The irony failed for reasons that have already been explained by several people.
Yeah, you’re just fucking with us. Post after post people have responded to your unusual definition of agnostic and you played along and told no one “it was an attempt at humor.” Good luck sticking around here.
Well I am sorry you think that, but I do appreciate your sharing it with me.
Fact is, when I am dealing with questions about the existence or non-existence of gods, I am actually dealing with the questions of: What is the Reality of existence? What is THIS (spreading my arms wide) all about? Are there any possible explanations for all this that I can definitely rule out…any that I must rule in?
I always come up with “I do not know” for that first question and the second; and I come up with “NO” for the third.
When I am asked about 11 foot tall unknowable pink bunnies or CPA’S working on a moon of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti Monsters…I know I am dealing with an atheist who thinks he is making a cogent point with a trite bit of nothingness…so I really don’t give it serious consideration.
I hope that answered your question, Dan.
What on earth are you talking about, Fantome?
Why are you in such a dither?
And what is so “unusual” about my definition of MY agnosticism?
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” -Bill Clinton.
“I am not a racist.” -David Duke.
“I am not a crook.” -Richard Nixon
“I do not have a belief that there is a God. And I’m certainly not an atheist!” -an atheist.
Yes, sometimes it is perfectly proper to see whether someone’s self-description matches the facts or not.
Okay…so it was a bad attempt.
What is the penalty for that in this forum?
It took me a while to get my mind around that when I first learned it because I had to break my mind of being told for years that there were only three categories to pick from regarding having faith:
- Theist says yes
- Atheist says no
- Agnostic says maybe
It helped when the question of faith was posed like this:
Question, binary: do you have a belief that there is a God. Choose one
YES
or
NOT YES (which includes all forms of no and maybe)
If ‘Yes’, you are a theist. If ‘Not Yes’, then you are an a-theist.
Having people point out that it didn’t work.
…Followed by death.
You are really not going to trot out that a-theistic nonsense here, are you???
C’mon!
“Atheistic” didn’t come about by adding “a” to "theistic.” That is just garbage atheists use to make it seem that all one has to do to be an atheist is to “not believe in gods.”
True, some dictionaries have picked up on it…but the etymological dictionaries tell it like it really is.
Atheistic was in the English language before theistic, actually.
I realize that atheists want to have a monopoly on the notion of “not believing in gods”…but you do not. Agnostics also do not believe in gods. You can try as hard as you want to include us in your mix…and you could probably use the intellectual help…but most of us are not willing to associate with you.
But nice try.
What don’t you get? You went on about it being a useful term even though everyone would be one, and you argued over it over several posts with several other posters. Now you’re telling us it was just an attempt at humorous irony? You’re not supposed to do that here in case you’re not aware of the rules.
Still getting your rocks off?
Which one?
Are you going to respond to the post of mine that you skipped over or not?
Jeez…I thought that last part was prohibited by rules.
Strictly speaking, if you are willing to argue at length about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then you aren’t an agnostic or an atheist.
Either way, there are still no gods.
What are you talking about?
This one response I considered a ironic, humorous comment in response to something someone else said.
Why does that negate whatever it is you think I negated?
And why don’t you bring up a specific…so I can actually deal with something?
I am not supposed to have fun…I am not supposed to be ironic?
That is in the rules?
Nope. Why are you watching somehow?
Whichever one you referred to.
Wasn’t aware I skipped a post. I’ll look for it.
Re-post it Fantome. I cannot find it.
How do you know that?
Yes, I will try to educate you (although I’m not sure why, as many have tried and failed) that atheism means “without theism”, and that it is thus a-theism.
I’m an optimist.
That’s exactly where it came from, following long-established rules of English grammar. “Apolitical”, “amoral”, and so on. What, you think that when people were trying to come up with a word to mean “without theism” they just accidentally happened to chose a word which means “without theism”?
Yep. if you don’t believe in God you are, by definition, and atheist. Because you lack theism. A-theism.
This is an example of why a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. A-theism comes to us from the Greek, from a + theos. A meaning without, theos meaning god. Yes, people generally just called theism “religion” and broke it up into various flavors, because the concept that one should start from the null hypothesis and falsify it rather than the conclusion and justify it was somewhat novel.
Yes, I realize your agenda. Because the fact that you are an atheist is unpopular, you would prefer a different word. Of course, you don’t believe in a God in exactly the same way that an atheist doesn’t, you just play silly word games. You have no belief in a God? You’re an atheist. End of story. Ya big atheist.
Please don’t make comments like this. (I missed this post earlier.) Let’s discuss the arguments and not people’s motivations in making them.
I’m not going to waste anymore time with you. I should have never come back to entertain your bullshit.
I’m hoping one of your fellow atheists comes along to tell you how very wrong you are on this. Short of that…I suggest you go to an etymological dictionary and see how the word came into the English language.
It was not derived the way you are supposing.
I have never seen or heard of any etymology for atheism other than the one FinnAgain posted, Frank apisa. What’s your version?