The Fools and the Atheists

Samuel
Samuel's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2006-02-18
User is offlineOffline
The Fools and the Atheists

Here you go, Atheist means "does not believe in God."
Agnostic means "doesn't know there is a God or not."
Theist means, "believes in God."
The definition of fool is "believes something that he/she doesn't know for a fact is true."
The definition of stupid is "foolish or idiotic person."

So unless a theist has evidence of a God, a theist is stupid for being a theist, by definition.

A theist without proof of a God has to agree he is agnostic.
But once you are both theist and agnostic, that means you "believe" something that "you don't know is true." You are thereby a fool, and thereby stupid.

I am not name calling, they say this themselves. All theists who say they don't care there isn't evidence, or that faith is separate from logic... So on... Are, word for word, describing themselves are fools, not me. I'm just pointing that out. And pointing out that thereby makes the "stupid."

Once there is no evidence of God (yet, that I know of) I cannot, and others cannot be anything but agnostic. Then, because you don't believe in things you don't know are true, you must also be an atheist... Or a fool.

That's just the way it is.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Fools and the Atheists

Don't like that 'definition' of fool.

I'd rather restrict that description to someone who believes strongly something to be true when there is a fair amount of relevant evidence which strongly suggests that the belief is false.

If there is no evidence, it's not necessarily foolish, unless you hold that belief very strongly and it has major implications on how you conduct your life. Otherwise it might be considered a harmless fantasy which helps the person cope with life. If the person won't even entertain the possibility that it might not be true, that could be definitely be considered 'foolish' IMHO.

Just for the record, I am a strong Atheist, but I don't like arguing in terms of absolutes like true and false when referring to 'facts' about the 'real world', or talking about belief without taking into account the strength of that belief, ie how convinced one is about the likelihood of it being true.

The absolutist use of 'true' and 'prove', as in the common Theist accusation that Atheists can't 'prove' there is no God, fails when I respond that I assess from my observations of the world that the likelihood of the various God claims being true is so low that it's reasonable to ignore it. This is the same way that we normally ignore the non-zero probability that the Sun will explode tomorrow, which I personally consider to be higher the probability of any God claim being true.

Strength of belief can be absolute, when no possibility that the things believed in may not be true can or will be considered by the person. Many Theists seem to hold their beliefs this way. Again I wouldn't use the term 'foolish' here, I would prefer deeply deluded.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Thor
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Re: The Fools and the Atheists

Samuel wrote:
Here you go, Atheist means "does not believe in God."
Agnostic means "doesn't know there is a God or not."
Theist means, "believes in God."

Agnostic means "abiding to Huxley's epistemology where by nothing is certain". So it does mean "doesn't know if there is a God or not" but it also means "doesn't know if you exist or not."

From Alan
FTT Website Designer


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
The Fools and the Atheists

Damn those skeptics... they're all fools!


Samuel
Samuel's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2006-02-18
User is offlineOffline
The Fools and the Atheists

Gnostic: Person who knows there to be a God.
Agnostic: Person who doesn't know whether or not there is a God.

No one has proven God, everyone is Gnostic.

Theist: Believes there is a God.
Atheist: Doesn't believe there is a God.

Fool: Believes something without knowing it to be true.
Idiot: A foolish or stupid person.

Theist = Idiot

Mathmatical logic. 1 + 1 = 2.

If you don't like the definition of the word, then cry me a river. Go ahead. Do it. That is what fool means. Gnostic means "knows" and Agnostic means, "Doesn't know either way," but in terms of God, then, well, obviously their definitions are right on the mark. I used the greek and latin roots of the words and everything. That's what they mean. And look up fool in the dictionary.

If you think the definition of "fool" isn't always a bad thing, then you are saying "fool" isn't always a negative word. So stop complaining. I don't care if you think theists are okay or whatever, they are, by definition, fools, and therefore, by definition, idiots. You can call foolish not always a bad thing but that doesn't change the fact that they are what they are and one plus one equals two.


lunkradio_dot_com
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Re: The Fools and the Atheists

Alan_RRSdesigner wrote:
Samuel wrote:
Here you go, Atheist means "does not believe in God."
Agnostic means "doesn't know there is a God or not."
Theist means, "believes in God."

Agnostic means "abiding to Huxley's epistemology where by nothing is certain". So it does mean "doesn't know if there is a God or not" but it also means "doesn't know if you exist or not."

you are wrong.
agnostic - Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning ?without, not,? as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, ?knowledge,? which was used by early Christian writers to mean ?higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things? hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as ?Gnostics? a group of his fellow intellectuals?ists,? as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a ?man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,? Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
I believe you are confused......i have never heard of a philiosophy where skepticism is applied to everything, sounds like matrix stuff to me - like your whole life could be a dream and nothing exists - that is not agnosticism.

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My
idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own,
so both of them together is certain death.
- George Carlin


Samuel
Samuel's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2006-02-18
User is offlineOffline
No, you idiot, when I said

No, you idiot, when I said agnostic I was referring to the stance of not knowing wether or not there is a God. Agnostic means "unknowing."

And I am aware of that philosopher who wanted to needlessly coin the term a different way, and I am coining it back.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Samuel wrote:Mathmatical

Samuel wrote:
Mathmatical logic. 1 + 1 = 2.

Actually it's the transitive property. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Why oh why did we resurrect

Why oh why did we resurrect this?

Every fucking thread dealing with some definition on this site has to do with this. Honestly, build a bridge and get the fuck over it.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/youre_an_atheist_because?page=1

One of my all-time favorite threads.... NOT!
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/is_this_site_hypocritical

Another favorite:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/misuse_of_atheism_and_agnosticism

Seriously, folks. There are much more nobler tasks than stirring this excrement.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Samuel wrote:No, you idiot,

Samuel wrote:
No, you idiot, when I said agnostic I was referring to the stance of not knowing wether or not there is a God. Agnostic means "unknowing."

Gnosticism has to do with the believe that supernatural knowledge is possible. It's an epistemological position, not a knowledge claim. If someone had knowledge that god existed, the debate would be over.

Quote:

And I am aware of that philosopher who wanted to needlessly coin the term a different way, and I am coining it back.

He didn't needlessy coin the word in a different way, Huxley invented the word himself.

Everyone on this site ought to take a test before they argue these issues. I think I'll make it.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


morning star
morning star's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
'Absolutely agree' -fact

'Absolutely agree' -fact nothing is absolute period.Cool


morning star
morning star's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Samuel

Quote:
Samuel wrote:
Mathmatical logic. 1 + 1 = 2.

Actually it's the transitive property. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

What does this mean? don't confuse with a 'definition'(eg.1+1=2), evidence-based 'facts' are to much desired, but impossible to verify 'plateaus' in knowledge that we want to believe are immutable!