1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Sep '07 10:41
    Which is better?
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    11 Feb '07
    Moves
    10118
    07 Sep '07 10:59
    Originally posted by whodey
    Which is better?
    Neither.

    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....
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Sep '07 11:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    Which is better?
    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 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.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    11 Feb '07
    Moves
    10118
    07 Sep '07 11:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better"
    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.

    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...
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Sep '07 11:373 edits
    Originally posted by Sepia Tint
    [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.
    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. 😛
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    11 Feb '07
    Moves
    10118
    07 Sep '07 11:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    Instead I began saying "OMD", or "Oh my Dawkins", but it just didn't seem to have the same desired effect. 😛
    Oh my 😉
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Sep '07 11:521 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    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.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Sep '07 12:04
    Originally posted by whodey
    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. 😛
    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 think about it when saying them (as with most swearwords and other exclamations).

    Who am I blaspheming when I say 'oopsie-daisy'?
  9. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    07 Sep '07 12:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    Which is better?
    Divide and conquer, eh? 🙂
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Sep '07 12:091 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    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.
    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 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.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Sep '07 12:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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'?
    Saying 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.

    As for 'Christians" who do it, does it make it right if they do?
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Sep '07 12:29
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Divide and conquer, eh? 🙂
    😉
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Sep '07 12:30
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    Then by my definition there are no true atheists?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Sep '07 12:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    Saying the Lords name in vain is just that, it is saying it just to say it without reverence.
    I agree, but I still maintain that that is not the intention of most people who use the phrase.

    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.
  15. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    07 Sep '07 12:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    I 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.

    --- Penguin.
Back to Top