[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I thought that was clear from the begining.

My point of biew: I don't know why you want a definition to mean something it doesn't. You are complicating definitions. It's VERY simple.

It is not simple! That's the problem here. You are grossly oversimplifying the definitions. Your simplified definitions clash with the historical usages of these words as well as the comprehensive definitions from modern paperbound dictionaries. The word agnostic wasn't even coined before the late 1800's (by the kickass Thomas Huxley!). Before then, as now, atheist meant someone who disbelieved in god. Disbelief, as I've tried to point out, can either mean the belief of a statements falsity (as you currently accept) or the lack of belief in a statements truth. Please verify that you recognize and accept this difference.

Your answers.com definition of agnostic is misleading (aka wrong). Here are definitions more reputable sources:

agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that nothing is known or knowable of the origin or nature of the universe or its creator, except the physical manifestations of phenomena, neither accepting nor rejecting a Deity with supernatural power. 2. Any doctrine which maintains that matters generally accepted as knowledge are problematical, since all are related and trace to a common unknown source. (Webster's)

agnosticism: The doctrine and philosophical theory that man cannot know God, first truths, or anything beyond material phenomena. (Funk and Wagnalls Desk Edition)

agnostic: (from Greek agnostos, "unknowing, unknown, unknowable") One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and, so far as can be judged, unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing. (OED)

Every definition here defines agnosticism as a position on knowability, not belief! Do you understand the difference? I see that you looked up "believe" but not "knowledge". I suggest you do that if you want to continue this discussion. As I hope you will see, it is logically possible to believe something without knowledge. For example Frank may state that he believes his car will win the race or he may state that he knows his car will win the race. If his car loses the race we would say that he clearly did not know that he was going to lose the race. We wouldn't, however, deny that he believed it. Does that make sense? In the same way an atheist disbelieves in god, but may or may not admit to knowing that it is true that no god exists. If he claims that it is false that god exists, he is an atheist and not an agnostic. If he claims that he does not believe in god but is unwilling to make the claim that he knows it is false that god exists, he is an atheist AND an agnostic. Note that the word "agnostic" means "not knowing" in greek.

Part of the problem here may be that you assume that if someone admits that he doesn't know there is a god, then that person should withhold belief entirely. This is certainly possible and someone who withholds belief for this reason should also be labeled an agnostic by the aforementioned definitions. BUT it isn't the belief that is crucial to the definition but the position on the "knowability" of the claim. Many agnostic atheists such as myself will admit they don't know that it is false that god exists but strongly suspect, ie believe, that he doesn't. It is also possible to be a theist and admit that the existence of god is not knowable. Such a theist is also an agnostic.

Interestingly, babies are all atheists. Not one baby in the history of the world has been an agnostic because they are unable to reason about the knowability of the claim that god exists. For that matter rocks and trees are atheists too, but now I'm just being silly.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Atheists are sure God does not exist. Very simple. Easy to understand. Do you disagree?

Agnostics are not sure God does not exist. Again, very simple. Easy to understand. Do you disagree?

Now don't take my criticism the wrong way. I can see where your confusion comes from. It is very understandably. These words are used incorrectly all the time and the topic is a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scientist

Now don't take my criticism the wrong way. I can see where your confusion comes from. It is very understandably. These words are used incorrectly all the time and the topic is a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface.

Actually, you see that bolded word in your post? That, is where my confusion lies. Your inability to use words correctly.

Can you understand why people have a hard time understanding you? You use words incorrectly.

Enjoy your verbal masturbation. I am done. You are nearly impossible to understand because you use words incorrectly.

Clear?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Actually, you see that bolded word in your post? That, is where my confusion lies. Your inability to use words correctly.

Can you understand why people have a hard time understanding you? You use words incorrectly.

Enjoy your verbal masturbation. I am done. You are nearly impossible to understand because you use words incorrectly.

Clear?

Grow up. His post was pretty carefully worded and showed a lot of thought, and you picked out a single typo where he accidentally wrote a Y instead of an E. Hooray for you.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Grow up. His post was pretty carefully worded and showed a lot of thought, and you picked out a single typo where he accidentally wrote a Y instead of an E. Hooray for you.

OOOO... the "grow up" argument. Nice!

Sure, he may have carefully worded it, but he has severe communication flaws. Usually someone is very verbose when their argument is weak.

Actually, there are a lot of similar flaws as the one I pointed out, and his assumptions of what I think (and what he thinks I think) are what make communication with him difficult.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

OOOO... the "grow up" argument. Nice!

I admit it lacks the persuasive force of the "Haha you made a typo" argument, but it seemed to fit. Seriously, reread your post. He makes a long, respectful argument using several sources. You come back by quoting a minor typo, bash him for it and then ignore everything else he said.

Sure, he may have carefully worded it, but he has severe communication flaws. Usually someone is very verbose when their argument is weak.

Actually, there are a lot of similar flaws as the one I pointed out, and his assumptions of what I think (and what he thinks I think) are what make communication with him difficult.

I didn't see very many bold assumptions about what you think, and you didn't bother to point any out. Instead, you pointed out a typo in a context where the actual meaning was clear. Were you just trying to look petty by pointing out the one thing that wasn't a big problem with his post?

Anyway, I had no problem understanding what he wrote. In a nutshell, it was this:

The definitions you've given for the words are more limited than they ought to be. Based on its historical usage, atheist means "someone who does not believe in God." They might feel sure God doesn't exist, or they might just not believe he does. Agnostic is a recent philosophical term that means "somebody who holds the position that God is unknowable." They don't refer to the same thing. Atheism is about whether you believe there is a God, whereas agnosticism is about God's knowability.

It's possible to believe God is unknowable but believe in him anyway. It's also possible to believe God is unknowable and not believe in him. The latter would be both an agnostic and an atheist.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I admit it lacks the persuasive force of the "Haha you made a typo" argument, but it seemed to fit. Seriously, reread your post. He makes a long, respectful argument using several sources. You come back by quoting a minor typo, bash him for it and then ignore everything else he said.

I didn't see very many bold assumptions about what you think, and you didn't bother to point any out. Instead, you pointed out a typo in a context where the actual meaning was clear. Were you just trying to look petty by pointing out the one thing that wasn't a big problem with his post?

Anyway, I had no problem understanding what he wrote. In a nutshell, it was this:

The definitions you've given for the words are more limited than they ought to be. Based on its historical usage, atheist means "someone who does not believe in God." They might feel sure God doesn't exist, or they might just not believe he does. Agnostic is a recent philosophical term that means "somebody who holds the position that God is unknowable." They don't refer to the same thing. Atheism is about whether you believe there is a God, whereas agnosticism is about God's knowability.

It's possible to believe God is unknowable but believe in him anyway. It's also possible to believe God is unknowable and not believe in him. The latter would be both an agnostic and an atheist.

I simply pointed out a glaring mistake in my post. His posts are filled with assumptions and implications as to what he thinks I mean when in reality he is far from the truth. It's amazing that people assume so much in here.

I don't care about "historical" definitions. I care about word usage and meanings today. That, is why I used current day definitions. "Bling" is a very new word, but everyone knows what it means. The Supreme Court has even determined that the word "Dyke" can be used in a tradmark and copyrighted because it's meaning has changed and is not the offensive word it used to mean.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

His posts are filled with assumptions and implications as to what he thinks I mean when in reality he is far from the truth.

Here's an idea. Tell me why you disagree with me. All you have done so far is claim that my definitions back up your claim, when clearly they do not. You have left it up to me to identify where your confusion lies. If you explicit state why you believe what you do about these terms, I will correct your confusion quickly and with as few words as possible.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Can you understand why people have a hard time understanding you? You use words incorrectly.

My post may have been difficult to understand because I was explaining a somewhat complicated topic using very precise wording. Anyone with an elementary course in logic, or with a fairly analytical mind should have been able to handle it without trouble. I'm sure if you read it a couple times it will sink in. Give it a try, you might learn something.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Actually, you see that bolded word in your post? That, is where my confusion lies. Your inability to use words correctly.

I'm about ready to consider this argument won. That, sir, is known as a typo and does little to affect my credibility. Your inability to answer my arguments, on the other hand, blows your credibility straight out of the water.

Originally Posted by Railroader

I don't care about "historical" definitions. I care about word usage and meanings today. That, is why I used current day definitions. "Bling" is a very new word, but everyone knows what it means. The Supreme Court has even determined that the word "Dyke" can be used in a tradmark and copyrighted because it's meaning has changed and is not the offensive word it used to mean.

I quoted modern dictionaries. I was just pointing out that the usage hasn't changed much for over a century. Now try debating the meat of my argument, if you can.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Anyway, I had no problem understanding what he wrote. In a nutshell, it was this:

The definitions you've given for the words are more limited than they ought to be. Based on its historical usage, atheist means "someone who does not believe in God." They might feel sure God doesn't exist, or they might just not believe he does. Agnostic is a recent philosophical term that means "somebody who holds the position that God is unknowable." They don't refer to the same thing. Atheism is about whether you believe there is a God, whereas agnosticism is about God's knowability.

It's possible to believe God is unknowable but believe in him anyway. It's also possible to believe God is unknowable and not believe in him. The latter would be both an agnostic and an atheist.

Thank you Chuckit!

Railroader, if you still can't understand what I wrote then try debating this summary. It's as clear as day, as long as you understand the following:

1) The difference between "belief" and "knowledge".
2) The difference between "withholding belief completely", "not believing to be true", and "believing to be false"

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I don't care about "historical" definitions. I care about word usage and meanings today. That, is why I used current day definitions.

Which are the same as the historical definition. Looking at historical evidence is a big part of how we determine meaning.

Actually, let's be sure I've gotten the right idea of what you're saying: In order to be an atheist, somebody must be absolutely certain that God does not exist. They can't just not believe in him. Is that what you're saying?

If so, that's pretty egocentric. "I don't use the words to mean this, so even if they're well-attested, these definitions can't be used by anybody, anywhere." In fact, words can have several connotations. I am saying the word has a broader meaning than that. It's pretty hard for a word to totally lose its meaning in the short time we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by Railroader

The Supreme Court has even determined that the word "Dyke" can be used in a tradmark and copyrighted because it's meaning has changed and is not the offensive word it used to mean.

The court actually didn't rule that its meaning has changed. The court ruled that the term was not offensive because many lesbians said it didn't offend them. It still means "lesbian."

[undotwa]

I'm very confused about what this argument is over.

Atheism - the belief that God does not exist
agnosticism - an intellectual disposition that God, if he does exist, is unknowable from logic, and therefore his existence cannot be ascertained.

I'm not sure what this distinction between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism is. I'm guessing that what he means is similar to a 'weak' faith in God and a 'strong' faith in God. Many people say 'I don't believe in God' but lack conviction in this statement. Remember, that belief and disbelief in God is a very emotional topic and people can have very mixed and even confused views. Whilst reasons for God's existence can be inferred from nature, ultimately it is a matter of faith to believe or disbelieve in God's existence. Given that agnosticism and athiesm deal with two entirely different concepts, the former intellectualism and the latter faith, an atheist who may have doubts about the non-existence of God, or conversely, a theist who may have doubts over the existence of God, cannot be properly classified as agnostic. The essence of agnosticism is not uncertainty but unknowability. It is from this 'unkowability' arises this uncertainty. Uncertainty from lack of a strong faith therefore doesn't necessitate agnosticism since the uncertainty in this case arises from the lack of faith in one's convictions, rather from the intellectual disposition of unknowability.

In fact, you can be agnostic and an atheist and agnostic and a theist. Since agnosticism is an intellectual disposition, one can separate this from say a more emotional conviction about faith. Kirkegaard could be described as an agnostic theist, since he held that God is unknowable from nature, but still had a strong faith in Him.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scientist

Here's an idea. Tell me why you disagree with me. All you have done so far is claim that my definitions back up your claim, when clearly they do not. You have left it up to me to identify where your confusion lies. If you explicit state why you believe what you do about these terms, I will correct your confusion quickly and with as few words as possible.

Again, the assumptions.

I am not the one confused here. I stated what I believe in very simple terms because the words have very simple meanings.

Why are you so confused? Why do you muddy the topic with tangential arguments?

For example:

Originally Posted by Scientist

Railroader, if you still can't understand what I wrote then try debating this summary. It's as clear as day, as long as you understand the following:

1) The difference between "belief" and "knowledge".
2) The difference between "withholding belief completely", "not believing to be true", and "believing to be false"

Why are you bringing this into it? Why complicate it? Never mind, those are rhetorical questions. I know why.

If you want to continue this debate, you'll have to do it without me.

I am confident in my understanding of the meanings of the words. I don't have the same "confusions" that you seem to have.

Good day.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Again, the assumptions.

I am not the one confused here. I stated what I believe in very simple terms because the words have very simple meanings.

Again you refuse to back up your claims or explain your definition. You made your confusion about the meaning of these terms clear in your earlier posts. I later asked you to verify that you understood them. You did not do so. Since you refuse to back up or explain your argument with even a shred of evidence I had nothing to do but try and deduce where your confusion lies.

Your argument essentially comes down to this: "I am right because I say so." I wouldn't accept such an argument from an expert like MacNStein and I certainly won't accept it from a layperson like you.

This debate is over. Chuckit, Undotwa and I have clearly shown your definitions to be inaccurate. You lose. Better luck next time.

[undotwa]

It's funny IMHO, that Kirkegaard, a strong Christian, laid the groundwork for atheists such as Sartre and Nietzsche. In a way, Kirkegaard has a very admirable faith, since he believes that the existence of God is unknowable.

I make no secrets of my Catholicism. Yet I still wonder, was Kirkegaard right? Of course, I don't believe that God can be proved in scientific expression. But the question remains, whether the traditional 'inductive arguments' (teleological, cosmological etc.) are reasonable, without resorting to strict logic.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scientist

Again you refuse to back up your claims or explain your definition. You made your confusion about the meaning of these terms clear in your earlier posts. I later asked you to verify that you understood them. You did not do so. Since you refuse to back up or explain your argument with even a shred of evidence I had nothing to do but try and deduce where your confusion lies.

Again, your confusion. Not mine. Remember, you're the one who started the post because you didn't know the answer and were confused. Not me.

Originally Posted by Scientist

Your argument essentially comes down to this: "I am right because I say so." I wouldn't accept such an argument from an expert like MacNStein and I certainly won't accept it from a layperson like you.

This debate is over. Chuckit, Undotwa and I have clearly shown your definitions to be inaccurate. You lose. Better luck next time.

How shallow of you. You certainly are no winner. The debate was over a long time ago. You just didn't know it due to your confusion.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

The debate was over a long time ago.

The debate was over a long time ago because you stoped debating a long time ago. I could continue this but I won't because because you have proven yourself unalterably ignorant to everyone here.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scientist

The debate was over a long time ago because you stoped debating a long time ago. I could continue this but I won't because because you have proven yourself unalterably ignorant to everyone here.

Again, here is an example as to why discussing anything with you is simply an effort that will end in frustration. You simply cannot put a sentence together correctly. You have a poor grasp of the English language.

You said:

proven yourself unalterably ignorant to everyone here.

With this statement, you are essentially saying that I don't know you exist and that I have some how proven this.

Now, I could infer that you really meant to say:

proven yourself unalterably ignorant in comparison to everyone here.

But that puts the burden of understand on me instead of the burden on you of getting your point across effectively.

Now, if English is your second language I guess I could be slightly sympathetic...

[Scientist]

Merry Christmas to you! Read the sentence again! I meant "to", just as I wrote it. Your alteration changes the meaning of the sentence in a way I didn't intend. Don't make me post a definition of "to"!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Again, here is an example as to why discussing anything with you is simply an effort that will end in frustration. You simply cannot put a sentence together correctly. You have a poor grasp of the English language.

You said:

proven yourself unalterably ignorant to everyone here.

With this statement, you are essentially saying that I don't know you exist and that I have some how proven this.

Now, I could infer that you really meant to say:

proven yourself unalterably ignorant in comparison to everyone here.

But that puts the burden of understand on me instead of the burden on you of getting your point across effectively.

Now, if English is your second language I guess I could be slightly sympathetic...

Geez, you're pretty insulting for somebody who's obviously wrong. The word "to" there is used correctly. It's the same as in the sentence, "It looks good to me." Now, maybe you would want to correct this sentence and say, "It looks good in comparison to me." I hope you will fight this urge in the future and not try to take out the splinter in somebody else's eye until you have taken the pole out of your own.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Again, here is an example as to why discussing anything with you is simply an effort that will end in frustration. You simply cannot put a sentence together correctly. You have a poor grasp of the English language.

You said:
With this statement, you are essentially saying that I don't know you exist and that I have some how proven this.

Now, I could infer that you really meant to say:
But that puts the burden of understand on me instead of the burden on you of getting your point across effectively.

Now, if English is your second language I guess I could be slightly sympathetic...

Do you have any understanding of the English language yourself? His sentence made perfect sense without your modification, which actually changed the meaning of the sentence.

"proven yourself unalterably ignorant to everyone here" means precisely what it says. He uses a very standard construction of the verb 'to prove' with a direct object (yourself), which demonstrates what has been proven, and an indirect object (to everyone), which demonstrates the concerned person. It is equivalent to writing something like this "You proved yourself unworthy to me". If I was to reword that "You proved yourself unworthy in comparison to me", the sense of sentence changes from a mere discussion of your unworthyness, but a reflection of which in context to another's unworthiness.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It could logically be interpreted as a dangling modifier. "Ignorant to everyone here" could mean he doesn't realize other people are here, though it would be a very awkward interpretation. A more definite wording would have been "proven to everyone here that you are unalterably ignorant."

Railroader: bravo on including "that puts the burden of understand on me," in a post exclusively about someone else's grammatical typo. An homage to that Bush sketch with "I am working hard to putting food on my family?" Well played. You are truly a comic genius.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It could logically be interpreted as a dangling modifier. "Ignorant to everyone here" could mean he doesn't realize other people are here, though it would be a very awkward interpretation. A more definite wording would have been "proven to everyone here that you are unalterably ignorant."

Railroader: bravo on including "that puts the burden of understand on me," in a post exclusively about someone else's grammatical typo. An homage to that Bush sketch with "I am working hard to putting food on my family?" Well played. You are truly a comic genius.

Thank you very much! I'm glad not everyone on here is completely oblivious.

[Scientist]

Damn, you never give up...

[wgscott]

Originally Posted by barkingsheltie

FYI, it is good.

[wgscott]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Again, you are supporting what I am saying.

Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God. They say (from your definitions): I hold it "not to be true" the existence of God. or I "reject" belief in the existence of God.

Agnostics say (again, from your definitions): I neither believe nor disblieve in the existence of God because we cannot know for sure, and it is unknowable but it is possible, God exists.

Do you see the difference? It is HUGE!!!

That's right. Agnosticism is a cop-out.

I cannot know for sure that my thoughts are not controlled by extra-terrestrial outposts of the Trilateral Commission beaming their propaganda into my TV set. But I don't place this on an equal footing with the null hypothesis. However, I believe this is not the case. I admit it is a logically possible option, and they might be infinitely tricky soas to hide their existence from me, so it might even be unknowable. But I don't consider myself agnostic with respect to extraterrestrial Trilateral Commissioners. I think they don't exist. I disbelieve in their existence.

Why should it be any different with God? One is obviously a psychosis. The other is only more acceptable because it is a historically propagated mass-pyschosis.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It could logically be interpreted as a dangling modifier. "Ignorant to everyone here" could mean he doesn't realize other people are here, though it would be a very awkward interpretation. A more definite wording would have been "proven to everyone here that you are unalterably ignorant."

I think the natural meaning of the sentence in question is conveyed quite easily. The construction is not unusual.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I agree, but many things are both usual and ambiguous, and it can be argued that this is one of them.

[Scientist]

If this were a discussion about grammar and spelling I would probably point out that RailRoader consistently misspells the word "beginning". He spells "view" with a "b" and he doesn't know that the first word of a sentence should be capitalized. He misspells "reference". He makes frequent use of incomplete sentences and he makes frequent grammar mistakes. Here are a few examples.

Originally Posted by Railroader

I'll go with the establish definitions

Originally Posted by Railroader

If you don't believe God exists ("weak" atheism according to you), how is that any different then making the claim that God does not exist ("strong atheism" according to you).

Originally Posted by Railroader

I hold it "not to be true" the existence of God.

what?

Originally Posted by Railroader

Agnostics say (again, from your definitions): I neither believe nor disblieve in the existence of God because we cannot know for sure, and it is unknowable but it is possible, God exists.

hmmm...

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I hope you will fight this urge in the future and not try to take out the splinter in somebody else's eye until you have taken the pole out of your own.

Fortunately for Railroader this is a discussion about definitions...oh nevermind, he got those wrong too. He is still the only one here who fails to see that.

This is an internet forum. Almost everything written here should be considered a rough draft, at best.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I agree, but many things are both usual and ambiguous, and it can be argued that this is one of them.

From context the meaning is to be discerned. Words are meaningless if taken in isolation and can be distorted to suit anyone's purpose.

Whether you think the sentence in question was ambiguous or not, it was not grammatically incorrect and indeed the meaning was quite clear. Railroader was not justified in using this sentence to prove his assertion that Scientist had a 'poor grasp of the English language' and therefore unable to communicate ideas effectively. Indeed, the sentence was completely irrelevant to the essence of the argument anyway.

[Uncle Skeleton]

When each side is convinced they're right and the other is wrong, "the meaning was quite clear" is a weak argument, true or not.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What was this thread about again?

Oh yeah. I wanted to say thanks to Scientist, because I've been uncomfortable lately calling myself "agnostic" even though I don't believe any god exists, just because I wasn't sure enough to call myself atheist by the dictionary.com definition.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

What was this thread about again?

Oh yeah. I wanted to say thanks to Scientist, because I've been uncomfortable lately calling myself "agnostic" even though I don't believe any god exists, just because I wasn't sure enough to call myself atheist by the dictionary.com definition.

!

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

When each side is convinced they're right and the other is wrong, "the meaning was quite clear" is a weak argument, true or not.

Well at least I know I'm right

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scientist

If this were a discussion about grammar and spelling I would probably point out that RailRoader consistently misspells the word "beginning". He spells "view" with a "b" and he doesn't know that the first word of a sentence should be capitalized. He misspells "reference". He makes frequent use of incomplete sentences and he makes frequent grammar mistakes. Here are a few examples.

Look at the keyboard beneath your nose. You see how close "b" and "v" are? Hmm...

The shift key on the keyboard I was using is defective. The keyboard is located on a factory floor and metal working fluids accumulate inside of it. I normally use the right shift key, but that one doesn't work so I have to make a conscious effort to use the left one. Sometimes I forget. Again here is a situation where you assume something without knowing the truth. Or were you being deliberately insulting suggesting that I don't know that the first word in a sentence is capitalized even though 99% of the time I have remembered to use the non-defective shift key? How unkind of you or unobservant of you.

I use incomplete sentences to make my statements concise. It is a common literary technique. Everyone knows that run-on sentences open up a writer to errors and unnecessarily confusing statements. Your writing technique suffers from verbosity.

I do make grammar "errors". You do know the difference between an error and a mistake don't you?

I was including the definitions of the words you were adding to the discussion to show you something. Obviously it went right on by.

Oh, BTW, it's "Railroader". Not "RailRoader".

Now, what is the reason for your mistakes?

Originally Posted by Scientist

Fortunately for Railroader this is a discussion about definitions...oh nevermind, he got those wrong too. He is still the only one here who fails to see that.

I used common, credible, and easily accessible definitions. You are the one confusing the matter and adding meanings to words where they do not exist.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I used common, credible, and easily accessible definitions. You are the one confusing the matter and adding meanings to words where they do not exist.

You used common, credible, easily accessible definitions and then interpreted them in a way that no longer fits the words' usage. For instance, you saw the phrase, "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods," and somehow decided that could only mean that "Atheists are sure God does not exist," even though that is a huge leap from the definition you quoted.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Again here is a situation where you assume something without knowing the truth.

I cannot believe you are still here. You missed my point again. I was pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

Why is it ok for you to make assumptions about my writing, but I can't make them about yours? Why can you make irrelevant mistakes without being attacked, but I cannot? BTW, I didn't make assumptions about your grammar and spelling. You just assumed that. I was making fun of you.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I used common, credible, and easily accessible definitions. You are the one confusing the matter and adding meanings to words where they do not exist.

You have no credibility at all right now. If you want to correct that you should consider presenting and defending your case. Your debating skills are very poor. Reading over your posts, I couldn't help but chuckle. Here is a summary of the relevant portions of your "case".

You posted an incomplete definition from m-w.com that supported your understanding of the word atheist. You posted a definition from m-w.com that supports both of our understandings of the word agnostic. My definition was the first listed. You assert that atheist and agnostic are incompatible.
(So far you aren't doing too badly)

You ask Chuckit to "Find me a dictionary or other refrence link that supports what you have to say and I will believe you. Until then, I'll go with the establish definitions." You then make clear that you do not understand the logical difference between withholding belief in something and actively rejecting belief in something. No assumptions about the source of your misunderstanding are needed.

I countered with definitions of atheism from two well respected, complete paperbound dictionaries. Each of these supported my case.

You claim that my definitions actually support your case without bothering to show how. (This is the beginning of the end for you).

You write what you think an atheist and agnostic would say regarding the existence of god without bothering to back it up with your definition. (Bad move)

Again you try to demonstrate what an atheist and agnostic would say. Again you fail to show how the definitions support this. (Not good!)

You assert that I am wrong. You don't bother to back this up. (Come on, you can do better than that)

You post a definition of "belief" without showing how it supports your argument. It doesn't. (Well at least you are trying...sort of)

You must not have been happy with my definitions because you now turn to answers.com. The primary definitions of the words support my stance. You fail to demonstrate how these definitions support your cause. (You are slipping again)

I present a polite, well reasoned, explanation of the meaning of the words. Since you never supported your claims, I had to make an informed guess about the source of your confusion.

You insult me. You still don't bother to support your claim.

You insult me again.

You claim confidence in your understanding of the words. You then say I am confused. Again you fail to back up your claim. ( )

You then claim incorrectly that I started this "post" because I was confused about the meanings of "agnostic" and "atheist". (This is just bizarre)

You insult me again.

You claim the following "I used common, credible, and easily accessible definitions. You are the one confusing the matter and adding meanings to words where they do not exist." You then refuse to back it up.

You act like you are some sort of authority who doesn't need to bother backing up his assertations with logical arguments. You're not. If your rhetorical skills were representative of humankind in general we would still be lobbing globs of **** at each other from the security of the trees.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scientist

I cannot believe you are still here. You missed my point again. I was pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

Why is it ok for you to make assumptions about my writing, but I can't make them about yours? Why can you make irrelevant mistakes without being attacked, but I cannot? BTW, I didn't make assumptions about your grammar and spelling. You just assumed that. I was making fun of you.

I don't make assumptions about your writing. I already told you that your writing style and your typing mistakes cause people to assume too much of your meaning and therefor it is a waste of time for me to even attempt to decipher it.

You, though, assume what you think I believe even though I haven't even addressed it.

Your nickname must be a joke. Kind of like calling a bald guy "curly".

You can go on with your mental masturbation. I am done here.

[Scientist]

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me. May I make a suggestion? http://www.learningcompany.com/jump....ORY&itemID=512

[Scientist]

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me. May I make a suggestion? http://www.learningcompany.com/jump....ORY&itemID=512

[Scientist]

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me. May I make a suggestion? http://www.learningcompany.com/jump....ORY&itemID=512

[Scientist]

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me. May I make a suggestion? http://www.learningcompany.com/jump....ORY&itemID=512

[Scientist]

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me. May I make a suggestion? http://www.learningcompany.com/jump....ORY&itemID=512

[Scientist]

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me. May I make a suggestion? http://www.learningcompany.com/jump....ORY&itemID=512

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Railroader

...and therefor it is a waste of time for me to even attempt to decipher it...

hehehe. Clearly your time is very valuable. Don't waste it reading this. Oh no! What have you done? You've already wasted it!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scientist

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding me. May I make a suggestion? http://www.learningcompany.com/jump....ORY&itemID=512

Why do you recommend that program? Is that the level of education you attempt to write at? X6*



























* I didn't feel like posting this 6 times.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Why do you recommend that program? Is that the level of education you attempt to write at?

You are the only person I have come across who has a problem with my writing. I would seriously question your ability to read above a fifth grade level, however, part of me still suspects that you are just being a sore loser.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Your post was pretty long, maybe he just has ADHD. Don't discriminate against him because of his disability.

[Yose]

This was a great thread.

I would define myself as not believing in a god, but also not having a need to tell someone otherwise about their own belief.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Scientist

What do you call a person who believes in a god, but...

If they believe in a god, they are theistic or deistic.

Deistic; the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

I'm assuming that if you're friends could find some divine influence, they would not be the above, or if they believed the god acted in a supernatural way, they would know more about who that god is which would make them a more specific philosophy or even religion. The definition that appears closest to your friends would be;

Theistic; Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

If they believe there is NO god, they are atheist. If they believe a god is POSSIBLE, they are agnostic.

You could go with a fanciful new word;

Thedeistic; the belief based solely on reason, in the existence of a god or gods as ruler(s) of the world.

[ebuddy]

... or you could go with agnostithedeisticismistic. Pronounced;
agnosta thee dee ista sizzumm iss-tik.