The Morman hypothetical

[Darkwing Duck]

Webster's: Main Entry: athe·ist: one who believes that there is no deity

Looky here, Dark, I really don't care to engage in semantic quibbling witcha. If you know more about definitions and meanings than Websters, I tellya what: Take it up with they ***, eh?

Seriously, you want to use a dictionary definition which is designed to be made as short as possible?

And then you use a null hypothesis statement to proclaim that having no belief is in fact a belief.

The reality is that atheists "believe in no deity" is that there IS NO RATIONAL EVIDENCE to support such an argument. If you want to argue that the rational (read: empirical) approach and conclusion is somehow irrational, then I don't know where else to go with this.

 

[Gameface]

Theists have made a positive claim that God exists. Atheism is the condition of waiting for them to prove it.

 

[Hopper]

Why is it, I wonder, that people think they can change accepted definitions, estabished by centuries of common usage, by mere assertion. And why do they think that their preferred "definition" can in any way alter the natural facts?

Always been a mystery to me.

 

[Hopper]

In my book, what something is provides the basis for determining the appropriate thing to call it.

For others, what they call it is the best way to determine what it *is.*

Solipsism, it ROCKS, eh!?

 

[Hopper]

Seriously, you want to use a dictionary definition which is designed to be made as short as possible?

Dark, if you really don't know the difference between agnosticism and atheism, then ya best gitcho self a little more schoolin. I doubt that's really the case though.

Once certain "talking points" get set up by the "powers that be" within a religious movement such as atheism, then that's all you're gunna hear spouted by it's adherents.

The (thoroughly disingenuous) "talking point" I'm referring to? This: Atheism = Agnosticism.

 

[Gameface]

Why is it, I wonder, that people think they can change accepted definitions, estabished by centuries of common usage, by mere assertion. And why do they think that their preferred "definition" can in any way alter the natural facts?

Always been a mystery to me.

Not sure if that was partially directed at me, but I haven't altered the definition of atheism. Keep in mind, however, that the definition of atheism has been under the control of theists for the most part. The definition "One who denies the existence of God." is a very poor and utterly biased definition, and I reject it flat out. If you don't like it that's fine by me.

A = without
Theist = belief in god

Atheist = without belief in God

 

[Hopper]

The definition "One who denies the existence of God." is a very poor and utterly biased definition, and I reject it flat out.

Like I done tole Dark, eh, Game? Take it up with Websters.

Who knows, mebbe after you enlighten them they will change their definition, eh?

 

[Hopper]

I seem to have heard the allegation of someone being "utterly biased," before somewheres, but, fo da life of me, I can't recalls just where right now.

 

[colton]

I'd ask if his/her new beliefs would cause him/her to exclude me from any wedding he/she may have. If the answer is yes, I'd slap 'im/'er.

While I don't entirely agree with the LDS policy myself (I think people in the U.S. should be able to have a civil ceremony first, before the temple ceremony--like in many other countries), I find your attitude to be remarkably selfish. (If you really believe that, anyway, and are not just saying that as a reaction.) Your child's marriage is about *him* or *her*, not about you.

 

[colton]

A = without
Theist = belief in god

Atheist = without belief in God

I realize this is semantics, but would you say agnostics have a belief in God? If not, then they are atheists, by your definition. No?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

While I don't entirely agree with the LDS policy myself (I think people in the U.S. should be able to have a civil ceremony first, before the temple ceremony--like in many other countries), I find your attitude to be remarkably selfish. (If you really believe that, anyway, and are not just saying that as a reaction.) Your child's marriage is about *him* or *her*, not about you.

As always, truth is in the middle.



Although to be serious, if my child, knowing my opinion on matters such of these, were to do so, knowing my thought on the matter would be (WARNING: You may take it as offensive) "You've chosen a fictional, made-up entity over your own father," then he/she would know I would lose a lot of the familial bond we would have, would know how insulted I would be and how hurt I would be, and was doing all those things to me willingly.

And then I'm to be branded as selfish?

 

[Hopper]

"You've chosen a fictional, made-up entity over your own father," then he/she would know I would lose a lot of the familial bond we would have, would know how insulted I would be and how hurt I would be, and was doing all those things to me willingly.

And then I'm to be branded as selfish?

I aint gunna try to respond to your question, Dark, cause ya didn't ask me. But I have a question for you: How can you possibly pretend that your atheism is a purely objective, rational position, if you would be "hurt" and "insulted" if your children didn't cater to your opinion on the topic? Sounds like a lotta emotional investment, there, to me.