07 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyNeither.
Which is better?
Both names are convenient to theists because both describe a viewpoint negatively in relation to Theism. A-the-ism even has the word "The" in it 🙄
http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#13
Is Richard Dawkins more positive outlook/restructuring....
07 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyIt depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better".
Which is better?
I am currently reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (due to frequent references to it on this site), and he makes a fairly good argument that some forms of agnosticism are irrational positions to hold.
For example the claim "we cannot know if God exists" is irrational, whereas the claim "I currently do not know" is not so bad. Also the claim "there is a 50/50 chance that God exists" is total nonsense.
07 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd herein lies the problem for atheists.
It depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better"
A form of language has to be found, free of all overt and subtle references to God and the supernatural, for example "Creation", "OMG" and other blasphemous terms, and yes, Atheist, as it must be the contention that God exists only in language.
With a groundswell and a redefined language of reality the "g-word" can truly come to have no meaning.
Whether, with such language, it will be possible to debate on this forum prior to that is moot. After it would be unnecessary...
07 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Sepia TintThis I would agree with. It seems those who reject his existence have no problem in blaspheming his name by saying "OMG". This should stop but I know it never will. There is a reason people say it whether they know what that reason is or not.
[b]And herein lies the problem for atheists.
A form of language has to be found, free of all overt and subtle references to God and the supernatural, for example "Creation", "OMG" and other blasphemous terms, and yes, Atheist, as it must be the contention that God exists only in language.
Instead I began saying "OMD", or "Oh my Dawkins", but it just didn't seem to have the same desired effect. 😛
07 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy definition of an atheist is someone who thinks they are 100% sure that God does not exist. Conversly, an agnostic is not 100% sure.
It depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better".
I am currently reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (due to frequent references to it on this site), and he makes a fairly good argument that some forms of agnosticism are irrational positions to hold.
For example the claim "we cannot know if God exists" is o bad. Also the claim "there is a 50/50 chance that God exists" is total nonsense.
07 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe people I know who use phrases like OMG regularly are not intentionally blaspheming. In fact most of them are Christian.
This I would agree with. It seems those who reject his existence have no problem in blaspheming his name by saying "OMG". This should stop but I know it never will. There is a reason people say it whether they know what that reason is or not.
Instead I began saying "OMD", or "Oh my Dawkins", but it just didn't seem to have the same desired effect. 😛
I remember someone on 'the amazing race' (a Christian) who couldn't seem to stop saying it.
I think that many people who use it have simply got so used to it that they have forgotten the meaning of the words or at least do not think about it when saying them (as with most swearwords and other exclamations).
Who am I blaspheming when I say 'oopsie-daisy'?
07 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI am 99.999999% +/- 0.000001% sure as would be a lot of people who call themselves atheist as I do, including Richard Dawkins. Essentially I am sure enough that I ignore the minute chance that God exist just as I ignore the equally minute chance that pink unicorns exist.
My definition of an atheist is someone who thinks they are 100% sure that God does not exist. Conversly, an agnostic is not 100% sure.
To me an agnostic is someone who is more than a bit open to the possibility that God exists and essentially is still considering the matter or has decided that they can never know the answer.
[edit]
Actually I am quite a lot surer than I implied. Try a few hundred decimal places. I would bet my life that pink unicorns and God do not exist.
07 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSaying the Lords name in vain is just that, it is saying it just to say it without reverence. Therefore, if you say it without cause just to hear yourself say it you are using his name in vain. Conversly, the term oopsie-daisy has no reference to God.
The people I know who use phrases like OMG regularly are not intentionally blaspheming. In fact most of them are Christian.
I remember someone on 'the amazing race' (a Christian) who couldn't seem to stop saying it.
I think that many people who use it have simply got so used to it that they have forgotten the meaning of the words or at least do not thin ...[text shortened]... most swearwords and other exclamations).
Who am I blaspheming when I say 'oopsie-daisy'?
As for 'Christians" who do it, does it make it right if they do?
07 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen by my definition there are no true atheists?
I am 99.999999% +/- 0.000001% sure as would be a lot of people who call themselves atheist as I do, including Richard Dawkins. Essentially I am sure enough that I ignore the minute chance that God exist just as I ignore the equally minute chance that pink unicorns exist.
To me an agnostic is someone who is more than a bit open to the possibility that God ...[text shortened]... . Try a few hundred decimal places. I would bet my life that pink unicorns and God do not exist.
07 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyI agree, but I still maintain that that is not the intention of most people who use the phrase.
Saying the Lords name in vain is just that, it is saying it just to say it without reverence.
As for 'Christians" who do it, does it make it right if they do?
No it doesn't, but it does highlight what I am saying - if they thought they were blaspheming they would surely stop.
07 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think most atheist understand that that the non-existance of god (or any other magical creature) can never be absolutely and rigorously proven and therefore there must be an infinitesimal possibility that pink unicorns and God do exist. However, we attribute equal probability to the existance of both beings and effectively dismiss the possibility as being not worth our attention.
I am 99.999999% +/- 0.000001% sure as would be a lot of people who call themselves atheist as I do, including Richard Dawkins. Essentially I am sure enough that I ignore the minute chance that God exist just as I ignore the equally minute chance that pink unicorns exist.
To me an agnostic is someone who is more than a bit open to the possibility that God ...[text shortened]... . Try a few hundred decimal places. I would bet my life that pink unicorns and God do not exist.
--- Penguin.