So that's it for the election.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Agnosticism FTW

The validity of the existence of god is untestable, therefore I won't take a position on it.

Everyone else (theists and atheists equally) are under operating under a shared delusion.

That's right. I'm throwing 99.99% of all people into the crazy bin.

This is false dichotomy and false equivalence. The absence of belief in deities is neither equivalent to nor incompatible with belief in the absence of deities. Your position is sloppy and lazy thinking.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is false dichotomy and false equivalence. The absence of belief in deities is neither equivalent to nor incompatible with belief in the absence of deities. Your position is sloppy and lazy thinking.

Atheism is NOT the lack of belief in a deity figure, no matter HOW modern atheists try and make it so. The lack of belief in a deity figure is far closer to agnosticism.

The simple roots of the word atheism, and historical usage of the word until the last decade or two is the denial of possibility of the existence of a deity.

The above is the definition by which I crucify (lol) atheism on the same cross with jesus.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atheism is NOT the lack of belief in a deity figure, no matter HOW modern atheists try and make it so. The lack of belief in a deity figure is far closer to agnosticism.

The simple roots of the word atheism, and historical usage of the word until the last decade or two is the denial of possibility of the existence of a deity.

The above is the definition by which I crucify (lol) atheism on the same cross with jesus.

Which point in time are you attempting to lock the word to? Original? 18th century? Recent? Modern? The original Greek simply means "without gods."

My views are probably closest to epistemological atheism, which is certainly similar to agnosticism.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which point in time are you attempting to lock the word to? Original? 18th century? Recent? Modern? The original Greek simply means "without gods."

My views are probably closest to epistemological atheism, which is certainly similar to agnosticism.

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

The root is the Greek atheos, "without gods." It was an insult. Modern atheism has many forms and variations.

You are perpetuating a false dichotomy. I am not black to an atheist's white. My position is that the entire conversation is pointless noise with a contrived and baseless explanation for the unknown and, in some cases, unknowable.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The root is the Greek atheos, "without gods." It was an insult. Modern atheism has many forms and variations.

I would argue that the vast majority of modern atheism is actually a misnomer for agnosticism. Hitchens et al., have been trying to change the meaning of the word for a while now to try and provide another socially acceptable choice for people. Hitchens at least has said as much. It doesn't make agnosticism atheism, and it doesn't make atheism anything but what it is, the belief that there is not a higher power.

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are perpetuating a false dichotomy.

I see what you mean, but please try and understand the above, as that more fully explains what I mean. I am not trying to paint a picture of black and white, I'm trying to paint a picture of all the gray area that 99.99% of the population miss by choosing either black or white.

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not black to an atheist's white. My position is that the entire conversation is pointless noise with a contrived and baseless explanation for the unknown and, in some cases, unknowable.

So from that basis, do you find that: there IS a god for sure, there is NOT a god for sure, or that the lack of evidence prevents you from taking a position? (theist, atheist, and agnostic)

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So from that basis, do you find that: there IS a god for sure, there is NOT a god for sure, or that the lack of evidence prevents you from taking a position? (theist, atheist, and agnostic)

This is a false choice. Agnostics can be, and very frequently are, theists.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

Anti is against, a is without. Sorry you got confused

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

Incidentally, this is the genetic fallacy. The origin of the word is irrelevant. What matters is contemporary usage. Living languages change constantly.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atheism is NOT the lack of belief in a deity figure, no matter HOW modern atheists try and make it so. The lack of belief in a deity figure is far closer to agnosticism.

The simple roots of the word atheism, and historical usage of the word until the last decade or two is the denial of possibility of the existence of a deity.

The above is the definition by which I crucify (lol) atheism on the same cross with jesus.

you are actually wrong here, as usual.
Theism is the belief in a god or deity figure. (a) in english is a negative modifier.
Atheist is not having belief.
It applies across the language.
Social or asocial
Asocial is not being social. Anti-social is not the same as asocial
Maybe you are thinking of anti-theism....but I highly doubt you think.