again, i beleive there might be a god in the sense that anything is possible. you might be god. i certainly cannot prove you are not god. maybe you are. but as of now there is no evidence that you are god so i wont randomly believe that for no reason, regarding you or any other possible god.
it means "without theism", quite literally. theism means belief in a deity. it does not mean a belief in a lack of a deity. Jesus christ how many times do we have to go over this.
dont hold that one thread against me. i loathe lawyers and suits. never have sued and never expect to. but i hate employers telling people what to do when it has no bearing on the job more.
right, whatever i guess. one more note on the definition. the question is "do you have faith in a deity of some sort". it is a yes or no question. your answer determines if you are atheist. it is a simple binary question. and the question is not about god, it is about you. do you believe. the question of whether god exists is a different question, answer undertemined. the questioned is whether you are aware that the answer to the questioned is undetermined, or are you willing to invent something via faith.
Its a false dichotomy and irrelevant to the definition of atheism, which you attempt to rewrite from time to time. It fails to account for agnostics, who may deny such faith but still accepts its possibility. I can say the same thing to you: You must either accept that God exists else you deny that God exists. But this fails to account for agnostics who deny knowledge of but accept the possibility of God. That's not a martonian black and white issue either. I've already pointed out that I understand that the question is unknown and unknowable. That is the essence of agnosticism. We do not go so far as to deny the possibility. If you do not deny the possibility either, then perhaps you are not a true atheist.
you simply fail to understand the difference between believing something does not exist and denying that it is even possible. it is totally irrational to deny that god could possibly exist, obviously, as he is defined as this invisible dude that evades detection. again, i think you should write a letter to every prominent atheist explaining that by red's reckoning they are all agnostics.
Just because you don't like being an atheist doesn't mean you're not one. It's like Liberals denying they are Liberals because they resent the word. It is what it is. If you truly believe what you wrote in the paragraph above, you are very clearly agnostic. Whether you like that word or not! :lol: You are also an enigma. But that's a different story. Occam's Razor. Stupid. I think that about covers it...
what you are saying is that if you disagree with the universally accepted definition of a word, then the definition is invalid. I have not been able to find one accepted definition of athiest that fits your definition. And I have not been able to find one accepted definition of agnostic that DOES NOT fit your stated position on the possibility of a deity. Perhaps you can show us where those definitions are - outside of your own will, I mean. :wink:
