- Joined
- Jan 8, 2017
- Messages
- 18,794
- Reaction score
- 5,161
- Location
- new zealand.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
No, you can be born without knowledge of a god but that is not an excuse that stays. Eventually we do learn about gods and then a decision needs to be made.arrived at what? There's nothing to arrive to don't actively believe in any gods.
But in this case it is wrong.common usage is the definition it's not right or wrong that's just how the word is defined. Whoever coined it doesn't matter.
I am only doing to you what a theist will do with that definition. Your claim is a lack of belief, not that there is not god only that it is a choice not to believe. And even not believing is a form of a belief system so therefore atheism is a belief system based on faith.what I'm saying is what I typed you don't have to ask me if so you're saying. Just read what I said and you'll know what I'm saying.
The sentence that starts so you're saying is a setup for strawman.
Please, by all means, do tear the argument apart. I have been doing so for a long time.
Not at all. I am just giving reason as to why the definition of the dictionary is faulty and needs to be expressed far better than it is.I'm a Theist, so I don't lack belief. But you're acting as though the natural stah?
te is believing in God.
No, once again. Gnosticism is about knowledge. Theism is about belief. The two are different.are you contending that agnostics believe in God? Church where is the agnostic Churc
But very young children do not take it as a myth, they believe in santa.yes I remember it being moronic. I knew it was moronic. understanding a myth doesn't mean you don't realize it's a myth.
well with the English language some words are ambiguous. Meaning they have multiple meanings. You can extrapolate the particular definition someone is using based on context. but you can't make up completely new definitions and insisted that they are correct based on nothing.
I have not made up any new definition. I have given you what atheist usually say when confronted with a theist who insists that atheism is faith based. All i have done is expanded the explenation from a cliche that was derived by theosts in the first place.
It does define the meaning in that particular context. Without context defining the word "nut" would not be possible because it has many definitions.context can remove ambiguity it doesn't define me meaning.
But it is esoteric. I didn't reject what you said the meaning of the word was I just said it was esoteric.
that's why I said didn't even exist it's a false authority.
AS much as it would please me to say i invented this, i cannot. Nothing i have said is new. It may be esoteric to you but then you have also said you have never come across this before.
This undermines your position however the word was coined was that that is it set in stone definition throughout all time.
Yes, but that does not mean it has to be used in that setting of stone for all time. The basic definition of atheism in the dictionary is not an adequate definition because theists will twist it so as to call atheism faith based . Therefore a better version of a definition is needed. Which is not to say that the old one cannot still be used. Just be prepared to face a dishonest theist who will twist it when you do.