Religion Brainwash vs Atheism Brainwash

[TwoHourMotel]

Here, let me show you my non-stamp collection.

[Lord_Talron]

Originally Posted by Nizaris

Don't believe is believing.

Example,

"I don't believe that cake is made of chocolate" says John

in other way, he believe the cake is not made of chocolate

So atheist don't believe in existence of God, means atheist BELIEVE God do not exist.

therefore atheism is a belief system

Atheism is a religion, admit it

"i believe that cake is not made of chocolate" is what john is actually saying.

if john is unsure that there chocolate in that cake john would say "i have no reason to believe there is any chocolate in that cake"

what your suggesting is that atheism is a philosophy. if it were a religion, something would be worshipped. how does one worship the non-existence of god

[King Murdoc]

I'm gonna drop this here, too. I'm pissed off and I want you to know it.
I sit here typing this in a cold rage, that there are people that point the finger of accusation at a group of people who have done nothing except peacefully defend their right to thought. You accuse us of crimes we do not commit. You say we are stupid for rejecting claims made based on the words of a man who heard voices three thousand years ago. You say we work toward ending the world. You kill us for the crime of having original thought, of living by our own value and work and talent instead of your archaic, oppressive, self-contradictory, hypocritical excuse for an explsnation, and you somehow find the audacity to say that I oppressed YOU?

[Nizaris]

Admit it, when you don't believe in something meaning you believe in something else.

You don't beleieve A means you believe in B

When you believe in A means you don't believe in B

it is still about what you believe in.

Not believe in God existence meaning BELIEVING God do not exist

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

I choose not to hold beliefs due to lack of knowledge on the subject of religion and God/gods. Because I am agnostic, I do not hold any beliefs on the subject.

But you do, you yourself said you don't find the evidence in favor of god's existance compeling, so you reject god's existance until something might change your mind.

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

If that makes me an atheist by your definition, then you can believe I'm an atheist. I choose not to label myself as such. When people don't know the meaning of a word, and would like to know the definition, what do they do? They look at the dictionary.
But when a person that knows better, or the group that calls themselves that way tell otherwise, you might want to go for that definition.
When people go to dictionary.com and look up the word atheist, the definition they find is: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. This is part of the reason I prefer the term agnostic over atheist. Generally people are going to trust a dictionary's definition of a word over anyone else's. I understand that most atheists define atheism as: "the absence of belief in gods - nothing more, nothing less."
- http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutath...mBasics.htm#s1

But that doesn't mean the rest of the world defines atheism in the same way.

In other words, by dictionary.com's definition, I am an agnostic. By the definition you have provided and that is on http://atheism.about.com/, I am an agnostic atheist. The term isn't as important as the idea, which is: I don't hold beliefs either way that any god does or does not exist.

Time and time again. The underlined part is the actual, practical, most used definition when talking about the subject.

Atheist themselves define atheism that way you saw, for a reason. Seriously now, we tell you the definition and you choose to reject it because more people think otherwise?
Atheism is not a positive claim. When you get into a debate this is especially important. I will make a connection between (a)theism and the justice system below that explains it differently. The belief that no gods exist is called positive atheism, if you read the wiki page, you are in the group of negative atheism, like most atheists.

Originally Posted by Nizaris

Admit it, when you don't believe in something meaning you believe in something else.

You don't beleieve A means you believe in B

When you believe in A means you don't believe in B

it is still about what you believe in.

Not believe in God existence meaning BELIEVING God do not exist

No.
And let me make an example that is discribing how that is false.

Let's take the process of a court trial with jury making the verdict.
The prosecutortheists claims that the person in trial is guiltythere is a god. The defending lawyer claims that the claim made is unsupported by evidence, or that the evidence are not good enough.theists have no proof of god's existence
Then the jury make up their minds. The two options they have, is either guilty, or not guilty. There is no option of "innocent" because we don't need that, the justice system works with the default position that people need to be proven guilty, otherwise you can't just assume it, or have improper evidence that point to it. So if the jury vote "not guilty", it doesn't mean they think the person in question is actually innocent, but rather that the accusers haven't met their burden of proof yet.

Now, the "guilty" is the theist position, that needs proof to be valid.
The "not guilty" is the atheist position, where you don't actually say the opposite, that gods don't exist, but rather that the theist's haven't met their burden of proof.
And lastly, "innocent" would a sub-group of the atheist position, positive atheism, where you claim that no gods exist, but it also has a burdain of proof.



As mentioned, claiming not believing in something is a belief, is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Originally Posted by TwoHourMotel

Here, let me show you my non-stamp collection.

[King Murdoc]

What you call brainwashing is simply exposure to knowledge at school. Ffs, we have God in every damn legal document. Obviously, the USA is not "brainwashing" people into atheists.

[Lord_Talron]

people are actively trying to turn the united states into the christian equivalent of a sharia law state, the president would almost get autoimpeached if he didnt say god bless america and he'd never get elected if he didnt say he was christian and convince others how much his faith means to him. but somehow we're "godless"

[Ali Radicali]

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

I choose not to hold beliefs due to lack of knowledge on the subject of religion and God/gods. Because I am agnostic, I do not hold any beliefs on the subject.

Belief is not a choice, it's an involuntary state of mind. Also, the fact that you hold no religious beliefs make you an atheist by definition.

You keep criticising us for not sticking to the dictionary's simplified , incorrect definition (ignoring for a second the fact that the dictionary also provides a better definition). You know what, fuck the dictionary. Let's go back to the greek root of these words and see what they mean.

The prefix A- in greek means "not or no"; a negation of the word that follows.
Thus an atheist is a non-theist, an agnostic is "not a gnostic".

Theist is derived from the greek θεος, meaning god. A theist is someone who believes in/worships a god, thus an atheist is simply some who does not.

Gnostic comes from γνοστικος (pertaining to knowledge), derived from the verb γιγνωσκω, meaning "to (come to) know".
Thus a gnostic is someone who claims to know (about religion), and an agnostic is someone who doesn't claim certain knowledge, or claims such things are unknowable.


Now you see, there is no inherent contradiction between (a)gnosticism and (a)theism, they simply deal with different things.

If that makes me an atheist by your definition, then you can believe I'm an atheist. I choose not to label myself as such. When people don't know the meaning of a word, and would like to know the definition, what do they do? They look at the dictionary. When people go to dictionary.com and look up the word atheist, the definition they find is: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

At which point you can now explain why the dictionary definition fails.

This is part of the reason I prefer the term agnostic over atheist. Generally people are going to trust a dictionary's definition of a word over anyone else's. I understand that most atheists define atheism as: "the absence of belief in gods - nothing more, nothing less."
- http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutath...mBasics.htm#s1

But that doesn't mean the rest of the world defines atheism in the same way.

If the rest of the world defines muslims as "smelly, bearded, turban-wearing, camel-fucking religious fanatics", does that make that the official definition???

As far as I'm concerned, the people who define a religion, philosophy or ideal are the people who believe in it, not third parties.

In other words, by dictionary.com's definition, I am an agnostic. By the definition you have provided and that is on http://atheism.about.com/, I am an agnostic atheist. The term isn't as important as the idea, which is: I don't hold beliefs either way that any god does or does not exist.

After all this debate, we're back to this nonsensical fence-sting position?

That would depend on your definition of dragon. I know that bearded dragons exist, I had one as a pet. As far as dragons that spew fire, fly, and were hunted by medieval knights: I have an open mind. There really isn't any evidence to support or disprove their existence. Who knows, tomorrow they might unearth a skeleton of a dragon that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they existed at one point. They might not. Scientists may have already discovered that dragons at one point did exist with conclusive evidence. I wouldn't put it past our government to withhold such information from the general public. Information omission is not unheard of.

I'm obviously talking about real dragons, not comodo dragons, bearded dragons or other lizards that happen to have dragon in the name. Fire-breathing, winged dragons.

When you say:
"As far as dragons that spew fire, fly, and were hunted by medieval knights: I have an open mind."
I simply don't believe you.
I think you're just playing tricks here to avoid the conclusion that for any non-religious belief, you reject the idea of noncommittal openmindedness just as much as the rest of sane humanity.

Either that or you have a mind so open that a whole lot of idiocy managed to get in.

Originally Posted by Nizaris

Admit it, when you don't believe in something meaning you believe in something else.

Fail. Also, lolprojection.

When faced with a potential belief, the options are acceptance or rejection of said belief.

Rejection simply means you do not hold that belief, it says nothing about what beliefs you do hold.

You don't beleieve A means you believe in B

or C, D, E, etc.
...Or maybe you disbelieve in the concept of letters altogether.

You cannot equivocate a lack of belief in any claim with a positive belief in an opposite claim. For starters you'd have to identify an opposite claim.

When you believe in A means you don't believe in B

it is still about what you believe in.

Not believe in God existence meaning BELIEVING God do not exist

I don't believe in dragons. Is unbelief in dragons a BELIEF? Should I start the church of Adraconism? WILL YOU JOIN?

[Grubi]

Yay another Nizaris troll thread. You respond like 14y old, I doubt you are any older then that.

[CynthiaCrescent]

Originally Posted by Nizaris

Admit it, when you don't believe in something meaning you believe in something else.

You don't beleieve A means you believe in B

When you believe in A means you don't believe in B

it is still about what you believe in.

Not believe in God existence meaning BELIEVING God do not exist

So I don't believe in chocolate means I have to believe in Vanilla?
Where's your god now?

[rancidfetus]

Originally Posted by Mousatos

But you do, you yourself said you don't find the evidence in favor of god's existance compeling, so you reject god's existance until something might change your mind.

I said it's improbable. I'm not rejecting the idea.

Originally Posted by Mousatos

Atheist themselves define atheism that way you saw, for a reason. Seriously now, we tell you the definition and you choose to reject it because more people think otherwise?

I'm not rejecting the definition. I posted it. I was saying that the dictionary definition is a more common definition, so to more people, the dictionary definition is the correct definition. I'm not saying either is correct or incorrect. If you research, you will see there has been much debate about the term atheism and its definition. It's a word that can have more than one meaning.

Originally Posted by Mousatos

Atheism is not a positive claim.

It can be... see below:

Originally Posted by Mousatos

The belief that no gods exist is called positive atheism, if you read the wiki page, you are in the group of negative atheism, like most atheists.

Originally Posted by Mousatos

Let's take the process of a court trial with jury making the verdict.
The prosecutortheists claims that the person in trial is guiltythere is a god. The defending lawyer claims that the claim made is unsupported by evidence, or that the evidence are not good enough.theists have no proof of god's existence
Then the jury make up their minds. The two options they have, is either guilty, or not guilty. There is no option of "innocent" because we don't need that, the justice system works with the default position that people need to be proven guilty, otherwise you can't just assume it, or have improper evidence that point to it. So if the jury vote "not guilty", it doesn't mean they think the person in question is actually innocent, but rather that the accusers haven't met their burden of proof yet.

Now, the "guilty" is the theist position, that needs proof to be valid.
The "not guilty" is the atheist position, where you don't actually say the opposite, that gods don't exist, but rather that the theist's haven't met their burden of proof.
And lastly, "innocent" would a sub-group of the atheist position, positive atheism, where you claim that no gods exist, but it also has a burdain of proof.

^I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Mousatos

As mentioned, claiming not believing in something is a belief, is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

This is true. I don't view agnosticism so much as a belief system. I see it as more of a way of thinking and processing information (whether it be factual or hearsay). I could say that I have faith that this way of thinking will bring me closer to enlightenment, due to its open minded nature. Which would mean I believe in not believing.

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

You keep criticising us for not sticking to the dictionary's simplified , incorrect definition (ignoring for a second the fact that the dictionary also provides a better definition). You know what, fuck the dictionary. Let's go back to the greek root of these words and see what they mean.

You're right, I was wrong to criticize you because there is more than one definition of the word.

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

The prefix A- in greek means "not or no"; a negation of the word that follows.
Thus an atheist is a non-theist, an agnostic is "not a gnostic".

Theist is derived from the greek θεος, meaning god. A theist is someone who believes in/worships a god, thus an atheist is simply some who does not.

Gnostic comes from γνοστικος (pertaining to knowledge), derived from the verb γιγνωσκω, meaning "to (come to) know".
Thus a gnostic is someone who claims to know (about religion), and an agnostic is someone who doesn't claim certain knowledge, or claims such things are unknowable.

Atheism is rooted from the Greek word "theos" which means "god". Atheism would translate to "no god" or "godless".

Agnostic is rooted from the Greek word "gnotos" which means "known". Agnostic translates into "unknown" or "not known".

They are about different things. Read what I said earlier about it being a way of thinking rather than a belief system.

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

At which point you can now explain why the dictionary definition fails.

When would you say a definition of a word fails, when the majority of people use it, or when a relatively small elitist group uses it? Just because you believe your definition to be true, doesn't make it true. Being an atheist, you should be able to understand that. I'm not claiming either definition is true or untrue, I'm just pointing out there can be more than one meaning.

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

If the rest of the world defines muslims as "smelly, bearded, turban-wearing, camel-fucking religious fanatics", does that make that the official definition???

Who uses language? People. So if everyone thought a certain word had a specific definition, then yes, that would be the definition of the word, no matter how vile or distasteful the definition. Profane words are profane words because we give those words that power.

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

As far as I'm concerned, the people who define a religion, philosophy or ideal are the people who believe in it, not third parties.

You should also accept the fact that other people might have a different definition of the word. Whether or not you agree with it, it's there and it exists.

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

After all this debate, we're back to this nonsensical fence-sting position?

Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

I'm obviously talking about real dragons, not comodo dragons, bearded dragons or other lizards that happen to have dragon in the name. Fire-breathing, winged dragons.

When you say:
"As far as dragons that spew fire, fly, and were hunted by medieval knights: I have an open mind."
I simply don't believe you.
I think you're just playing tricks here to avoid the conclusion that for any non-religious belief, you reject the idea of noncommittal openmindedness just as much as the rest of sane humanity.

Either that or you have a mind so open that a whole lot of idiocy managed to get in.

You don't think it is possible that dragons could have existed? However unlikely that it is, I cannot claim that it is impossible. Look at all of the beautiful art that has come from people "believing" or accepting the notion that these beasts could have existed. We wouldn't have a two-headed dragon in DotA if nobody ever thought it was physically possible for a dragon to exist in real life.

Keeping an open mind leaves the door open to creativity and inspiration. This can be just as valuable as knowledge. What you think of as "idiocy", is a window to beauty that can be missed out on due to such narrow-minded thinking. Where would humans be today if people didn't keep an open mind about the unknown? We surely would still think the Earth is flat, and we would have no electricity. We wouldn't even be able to have this debate right now. I would like to keep progressing as humans. To do this, we need to have an open mind.

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

I said it's improbable. I'm not rejecting the idea.

Yes you do. you don't believe in god do you?

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

I'm not rejecting the definition. I posted it. I was saying that the dictionary definition is a more common definition, so to more people, the dictionary definition is the correct definition. I'm not saying either is correct or incorrect. If you research, you will see there has been much debate about the term atheism and its definition. It's a word that can have more than one meaning.

Agreed, but we it comes to the specific definition, like when you are debating and the technicalities matter, the dictionary's "common" one, just doesn't cut it anymore and is projecting a false meaning of the opinions of most atheists.

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

It can be... see below:

^I agree with this.

As I've said before, when it comes to the point of discussing it, atheism is the lack of belief in gods, unless specified otherwise.
Or, if you prefer, the equivalent of "not guilty", despite the common use of the term by the uninitiated in the matter.

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

Atheism is rooted from the Greek word "theos" which means "god". Atheism would translate to "no god" or "godless".

Agnostic is rooted from the Greek word "gnotos" which means "known". Agnostic translates into "unknown" or "not known".

You are wrong here, remember what I said before about the guilty-not guilty-innocent vote.

The opposite of guilty is innocent, but if you are not guilty, you are not necessarily innocent.

Also, about the translation of the word, being Greek myself I can say that the prefix a(n)- is not translating as "the opposite of the word following" but rather the "not with the traits of the word following".
In greek, there are two words that can be translated from the word atheist:

ά-θεος
α-θειστής

Of which the first literally means "without a god" and the second "not a theist".
And of course the most correct definition is the second one, not to mention that the proper translation of the first word is "godless" not "atheist".

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

When would you say a definition of a word fails, when the majority of people use it, or when a relatively small elitist group uses it? Just because you believe your definition to be true, doesn't make it true. Being an atheist, you should be able to understand that. I'm not claiming either definition is true or untrue, I'm just pointing out there can be more than one meaning.

But in the context we are discussing it, the word doesn't take the "common" meaning, but the more specified, proper meaning.

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

You should also accept the fact that other people might have a different definition of the word. Whether or not you agree with it, it's there and it exists.

But is not representative of the views of atheists, so it is a false definition.

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

You don't think it is possible that dragons could have existed? However unlikely that it is, I cannot claim that it is impossible. Look at all of the beautiful art that has come from people "believing" or accepting the notion that these beasts could have existed. We wouldn't have a two-headed dragon in DotA if nobody ever thought it was physically possible for a dragon to exist in real life.

Every single thing is possible, we could live in a matrix for all we know, or all of you people could be a figment of my imagination and I could be the only person that is real in this world.
That does not mean I will not say that I don't think that is the case.

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

Keeping an open mind leaves the door open to creativity and inspiration. This can be just as valuable as knowledge. What you think of as "idiocy", is a window to beauty that can be missed out on due to such narrow-minded thinking. Where would humans be today if people didn't keep an open mind about the unknown? We surely would still think the Earth is flat, and we would have no electricity. We wouldn't even be able to have this debate right now. I would like to keep progressing as humans. To do this, we need to have an open mind.

Actually, people discovered all those things in the face of evidence, progress and not being satisfied with unanswered questions.

Your position leaves all kinds of beliefs to run wild, without question, just in case they are true. But the thing is, some people actually believe some of these ideas. If you don't reject them and are being neutral or passive, these people could do all kinds of stupid shit based on that beliefs, like for example, force science back because it is not in order of the earth-centered universe.

Just saying, geocentrism is still believed by 20% of US adults (2005) and by 32% of Russians (2011)

[Ali Radicali]

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

Atheism is rooted from the Greek word "theos" which means "god". Atheism would translate to "no god" or "godless".

Agnostic is rooted from the Greek word "gnotos" which means "known". Agnostic translates into "unknown" or "not known".

You're wrong.

The "A"-prefix refers to the words "gnostic" or "theist", not the root words making up the word. An atheist is not a "no-god believer" , he is "not a god believer". Do you see the difference?

The words gnostic and theist exist to define certain types of belief, and atheist and agnostic simply exist to describe the people who DONT hold gnostic and theistic positions.

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

They are about different things. Read what I said earlier about it being a way of thinking rather than a belief system.

What I'm getting from all this is essentially that you've convinced yourself that it's somehow bad to hold beliefs when there is even the slightest sliver of a possibility that you might be wrong.

And let me tell you that that's an absurd position to hold, because nothing can ever be known with absolute certainty, so holding that standard of evidence is impractical, unfeasible and laughably counterproductive.

It's fine, nay, commendable, to keep an open mind and to let new evidence change your mind, but it's nonsensical to refuse to consider the evidence that IS available until "absolute evidence" can be produced.

Case in point: dragons. Dragons would defy the laws of physics as we know them in multiple ways. We have no evidence of actual dragons. We have plenty of examples of observations that could be mistaken for the remains of dragons, such as dinosaur fossils, strange sea creatures and miscellaneous natural phenomena. Furthermore, there are hundreds of examples of mythological creatures resembling real animals superficially, or chimaeras of various different creatures.

Yes we can't say conclusively that dragons are disproven, but it's easy to say no reliable evidence of dragons has ever been produced, and what evidence has been produced (folk tales, mythology, etc.) can easily be explained with misinterpreted natural phenomena and human imagination.


So why would you not take a position on the existence of dragons? Why "keep an open mind"? Do you realise how absurd you sound when you're not willing to say you disbelieve in dragons?

Basic skepticism tells us that the logical thing to do is to tentatively reject claims until sufficient evidence is provided. Thus I reject the claim that dragons exist, until the day I find convincing evidence of dragons.

When would you say a definition of a word fails, when the majority of people use it, or when a relatively small elitist group uses it? Just because you believe your definition to be true, doesn't make it true. Being an atheist, you should be able to understand that. I'm not claiming either definition is true or untrue, I'm just pointing out there can be more than one meaning.

This is an argument from popularity in disguise.

In a debate, participants can define their terms as they see fit. I've explained at great length why the definition of atheist that you swing about like a blunt cudgel is meaningless in the context of this debate. No one here is "rejecting god", that would mean tacitly admitting that a god exists (which is exactly why theists love that definition).
If you want to talk to me about atheism, let's get on the same page. If you want to continue to use your definition, give me a REASON why we need to talk about "persons who reject god". Where, in this entire debate, would your defintion have been better suited at describing someone's position or elaborating the philosphical nuances?
If you can convince me of the need to talk about "people who reject god" in this debate, then i'll agree to start using the word "flurgldarpen" to describe my position.

Who uses language? People. So if everyone thought a certain word had a specific definition, then yes, that would be the definition of the word, no matter how vile or distasteful the definition. Profane words are profane words because we give those words that power.

If everyone accepted that meaning of the word muslim, the word muslim would cease to serve any purpose in language other than as a pejorative term, an insult.

If you want to use meaningless language, by all means rigidly stick to whatever definitions are supported by the most popular dictionary around. If you want to use language as a tool for communication, maybe it'd be better to use defintions that make sense in the context of the debate.

You should also accept the fact that other people might have a different definition of the word. Whether or not you agree with it, it's there and it exists.

Yes it exists, and it is just as meaningless in the context of this debate as "smelly, bearded, turban-wearing, camel-fucking religious fanatics" is as a difinition of muslim in the context of a debate on islam.

Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it nonsensical.

I understand it just fine. You're afraid to take a position based on limited information/evidence, so rather than taking sides you act as if no information is available and all options are open.


You're "openminded" about the existence of dragons for god's sake!

You don't think it is possible that dragons could have existed? However unlikely that it is, I cannot claim that it is impossible. Look at all of the beautiful art that has come from people "believing" or accepting the notion that these beasts could have existed. We wouldn't have a two-headed dragon in DotA if nobody ever thought it was physically possible for a dragon to exist in real life.

Dragons have never existed, and have certainly never coexisted with humans.

If you're interested in the origins of dragon mythology, that's a whole nther interesting can of worms, but for the moment, suffice it to say that dragons are as real as unicorns, mermaids and vampires are.

Keeping an open mind leaves the door open to creativity and inspiration. This can be just as valuable as knowledge. What you think of as "idiocy", is a window to beauty that can be missed out on due to such narrow-minded thinking. Where would humans be today if people didn't keep an open mind about the unknown? We surely would still think the Earth is flat, and we would have no electricity. We wouldn't even be able to have this debate right now. I would like to keep progressing as humans. To do this, we need to have an open mind.

I'm an artist. I make pretty things all the time. I don't need to suspend my beliefs and exist in a state of existential uncertainty to accomplish that.

Being openminded is fine and admirable, but SHOULD NOT STOP YOU from coming to (tentative) conclusions based on the information that IS available to you.



Being openminded isn't saying "DUNNOLOL".
It's saying "I believe X, but if better information comes along I'm happy to revise my belief"
.

[rancidfetus]

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

If you want to talk to me about atheism, let's get on the same page.

We can use the term atheist to describe a person who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't necessarily disbelieve in God. Is that fair?

My whole point about the dragons was only to say that way back when, somewhere, someone believed that dragons were real. This sparked imagination in other people which resulted in the myths and artwork we are familiar with now. If nobody gave thought about dragons because it's ridiculous and "impossible", people wouldn't want to paint, draw, or sing about them. The world would miss out. What I like to do, rather than discredit a belief, is at least entertain the idea and/or use it as inspiration.

Originally Posted by Mousatos

Actually, people discovered all those things in the face of evidence, progress and not being satisfied with unanswered questions.

Someone had to have an open mind to search for or even recognize that evidence. Hundreds of years ago people "knew" that the world was flat, that was a "fact" to everyone. To think or say otherwise was unheard of and ridiculed until conclusive proof could be given. Not everyone then had the means or the resources to provide this kind of proof, so anyone with the idea that the world was round would get shut down because of others being narrow-minded. This is why I choose to keep an open mind about ideas, no matter how ridiculous or unheard of they are.

edit:

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

Being openminded is fine and admirable, but SHOULD NOT STOP YOU from coming to (tentative) conclusions based on the information that IS available to you.

I agree with this. God is one of the things, however, that I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion. There are "miraculous" and unexplained phenomena in the world that I choose not to believe or disbelieve due to lack of substantial evidence on either side.

A belief is a choice, by the way. People receive information, process it, and choose to believe, disbelieve, or say they don't know.

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

Someone had to have an open mind to search for or even recognize that evidence. Hundreds of years ago people "knew" that the world was flat, that was a "fact" to everyone. To think or say otherwise was unheard of and ridiculed until conclusive proof could be given. Not everyone then had the means or the resources to provide this kind of proof, so anyone with the idea that the world was round would get shut down because of others being narrow-minded. This is why I choose to keep an open mind about ideas, no matter how ridiculous or unheard of they are.

You can have an open mind and still have an opinion on the matter.
I doubt that Galileo didn't think the earth was the center of the universe before the hints pointed him otherwise.
Likewise, I wouldn't reject any proper evidence of god, if they even come up. That does not mean I shouldn't call myself an atheist.

And neither should you.

[rancidfetus]

Originally Posted by Mousatos

You can have an open mind and still have an opinion on the matter.
I doubt that Galileo didn't think the earth was the center of the universe before the hints pointed him otherwise.
Likewise, I wouldn't reject any proper evidence of god, if they even come up. That does not mean I shouldn't call myself an atheist.

And neither should you.

Like I said, by your definition (and the definition used by most atheists) I am an atheist. By the dictionary's definition I am not. Is that agreeable?

I prefer not to label myself as an atheist. The word "atheist" can rub people in a negative way. I'm not saying it's bad to be an atheist, I just don't view myself as one.

It's kind of like the word "drugs". The word "drugs" can rub people in a negative way. Generally, if someone just says the word "drugs" it implies the destructive and addictive drugs that are bad for people (heroin, crack, huffing glue, etc). There are, however, prescription or medicinal drugs that are beneficial and good for people. Some people prefer to use the term medicine rather than drugs. Me using the word agnostic to describe myself = someone using the word medicine to describe prescription/medicinal drugs.

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by rancidfetus

I prefer not to label myself as an atheist. The word "atheist" can rub people in a negative way. I'm not saying it's bad to be an atheist, I just don't view myself as one.

So that is why you hesitate to be labeled as atheist.

The thing is though, by the technical, proper definition, you are an atheist.
So instead of trying to avoid the fact, because it might be viewed in some way, try to change the view of the word, by explaining what an atheist really is, and how it is no different from most people.
That is of course, if it won't have a major bad effect to your life.

Not to mention the fact that everyone is partly atheist towards most gods. Atheists just include one more god in their list of deities they don't believe in.

[Lord_Talron]

finally get him to admit he just doesnt want to be called an atheist

[badmafa]

[rancidfetus]

Originally Posted by Lord_Talron

finally get him to admit he just doesnt want to be called an atheist

You're right, I don't want to be called an atheist, but by your terminology I am an agnostic atheist. I prefer to just use the term agnostic because it's better understood by most people. Some people might misunderstand the term agnostic atheist because of the dictionary definition of atheist.

Just like how most atheists don't like to have themselves defined as denying the existence of God. Most atheists would be agnostic atheists also.

So call me what you want, we probably have the same or similar views anyway, so what does it matter. I consciously try to keep an open mind, that's all.