So do you think it is "irrational" to know that there is a god and not to believe in that god — 180 Proof
ust as a wife can know that her husband exists and does not believe in him — 180 Proof
If so, please explain. — 180 Proof
I think your conflation of knowing (i.e. a proposition) and believing — 180 Proof
You misconstrue atheism which denotes 'lack of belief in god' and / or 'belief in the nonexistence of god' and is not a statement of knowledge (i.e. not a truth-claim) like agnosticism. It's you who are equivocating – confusing – belief and knowledge in order to conjure up an inconsistency where there isn't one.I'm not talking about "believing in"... — Hallucinogen
Yes, just as it can be "rational" to believe something without knowing whether it is true.If you know something, it is rational to believe it.
'lack of belief in god' and / or 'belief in the nonexistence of god' and is not a statement of knowledge — 180 Proof
not a truth-claim) like agnosticism. — 180 Proof
it can be "rational" to believe something without knowing whether it is true. — 180 Proof
Okay ... if you say so. — 180 Proof
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.
I wasn't aware of their definition until recent years. — Tom Storm
Such Christians tend to interpret requests that they define God as an indication of dishonesty on the part of atheists. — wonderer1
To me it seems like arguments that god does not exist are weak, and arguments that it does exist are even weaker. — mentos987
The agnostic label should be reserved for those who are truly divided (even if the evidence sways their mind in another direction) and prefer to suspend judgement in the await for more evidence. — Lionino
I don't think people need to be delusional because they don't share your grasp of the terminology.I would say first that those people are deluded because — Lionino
Confused seems better. Even so, saying you are an atheist is usually enough to get the correct message across.lying or confused — Lionino
I don't think people need to be delusional because they don't share your grasp of the terminology. — mentos987
Confused seems better. Even so, saying you are an atheist is usually enough to get the correct message across. — mentos987
But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one.
But this doesn't apply to everyone's concept of it. — Benj96
I would refer to the Christian god if I were to say this, not a god of my own creation.which they refer. Their own one. — Benj96
But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one. — Benj96
But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one.
But this doesn't apply to everyone's concept of it. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.