A modern explanation of the terms "theist", "atheist" and "agnostic"

Did you start at the beginning up and read revelations?

Can you remember why you thought it was inaccurate?
We've discussed this before.


In the end, it just doesn't strike me as any more believable than Lord of the Rings.
 

"theist", "atheist" and "agnostic"​

The original meanings were just fine
Theist= with god
atheist = without god
agnostic = without the knowledge of god

Why would anyone want to change those meanings?
 

"theist", "atheist" and "agnostic"​

The original meanings were just fine
Theist= with god
atheist = without god
agnostic = without the knowledge of god

Why would anyone want to change those meanings?
Well, because they are loaded terms.

'Theist' and 'atheist' imply God is a given, and atheists simply people who are bereft of God.

Are you with The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Or are you bereft of the FSM?
Is it simply that you lack knowledge of FSM?
Because we could help you with that, if you would just open your spoon to receive Him.
 
Well, because they are loaded terms.

'Theist' and 'atheist' imply God is a given, and atheists simply people who are bereft of God.

Are you with The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Or are you bereft of the FSM?
Is it simply that you lack knowledge of FSM?
Because we could help you with that, if you would just open your spoon to receive Him.
They are only loaded if you load them!

I have also never seen a
"One eyed one horned flying purple eater"
Who seems
To only eat purple people

............................................If I claim that the word "frog" is a loaded word, would you agree to never say now write that word again?
 
"The original meanings were just fine
Theist= with god
atheist = without god
agnostic = without the knowledge of god"

Perhaps the list is incomplete
Perhaps, we should add
"anti-theist"
...........................................
Hate is not the opposite of love
indifference is
 
"The original meanings were just fine
That's one opinion for one person. You go ahead and keep using them, and have to keep explaining when others say 'no you've misunderstood my stance'.


Another opinion is they should better reflect the default states:
Theist = Believer
Agnostic = Rationalist

Look, it's not like we define people who believe in unicorns as the default state and then anyone who doesn't is "without unicorns". It doesn't make sense.

This is not intended as a slur against God; the point is: there are in infinite number of things it is possible to speculate might exist - the answer to infinity divided infinity, the blue red, the circular square, the toroidal planet, the leprechauns. But by default, the world - including you - don't believe they exist unless there a reason for you to think so, otherwise you would effectively hold an infinite number of beliefs about an infinite number of possible things.

The only rational way to approach the possible existence of things is to assume the default that they don't, and then define the conditional if/when they do.
 
In the end, it just doesn't strike me as any more believable than Lord of the Rings.

Fair enough.

Science may switch off the God gene for some, a bit like when you figure out it's your family or whatever at Christmas who are putting the hidden gifts under the tree rather than Santa. It could be the same gene(array) for Santa as it is for God.
 
Fair enough.

Science may switch off the God gene for some, a bit like when you figure out it's your family or whatever at Christmas who are putting the hidden gifts under the tree rather than Santa. It could be the same gene(array) for Santa as it is for God.
If you are saying that the "god gene" is a tendency towards magical thinking, then we may be in agreement on that point.
 
Lordy, someone yearns to be led by a nose ring!

Mankind chooses their own destiny.
Чего оно там выбирает? Оно изначально ничего не выбирало, всё делала эволюция, и теперь ничего не выбирает. Человек вообще до обидного слабое существо, и человечество в целом, тоже. Вы можете гарантировать, что завтра вашу судьбу и судьбу всего человечества не решит какой нибудь метеорит, или смертельный вирус?
 
What does it choose there? It didn't choose anything initially, evolution did everything, and now it doesn't choose anything. Man is generally an offensively weak creature, and humanity as a whole, too. Can you guarantee that tomorrow your fate and the fate of all humanity will not be decided by some meteorite or deadly virus?
This is a thread about theism and atheism, not about free will.
 
Jesus made it clear in Matthew 18:3 what the key to heaven is, become like small children again.
Дети не очень то и счастливы, на самом деле. Любое событие, над которым взрослый просто посмеётся, может вызвать у ребёнка неподдельное детское горе. Дети, как правило, вообще очень чувствительны. Я помню себя в детстве, какая-нибудь жалобная песня, или сюжет фильма, могли заставить меня плакать. А если умирал какой-нибудь хомячёк, то моему детскому горю не было предела. Вряд ли бы взрослый человек так реагировал на такие вещи. Мы грубеем со временем, как листва на деревьях: первая зелень - совсем нежная, а потом темнеет и грубеет.
 
Children are not very happy, actually. Any event that an adult would simply laugh at can cause a child genuine childish grief. Children, as a rule, are very sensitive. I remember myself as a child, some plaintive song, or a movie plot, could make me cry. And if some hamster died, then my childish grief knew no bounds. It is unlikely that an adult would react to such things in such a way. We become coarser with time, like leaves on trees: the first green is very tender, and then it darkens and coarsens.

What Jesus meant is innocence.
 
Back
Top