Right... there goes the 'intellectual' part of the discussion. Rather than discuss the issue, use a bit of name calling. tsk, tsk. And I'm still right and you're still wrong.
Where does 50/50 come into it? If someone believed there was a 49.999% chance that a deity created the universe, would that make them atheist, while the 50.001% guys are theists, and only the 50%-ers are agnostic? *confused*
WTF? Show me where the hell I ever said I cannot understand. I specifically said it was kindergarten nonsense which it is. There is no such thing as a bleeding atheist agnostic. It is a contradiction.
Its not a contradiction. They are complimentary, as I very clearly outlined in the very post you quoted. Obviously you either can't understand or refuse to understand. Either way, it looks like you don't understand.
Nobody cares about any flying teapot. You know you are not an atheist when you take the position that there is no such thing as any gods. This is not simply an absence of belief, but an outright denial.
You're taking that too far. I mean an agnostic must assume there is a likelihood of either gods existence or nonexistence. For example, Carl Sagan was agnostic about other intelligent life in the universe, but atheist about 'god'.
Ergo it is a contradiction. One cannot say that there is no such thing as God, and I do not believe that God does not exist at the same time.
"Denial?" Perhaps, but this denial is that there is sufficient evidence to believe in gods. This I deny. There might be a god in the universe, which I cannot possibly know since I haven't the ability to test the universe in it's entirety. Back to one of your other illogical and un-reasoned points about the word atheism: can we assume, then, that you've accepted defeat on the etymology of the word meaning "without gods" rather than "disbelief in gods?" Or do we then need to change the meanings of other Greek derived words in common use such as asexual when we refer to certain organisms (or do we accept that certain species of worm "disbelieve" in gender)? Perhaps "atoms" are no longer derived from the Gr. "without parts" and now refer to "disbelief" in parts (realizing that the atom was once believed to be the smallest "part")? HA! Perhaps asepsis refers to a "disbelief" of infection instead of "without infection." Or maybe aphasia means a "disbelief" in speaking rather than being "without" speech.
Not much. Sometimes the level of one's fantasy is extreme and so the definitions of those against that fantasy vary.
It achieves that fact that weak, strong, atheism, atheismagnoscticism, is all a false intenet meme. These idiots go around proporting these kindergarten terms created by internet junkies as atheist doctrine. Atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist. It is a position regarding the proposition that God exist.
Which demonstrates that my point about you not understanding the concept of agnostic-atheist is true. An atheist is without god. If all you accept is your own definition of atheism, which is incorrect, then it seems to be a contradiction. However, when you accept that atheism is "without gods," then an atheist can be agnostic. For one can be "without gods" yet still admit that to demonstrate gods do not exist is not possible.
lixluke, Try reading the Forum FAQs that should help you understand your mistake. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679 Theism is the belief in a proposition, atheism is a disbelief in the proposition, and not a belief that the proposition is false. Your mistake is a fundamantal and classic common error made by those who do not understand the issues in this debate.
Why do they need a separate label to admit that? Does that mean that atheists per se deny that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God?
Yet, you've failed to demonstrate that position. Yet, these are philosophical positions that were developed by scholars who were definitely not in kindergarten (an ad hominem worthy only of one whose screen name implies he licks someone name luke). Indeed, Robert Flint was a theologian and philosopher that wrote of atheism and agnosticism long before the internet. (Agnosticism). The term "agnostic-atheist" appears to be first used by he. As demonstrated previously, and many times before, you're wrong. You can keep saying a sphere is a cube all you want, but corners will not appear.
How could it be possible to prove such a thing without the ability to examine the universe in it's entirety? What's being denied is only the evidence that the superstitious use to claim as reason to believe in their god -whatever god that may be- is insufficient.
So 1. Theism : there is a God (A) (proposition) 2. Weak Atheism : I don't believe (A) (disbelief in proposition) 3. Atheism : There is no God Is that right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Huh? So atheists have 0% on a god? They consider themselves omniscient? Then they themselves are godlike. Reductio ad absurdem. I would guess most intelligent people, when pressed, would admit that they cannot prove it for certain either way. So the important thing is not what they 'believe' but how they behave - do they choose to act as if there is a god, or as if there isn't? Isn't that the real basis for the theist / atheist split?
