical Outlook. But they're all still atheists

 

You are wrong claiming koko is wrong LMAO

I never claimed common parlance was not legitimate, I claimed common parlance only states how its being used, hence its legitimate for a dictionary to print is as a definition because dictionaries print common parlance as definitions.

However when the 'everybody says it that way common parlance' is attempted to be used the way these guys are using it, its irrationally out of context because its not a form of atheism, its a form of belief.

 

You already responded to this post.