Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

We actually had perfectly good words in "Atheist", "Agnostic", and "Theist" for the longest time. Then the semantic bullshit of "Well, if you're agnostic, then you don't really BELIEVE in God, which makes you a kind of atheist" started, which, despite all of my respect for the New Atheist movement, is so smug and cutesy that it makes me want to vomit.

Yeah, the New Atheist movement didn't start that battle.

The silly Christian crowd claimed that atheism means "you believe God doesn't exist" and pretended as though this is enough to make atheism an article of faith. Their goal is to prove that atheists are no better than they are and that they also adhere to their own "religion." Thus, they paint agnosticism as the "middle ground," and atheism as a fringe religious belief.

The argument of agnosticism not meaning what they want it to mean was a response to said bullshit.

Responding to bullshit with bullshit just leads to a bigger pile of bullshit. Too many people take it seriously nowadays.

[Mavorpen]

Yeah, the New Atheist movement didn't start that battle.

The silly Christian crowd claimed that atheism means "you believe God doesn't exist" and pretended as though this is enough to make atheism an article of faith. Their goal is to prove that atheists are no better than they are and that they also adhere to their own "religion." Thus, they paint agnosticism as the "middle ground," and atheism as a fringe religious belief.

The argument of agnosticism not meaning what they want it to mean was a response to said bullshit.

Responding to bullshit with bullshit just leads to a bigger pile of bullshit. Too many people take it seriously nowadays.

I'm not sure how actually using dictionary definitions is bullshit.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I thought New Atheists used the Dawkins scale? http://ntrygg.files.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -scale.jpg
Which would still allow for a middle ground between Atheism and Theism, but still allow those Atheists not 100% convinced, to still be Atheists.

Not all agree with the Dawkins scale taken literally. Even Dawkins takes it with a pinch of salt placing himself at a 6 but calling himself agnostic.

This chart is what tends to be used.
Its generally useful because it removes all the dilly dallying of theistic/atheistic positioning and can sum up whatever diverse and complex belief system you have regarding the belief in a god in a combination of four words.

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Theist.

As I have said before, people are fine to have whatever definitions they want, but they A) complicate things and B) have to call Richard Dawkins not an Atheist (if you go with the definition of New World Order anyway).

New world order?

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Just wanted to post my opinions again, because I am bored.

Anyways as I said earlier, there is no way in hell that the Christian God is real, or any Earth originated or any galactic deity.

If the Christian God could exist from here on Earths culture and history, the same can be said for the Holy Quinary of the Klaxcoonian Edicts from Kashmora IV...several galaxies over.

If there is a deity, it/they could very well be beyond our comprehension, it is worthless to even try, so I don't know why we are concerned with it.

But then again there is a lot of people who will not take up to that idea, because they think a deity needs attention for some reason.

[The USOT]

We actually had perfectly good words in "Atheist", "Agnostic", and "Theist" for the longest time. Then the semantic bullshit of "Well, if you're agnostic, then you don't really BELIEVE in God, which makes you a kind of atheist" started, which, despite all of my respect for the New Atheist movement, is so smug and cutesy that it makes me want to vomit.

It isnt smug per say (im sure there are many who are smug about it) its just efficient.
I discuss it a little bit in a post above this one where I put the chart that has oft been used in the forums. Rather than wishy washy posts of "here is x reason why im not sure sure either way" it gets to the heart of what they beleive without having a drawn out conversation in 4 possible combinations of two words.

[The USOT]

Not all agree with the Dawkins scale taken literally. Even Dawkins takes it with a pinch of salt placing himself at a 6 but calling himself agnostic.

This chart is what tends to be used.
Its generally useful because it removes all the dilly dallying of theistic/atheistic positioning and can sum up whatever diverse and complex belief system you have regarding the belief in a god in a combination of four words.

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Theist.

As I have said before, people are fine to have whatever definitions they want, but they A) complicate things and B) have to call Richard Dawkins not an Atheist (if you go with the definition of New World Order anyway).

New world order?

Thats the name of the guy I was discussing with prior to our conversation. Im not saying a surviving illuminati has a definition I disagree with

[The New World Oceania]

The silly Christian crowd claimed that atheism means "you believe God doesn't exist"."

What is atheism?

[The Tundra]

We actually had perfectly good words in "Atheist", "Agnostic", and "Theist" for the longest time. Then the semantic bullshit of "Well, if you're agnostic, then you don't really BELIEVE in God, which makes you a kind of atheist" started, which, despite all of my respect for the New Atheist movement, is so smug and cutesy that it makes me want to vomit.

It isnt smug per say (im sure there are many who are smug about it) its just efficient.
I discuss it a little bit in a post above this one where I put the chart that has oft been used in the forums. Rather than wishy washy posts of "here is x reason why im not sure sure either way" it gets to the heart of what they beleive without having a drawn out conversation in 4 possible combinations of two words.

[Neo Rome Republic]

New world order?

Thats the name of the guy I was discussing with prior to our conversation. Im not saying a surviving illuminati has a definition I disagree with

But if the Dawkins scale were to be used, those who are mostly convinced of his non-existence but not entirely, would still technically be Atheists. Hence, De-Facto Atheists.

[The New World Oceania]

New world order?

Thats the name of the guy I was discussing with prior to our conversation. Im not saying a surviving illuminati has a definition I disagree with

Orwell reference, not illuminati obsession >.>
Additionally, we agree on the same definition and you quoted me at the wrong point in time. I agree with all you're saying.

[The USOT]

It isnt smug per say (im sure there are many who are smug about it) its just efficient.
I discuss it a little bit in a post above this one where I put the chart that has oft been used in the forums. Rather than wishy washy posts of "here is x reason why im not sure sure either way" it gets to the heart of what they beleive without having a drawn out conversation in 4 possible combinations of two words.

A common used historical definition is trying to form different subcultures?

Either im misunderstanding the refference or find it odd in use.

[Kzaria]

I thought New Atheists used the Dawkins scale? http://ntrygg.files.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -scale.jpg
Which would still allow for a middle ground between Atheism and Theism, but still allow those Atheists not 100% convinced, to still be Atheists.

Not all agree with the Dawkins scale taken literally. Even Dawkins takes it with a pinch of salt placing himself at a 6 but calling himself agnostic.

This chart is what tends to be used.
Its generally useful because it removes all the dilly dallying of theistic/atheistic positioning and can sum up whatever diverse and complex belief system you have regarding the belief in a god in a combination of four words.

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Theist.

As I have said before, people are fine to have whatever definitions they want, but they A) complicate things and B) have to call Richard Dawkins not an Atheist (if you go with the definition of New World Order anyway).

He who plays with the Devils toys,are brought by degres by his sword-miltom

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Responding to bullshit with bullshit just leads to a bigger pile of bullshit. Too many people take it seriously nowadays.

I'm not sure how actually using dictionary definitions is bullshit.

I am using the dictionary definition of agnostic.

[The USOT]

Not all agree with the Dawkins scale taken literally. Even Dawkins takes it with a pinch of salt placing himself at a 6 but calling himself agnostic.

This chart is what tends to be used.
Its generally useful because it removes all the dilly dallying of theistic/atheistic positioning and can sum up whatever diverse and complex belief system you have regarding the belief in a god in a combination of four words.

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Theist.

As I have said before, people are fine to have whatever definitions they want, but they A) complicate things and B) have to call Richard Dawkins not an Atheist (if you go with the definition of New World Order anyway).

He who plays with the Devils toys,are brought by degres by his sword-miltom

Yes?

[Mavorpen]

I'm not sure how actually using dictionary definitions is bullshit.

I am using the dictionary definition of agnostic.

Thanks for proving me right.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I am using the dictionary definition of agnostic.

Thanks for proving me right.

How does it prove you right? It simply states the position as being one that does not venture an opinion as to the existence of God except "I don't know". Not knowing is not the same as not believing. At least the Dawkins scale makes room for "pure" agnosticism, even if I have minor quibbles with how he defines it.

[Mavorpen]

How does it prove you right? It simply states the position as being one that does not venture an opinion as to the existence of God except "I don't know".

Not the ones that have no relevance to belief in God.

Words have meanings that can vary depending on context. You should know this. The links you provided gave two primary definitions:

1. A person who believes that you cannot know whether a deity/deities exist
2. A person who does not hold an affirmative or negative position on a subject.

The first explicitly deals with the question of a deity, while the latter does not and applies to vernacular usage outside of the realm of a deity. The latter is meant for everyday use when you are unsure about something. When discussing belief or nonbelief in a deity however, the first applies.

Not knowing is not the same as not believing.

Of course it isn't the same. Which is why you can be an agnostic theist.

[The Tundra]

(Image)

A common used historical definition is trying to form different subcultures?

Either im misunderstanding the refference or find it odd in use.

well, no, the joke is that we used to have two camps, Atheist and Theist, but now we have Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist. and in those groups, aka "subcultures", there is fiction and other groups that farther divide into, like Militant Gnostic Atheist and Secular Gnostic Athiest.

human subcultures are nested fractally, meaning, that they always have sub-groups, sub sub groups, and splitern cells no matter how big or small it is.

[The USOT]

A common used historical definition is trying to form different subcultures?

Either im misunderstanding the refference or find it odd in use.

well, no, the joke is that we used to have two camps, Atheist and Theist, but now we have Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist. and in those groups, aka "subcultures", there is fiction and other groups that farther divide into, like Militant Gnostic Atheist and Secular Gnostic Athiest.

human subcultures are nested fractally, meaning, that they always have sub-groups, sub sub groups, and splitern cells no matter how big or small it is.

Ah ok.

I would argue though that we never really had "just" atheist/theist as dividers though.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How does it prove you right? It simply states the position as being one that does not venture an opinion as to the existence of God except "I don't know".

Not the ones that have no relevance to belief in God.

Words have meanings that can vary depending on context. You should know this. The links you provided gave two primary definitions:

1. A person who believes that you cannot know whether a deity/deities exist
2. A person who does not hold an affirmative or negative position on a subject.

The first explicitly deals with the question of a deity, while the latter does not and applies to vernacular usage outside of the realm of a deity. The latter is meant for everyday use when you are unsure about something. When discussing belief or nonbelief in a deity however, the first applies.

Not knowing is not the same as not believing.

Of course it isn't the same. Which is why you can be an agnostic theist.

Not knowing is not the same as believing or disbelieving.

Let's say that there is a safe in my house, the kind that you keep money in. There is a manual next to the safe stating that the safe contains, say, a giant rock. There is another manual next to the first manual stating that the first manual is incorrect. The second manual states that there is nothing in the safe, nothing whatsoever, or at least there is no reason to believe that there is anything in the safe. i am unable to pick up the safe, and unable to open it. There is no way for me to determine whether or not that rock is actually in the safe. As a result, I do not know whether or not there is a rock in the safe.

This is not the same thing as not believing that there is a rock in the safe, as that implies disbelief.

[Mavorpen]

Not knowing is not the same as believing or disbelieving.

Uh... okay? I just said that I agree with that.

Let's say that there is a safe in my house, the kind that you keep money in. There is a manual next to the safe stating that the safe contains, say, a giant rock. There is another manual next to the first manual stating that the first manual is incorrect. The second manual states that there is nothing in the safe, nothing whatsoever, or at least there is no reason to believe that there is anything in the safe. i am unable to pick up the safe, and unable to open it. There is no way for me to determine whether or not that rock is actually in the safe. As a result, I do not know whether or not there is a rock in the safe.

This is not the same thing as not believing that there is a rock in the safe, as that implies disbelief.

Again, never, ever, have I suggested they are the same thing.

The fact that you literally ignored the fact I already said this leads me to believe that you really don't have a legitimate argument left.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Not knowing is not the same as believing or disbelieving.

Uh... okay? I just said that I agree with that.

Let's say that there is a safe in my house, the kind that you keep money in. There is a manual next to the safe stating that the safe contains, say, a giant rock. There is another manual next to the first manual stating that the first manual is incorrect. The second manual states that there is nothing in the safe, nothing whatsoever, or at least there is no reason to believe that there is anything in the safe. i am unable to pick up the safe, and unable to open it. There is no way for me to determine whether or not that rock is actually in the safe. As a result, I do not know whether or not there is a rock in the safe.

This is not the same thing as not believing that there is a rock in the safe, as that implies disbelief.

Again, never, ever, have I suggested they are the same thing.

The fact that you literally ignored the fact I already said this leads me to believe that you really don't have a legitimate argument left.

Except the disallowance of "pure agnosticism" as opposed to "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" makes me think that you believe otherwise.

I would list it as such:

Gnostic Theist: I know (or at least believe to a reasonable certainty) that there is a rock in the safe.
Agnostic Theist: I do not know that there is a rock in the safe, but I believe the first manual, which states that there is a rock in the safe.
Pure Agnostic: I do not know whether there is a rock in the safe or not, and hold no opinion on the matter.
Agnostic Atheist: I do not know if there is a rock in the safe, but in the absence of actual evidence beyond a manual of uncertain authorship, I tend to believe that there is no rock.
Gnostic Atheist: I know (or at least believe to a reasonable certainty) that there is a rock in the safe.

Atheism has been taken throughout history to at least imply some sort of active disbelief, or conscious choice to not maintain a god concept. Agnosticism has not. Therefore, by removing pure agnosticism from the equation, you're classifying a large group of people under a label that doesn't fit.

[Mavorpen]

Except the disallowance of "pure agnosticism" as opposed to "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" makes me think that you believe otherwise.

That's nice. I don't.

Atheism has been taken throughout history to at least imply some sort of active disbelief, or conscious choice to not maintain a god concept. Agnosticism has not. Therefore, by removing pure agnosticism from the equation, you're classifying a large group of people under a label that doesn't fit.

So... appeal to tradition?

No thanks, I'll stick to actual definitions that are relevant today.

[The USOT]

Uh... okay? I just said that I agree with that.

Again, never, ever, have I suggested they are the same thing.

The fact that you literally ignored the fact I already said this leads me to believe that you really don't have a legitimate argument left.

Except the disallowance of "pure agnosticism" as opposed to "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" makes me think that you believe otherwise.

I would list it as such:

Gnostic Theist: I know (or at least believe to a reasonable certainty) that there is a rock in the safe.
Agnostic Theist: I do not know that there is a rock in the safe, but I believe the first manual, which states that there is a rock in the safe.
Pure Agnostic: I do not know whether there is a rock in the safe or not, and hold no opinion on the matter.
Agnostic Atheist: I do not know if there is a rock in the safe, but in the absence of actual evidence beyond a manual of uncertain authorship, I tend to believe that there is no rock.
Gnostic Atheist: I know (or at least believe to a reasonable certainty) that there is a rock in the safe.

Atheism has been taken throughout history to at least imply some sort of active disbelief, or conscious choice to not maintain a god concept. Agnosticism has not. Therefore, by removing pure agnosticism from the equation, you're classifying a large group of people under a label that doesn't fit.

@The underlined: To imply atheist, without god (or in this case, without rock) the truer example would be "not have a belief". Otherwise the gnostic position also includes a degree of the agnostic atheist position, which would make the distinction irrelevant.

[The New World Oceania]

Except the disallowance of "pure agnosticism" as opposed to "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" makes me think that you believe otherwise.

I would list it as such:

Gnostic Theist: I know (or at least believe to a reasonable certainty) that there is a rock in the safe.
Agnostic Theist: I do not know that there is a rock in the safe, but I believe the first manual, which states that there is a rock in the safe.
Pure Agnostic: I do not know whether there is a rock in the safe or not, and hold no opinion on the matter.
Agnostic Atheist: I do not know if there is a rock in the safe, but in the absence of actual evidence beyond a manual of uncertain authorship, I tend to believe that there is no rock.
Gnostic Atheist: I know (or at least believe to a reasonable certainty) that there is a rock in the safe.

Atheism has been taken throughout history to at least imply some sort of active disbelief, or conscious choice to not maintain a god concept. Agnosticism has not. Therefore, by removing pure agnosticism from the equation, you're classifying a large group of people under a label that doesn't fit.

@The underlined: To imply atheist, without god (or in this case, without rock) the truer example would be "not have a belief". Otherwise the gnostic position also includes a degree of the agnostic atheist position, which would make the distinction irrelevant.

The line of that distinction is blurred, but similarities between two causes do not necessarily make the line irrelevant.

Atheism has been taken throughout history to at least imply some sort of active disbelief, or conscious choice to not maintain a god concept. Agnosticism has not. Therefore, by removing pure agnosticism from the equation, you're classifying a large group of people under a label that doesn't fit.

So... appeal to tradition?

No thanks, I'll stick to actual definitions that are relevant today.

If I look up “carrot” in the dictionary, most people will acknowledge I do not know all there is to know about carrots and if I truly want to understand carrots, I should probably pick up a horticultural text book. We know that legal and medical terms are going to be, at best, simplistically represented and know we need to find a lawyer or a doctor if we want to know more. Anyone deciding to base their argument on, say, a philosophical concept or term using the dictionary is going to be laughed at at best, or automatically lose whatever argument they’re trying to make at least.