Perhaps. I’m willing to drop the “True” part of the question in my own thread, and I certainly haven’t dwelled on it there.
I quoted a standard internet dictionary definition.
No, his is as well.
The agnostic/atheist debate is silly as well. As far as I’m concerned, if you think there’s as much evidence for god as there is for little green men on mars or a teapot orbiting on the other side of the sun, you’re an atheist. If you want to call yourself an agnostic to avoid arguments with religious-minded people, that’s your business.
I disagree. Certainty is not required. I am as certain that there are no gods as I am certain there are no unicorns. Show me a unicorn and I will reevaluate. Same with gods.
Is “Aunicornism” a religion?
And my second question?
Because the issue of “What is a Christian?” is inherently more complicated. Complicated enough that actual wars have been fought over this exact question.
Meanwhile, “Atheist” has a clear-cut definition, which has only ever been disputed by people trying to score silly points in silly arguments.
I just might qualify as a fake atheist. Or a less-than-“True” atheist. I’ve been told by some that I don’t qualify as theistic in their eyes. Or that I’m using the word “God” in a way that doesn’t have legitimate overlap with how the rest of the world uses it, etc. On the other hand, I don’t go forth self-identifying as an atheist. If there’s any meaningful sense in which someone is a “true atheist” it would seem to revolve around them utilizing that definition themselves.
There really is no significant difference. An agnostic is by definition an atheist (one who literally lacks belief in a deity). And then there is the other odd hybrid called “apatheism”, which takes the position, even if the existence of a deity could be conclusively proven, it would make no difference.
Most atheists, as far as I can tell, just do not give a shit. Some have mystical inclinations, which are not, per se, contrary to atheism, while others are absolute materialists, with a broad spectrum of views between and beyond those extremes. Generally speaking, atheism means little or no attention is spent on “spiritual” concerns, and religulousness is only a concern whenever it makes efforts to force the issue.
I’ve said before, that I think atheism a problematic term. I guess there could be folk out there who reject theism, but believe in alien abduction, witchcraft and magic, unicorns, and ESP… But I haven’t met them. And the difference between a theist and some spiritual goof who sits around in a drum circle? I don’t care. They’re both acting on insufficiently supported belief.
The same way atheists only reject one more god than most believers, theism is only one aspect of the supernatural that I reject. A more appropriate term would be nontheist, to stress the irrelevance of the concept to anything i consider important. Or Humanist, should you wish to focus on what you believe, rather than one of many things you reject.
Parsing between atheism and agnosticism also strikes me as pretty silly. Sure, no one can prove that no gods exist. We can sit around and think up countless other “possibilities” that cannot be disproven. A common activity among undergrads. But when a concept lacks credible support, and a great deal of evidence consistently supports the opposite conclusion, I suggest there is little meaningful difference between contending “it isn’t” vs “it hasn’t been proven.”
Get back to me when he/she/it writes their name across the heavens in the stars. Or stop by and chortle at me as I pitch into the pit of hellfire. Until then, I’m not really interested in your fantasies, and have better things to do - like pretty much anything or nothing!
Define a “unicorn”. We can make a unicorn- a goat or a cow with one horn in the center of it’s brow. Rhinos, the source for the mythological unicorn do exist. Narwals the source for unicorn horn, exist.
Have you ever seen a Bamboo Lemur? Do you doubt their existence?
“What defines an atheist” has been debated in dozens of threads here on the SDMB. Do we really need one more?
Etymologically, “a-theist” simply means “without god(s).” That seems a reasonable definition to me—which means it’s not a matter of what you do believe or do do, as long as you don’t believe in, acknowledge, or worship any sort of god.
Is a True Atheist like a True Scotsman?
Only in the sense that genetic engineering is. Not going to play any variation of the game that tries to equate the two and then debate them differentially.
Only in the same way Army recruiters do.
“What defines a Christian” has been debated in dozens of threads here on the SDMB. Do we really need one more?
are you posting the same query in Czarcasm’s thread?
Heck, I was never a Christian and I still say “Jeez!” and “Christ!” at times when annoyed. It’s just cultural osmosis.
And I don’t believe in Heck, either, but it makes a handy way to start a sentence at times.
I’m not debating the question in my own thread-I’m accepting the answers that are given.
which is?
I doubt that and I doubt your stated reason for starting that thread.
You have seen countless threads before on the same subject. Did you think the answer had changed or did you forget?
Remember what I said- Atheists proselytize. They sometimes do this by the old “Just asking questions”.
The one following the one you already answered.