Is agnosticism a cop-out?

[Neoclitorus]

Not exactly. Being an atheist means that you have no theism whatsoever, i.e. no theism that involves gods and no theism that does not involve any gods.

theism that does not involve gods is already atheistic by definition.

you always say church of no god and we understand what you mean, but that's kind of an ironic and point-making slightly wrong usage of the word.

a church of no god would just be a club or something, or fraternal organization.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Did you use a random word generator to make this post?

the phrase acutally makes sense if you can read.

idiot child.

some of the words are adjectival phrases.

you gotta be a little more smarterer.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Nope. It appears that you are the one who needs a time machine so you can take up the matter with the ancient Greeks. The Greek prefix "a" means "lack of."

apolitical - lack of any political component
asexual - lack of any sexual nature
amoral - lack of any morality position
asynchronous - lack of any synchronicity
atheistic - lacking any theism
atypical - lacking typicalness, i.e. not typical
amorphous - lacking form

Of course, you deny all this, explaining your constant confusion.

you're asmart.

 

[Cypress]

These are just in the last few days.

Yeah, you expend a lot of time telling everyone what you've read. Doesn't require that I be SOMEONE ELSE to figure this out.

Perry, you and all your sock puppets are the only poster in 20 years here who gets this angry and resentful that I read books.
If somebody is literally going to challenge me about Hinduism or Buddhism, why should I not mention the Baghavad Gita or Dhamapada? It's totally relevant and topical to the poster I am addressing.

Instead of spending the last three years getting resentful about my reading choices, why don't you read some books yourself?

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. It appears that you are the one who needs a time machine so you can take up the matter with the ancient Greeks. The Greek prefix "a" means "lack of."

apolitical - lack of any political component
asexual - lack of any sexual nature
amoral - lack of any morality position
asynchronous - lack of any synchronicity
atheistic - lacking any theism
atypical - lacking typicalness, i.e. not typical
amorphous - lacking form

Of course, you deny all this, explaining your constant confusion.

Again, the definition of atheism is well established and understood to mean someone who doesn't believe in gods.

 

[ZenMode]

Again, the definition of atheism is well established and understood to mean someone who doesn't believe in gods.

@IBDaMann @Into the Night

If You believe the above assertion is incorrect, what English word means not believing in God's?

 

[IBDaMann]

theism that does not involve gods is already atheistic by definition.

Incorrect, and stupid. Theism devoid of deities is nonetheless theism.

you always say church of no god

That would be Into the Night who uses that term to specify theists who nonetheless claim to be atheists. Those who assert that there are no gods are making a theistic assertion, which precludes their being atheists ... hence their being theists of the church of no God.

and we understand what you mean,

Those who refuse to understand what I mean insist they understand what I mean.

a church of no god would just be a club or something,

Nope. Such a congregation would mistakenly believe their theism to somehow be settled science.

 

[IBDaMann]

the phrase acutally makes sense if you can read.

The post makes perfect sense to the raving lunatic who authored it. Who's to say what inspiration is drawn from a padded room. It would be wonderful if we had someone on staff who could translate that strange but beautiful language.

 

[IBDaMann]

you're asmart.

What, no more information can fit in your padded room?

 

[IBDaMann]

If You believe the above assertion is incorrect, what English word means not believing in God's?

It has been well established since the advent of theisms devoid of gods, e.g. Buddhism, native American spiritualism, etc, that atheism refers to a lack of theism, and that gods are not a required component of a theism.

You are free to create your own theism devoid of deities if you wish and no one can stop you, short of killing you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again, the definition of atheism is well established and understood to mean someone who doesn't believe in gods.

Again, the definition of atheism is well established and understood to mean a lack of theism..

 

[ZenMode]

It has been well established since the advent of theisms devoid of gods, e.g. Buddhism, native American spiritualism, etc, that atheism refers to a lack of theism, and that gods are not a required component of a theism.

You are free to create your own theism devoid of deities if you wish and no one can stop you, short of killing you.

What word means "A lack of belief in gods"?

 

[ZenMode]

Again, the definition of atheism is well established and understood to mean a lack of theism..

What word means "A lack of belief in gods" since, you know, adeist and adeism aren't words?

 

[ZenMode]

^^^^^ @Into the Night^^^^^^

Since you are another "I just make up word meanings" poster....

 

[Neoclitorus]

Incorrect, and stupid. Theism devoid of deities is nonetheless theism.


That would be Into the Night who uses that term to specify theists who nonetheless claim to be atheists. Those who assert that there are no gods are making a theistic assertion, which precludes their being atheists ... hence their being theists of the church of no God.


Those who refuse to understand what I mean insist they understand what I mean.


Nope. Such a congregation would mistakenly believe their theism to somehow be settled science.

it's an atheistic assertion.

 

[Neoclitorus]

The post makes perfect sense to the raving lunatic who authored it. Who's to say what inspiration is drawn from a padded room. It would be wonderful if we had someone on staff who could translate that strange but beautiful language.

im sorry you're stupid and can't read.

 

[ZenMode]

Again, the definition of atheism is well established and understood to mean a lack of theism.

What word means "A lack of belief in gods" since, you know, adeist and adeism aren't words?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Again, the definition of atheism is well established and understood to mean someone who doesn't believe in gods.

Respectfully as possible, I disagree, Zen.

When a person uses the descriptor "atheist" ...the reasoning is much more nuanced than you are acknowledging.

Yes, most (not all) dictionaries do indicate that an atheist is someone who is lacking a "belief" that any gods exist. All atheists "lack a belief that any gods exist." But NOT all people who lack a belief that any gods exist are atheists. A choice is required...and many choose "agnostic" rather than atheist.

Most, I would say "all" people who choose the descriptor "atheist" do so because of BELIEF. They either believe there are no gods...or believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

And as for "the definition of atheism is well established"...well, I think not. The "definition" (actually, the usage) is the result of a false etymological root.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Respectfully as possible, I disagree, Zen.

When a person uses the descriptor "atheist" ...the reasoning is much more nuanced than you are acknowledging.

Yes, most (not all) dictionaries do indicate that an atheist is someone who is lacking a "belief" that any gods exist. All atheists "lack a belief that any gods exist." But NOT all people who lack a belief that any gods exist are atheists. A choice is required...and many choose "agnostic" rather than atheist.

Most, I would say "all" people who choose the descriptor "atheist" do so because of BELIEF. They either believe there are no gods...or believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

And as for "the definition of atheism is well established"...well, I think not. The "definition" (actually, the usage) is the result of a false etymological root.

yes.

its the difference between "I don't know" and "no".

both lack a belief that God exists.

but there are different words because they still are not the same.

 

[ZenMode]

Respectfully as possible, I disagree, Zen.

When a person uses the descriptor "atheist" ...the reasoning is much more nuanced than you are acknowledging.

Yes, most (not all) dictionaries do indicate that an atheist is someone who is lacking a "belief" that any gods exist. All atheists "lack a belief that any gods exist." But NOT all people who lack a belief that any gods exist are atheists. A choice is required...and many choose "agnostic" rather than atheist.

Most, I would say "all" people who choose the descriptor "atheist" do so because of BELIEF. They either believe there are no gods...or believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

And as for "the definition of atheism is well established"...well, I think not. The "definition" (actually, the usage) is the result of a false etymological root.

We don't disagree. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of IBDaMann saying that atheism does NOT mean "Someone who doesn't believe in gods".

If that were true, then there should be a separate word that means 'someone who doesn't believe in gods".