Webster's dictionarysleeper;1198584 wrote:Agnosticism is concerned with knowledge, not belief. I don't know why this has to be repeated to you multiple times. I think you are more upset that you can't use a logical loophole to define atheism as a belief. It isn't and it never will be.
Dude, Webster's doesn't know what they're talking about and they need to revise their definition.jmog;1198591 wrote:Webster's dictionary
Agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, of God, and the essential nature of things are unknown
So again, your definition is incorrect when it comes to world views.
So your definition of metaphysical world views should be adopted over millenia of experts definitions? And you say religious people are illogical? Come on sleeper, you can do better than that. You can admit once that you made a mistake.sleeper;1198589 wrote:Once again, there is a difference in believing that there is no god and lacking the belief in gods; which is why my definition is more accurate and should be the appropriate definition.
Isn't this the entire point of the discussion? I'm glad you are bringing up Websters dictionary, great. Good work. I'm aware of the definitions, I'm saying that they are incorrect.jmog;1198591 wrote:Webster's dictionary
Agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, of God, and the essential nature of things are unknown
So again, your definition is incorrect when it comes to world views.
There should be a picture of a priest next to the word "illogical" in the dictionary. The example sentence should read: "It is illogical to believe in god because it never has, never will and never can be proven".jmog;1198596 wrote:So your definition of metaphysical world views should be adopted over millenia of experts definitions? And you say religious people are illogical? Come on sleeper, you can do better than that. You can admit once that you made a mistake.
LOL based on what? Your "expert" opinion?sleeper;1198603 wrote:Isn't this the entire point of the discussion? I'm glad you are bringing up Websters dictionary, great. Good work. I'm aware of the definitions, I'm saying that they are incorrect.
The negative of that same sentence is true though sleeper, in your logic.sleeper;1198607 wrote:There should be a picture of a priest next to the word "illogical" in the dictionary. The example sentence should read: "It is illogical to believe in god because it never has, never will and never can be proven".
That is the point of this discussion. I have defended my points very well. Try reading them; they are perfectly logical.Raw Dawgin' it;1198608 wrote:LOL based on what? Your "expert" opinion?
This is a guy who asks for peer reviewed studies to back up points yet is trying to make his based on nothing but his opinion. The dictionary is wrong and I am right because I said so.
Really? So i can take anything you write to mean something different because word definitions are opinion not fact?sleeper;1198618 wrote:That is the point of this discussion. I have defended my points very well. Try reading them; they are perfectly logical.
Webster's dictionary is nothing more than an opinion as well. Enjoy!
That is why I lack belief in god. It is the only defensible position. I lack belief because I have not seen any evidence to sway me to believe in a god. It is not a claim much like lacking belief in string theory is not a claim.jmog;1198616 wrote:The negative of that same sentence is true though sleeper, in your logic.
"It is illogical to NOT believe in god because it never has, never will, and never can be proven"
I don't believe your bolded statement nor mine are logically true, but if your's is valid so is mine.
I love it sleeper, you have to be trolling now because you can not possibly believe this statement.sleeper;1198618 wrote:That is the point of this discussion. I have defended my points very well. Try reading them; they are perfectly logical.
Webster's dictionary is nothing more than an opinion as well. Enjoy!
Webster's isn't fact. I could start a dictionary tomorrow and put as much junk in it as I want and it would be as valid as Webster's.Raw Dawgin' it;1198624 wrote:Really? So i can take anything you write to mean something different because word definitions are opinion not fact?
What a dumb ass statement.
I am both agnostic and atheistic. Though closely related they are different.jmog;1198630 wrote:I love it sleeper, you have to be trolling now because you can not possibly believe this statement.
If a consensus definition of a word is "nothing more than opinion" then you are truly an agnostic (NOT an atheist) because you don't believe anything. You do not believe the definition of words, you do not believe the world is a spheroid (not a perfect sphere), you do not believe that the sun is the center of the solar system, etc.
All of these are just opinions right sleeper?
Wait, if it happens to be in line with your opinion then they are no longer opinions, they are proven facts!
That's just websters definition. JMOG according to Sleeper, their definitions are opinions and you can take them to mean anything you want, so what he posted doesn't have to mean that if you don't want it to.sleeper;1198626 wrote:That is why I lack belief in god. It is the only defensible position. I lack belief because I have not seen any evidence to sway me to believe in a god. It is not a claim much like lacking belief in string theory is not a claim.
The fact that you do not understand the difference is embarrassing and is just another logical loophole you build for yourself to justify your cult.
Here is Webster's definition of a cult:
a system of religious beliefs and ritual
You are wrong again, your belief is not the only defensible position, all 3 positions (atheism, theism, agnosticism) are all defensible logical conclusions based on the way people believe the evidence points (or doesn't point).sleeper;1198626 wrote:That is why I lack belief in god. It is the only defensible position. I lack belief because I have not seen any evidence to sway me to believe in a god. It is not a claim much like lacking belief in string theory is not a claim.
The fact that you do not understand the difference is embarrassing and is just another logical loophole you build for yourself to justify your cult.
Here is Webster's definition of a cult:
a system of religious beliefs and ritual
Wrong - you do this so when you're proven wrong you can change what you meant.sleeper;1198639 wrote:Highly correlated evidence supercedes opinion. Words change, I'm arguing the definition needs to change to appropriately fit the correct definition of the word.
When enough evidence correlates highly with the existence of your specific god, then we can talk about accepting the claim. Currently, there is none, zilch, zero evidence. Enjoy!
So you disagree that words change? Interesting. Tell me, what does a joint mean? Both in the 1800's and now in the 2000's.Raw Dawgin' it;1198642 wrote:Wrong - you do this so when you're proven wrong you can change what you meant.
This is called a cop out since the discussion changed to "word definitions are opinions"sleeper;1198644 wrote:In a discussion regarding religion, logic is not needed. The believer side is forced to stand on faith as its justification because there is no evidence of its existence or facts that correlate at all with the belief. Because of this, I can make up anything I want and have it be just as valid as a believers opinion.
I do admit its nice being able to defend things by not using logic.
What's it matter if it's opinion?sleeper;1198647 wrote:So you disagree that words change? Interesting. Tell me, what does a joint mean? Both in the 1800's and now in the 2000's.
I think you misread what I wrote. Since faith is by religious logic, valid, I can have faith in anything. Therefore, I have faith that Webster's has the wrong definition, please prove me wrong. Since you cannot prove faith wrong, then it must be right.Raw Dawgin' it;1198648 wrote:This is called a cop out since the discussion changed to "word definitions are opinions"
Nice dodge. At some point in time, a group of people decided that a new definition of joint needed to be added to the dictionary.Raw Dawgin' it;1198651 wrote:What's it matter if it's opinion?
Honestly - everything you write is bullshit. Since you think definitions of words are opinions, you can change anything to make your argument. You don't have discussions, i'd definite discussion but it's irrelevant since it probably means something completely different to you.sleeper;1198653 wrote:I think you misread what I wrote. Since faith is by religious logic, valid, I can have faith in anything. Therefore, I have faith that Webster's has the wrong definition, please prove me wrong. Since you cannot prove faith wrong, then it must be right.
Aren't you glad you live in a world where faith is rational? It seriously is a beautiful thing.
