View Single Post
Old 01-30-2009, 06:00 AM   #351
jbjb
Somewhat clueless
jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 772
Karma: 9999999
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj View Post
Actually, atheism seems to be the belief that there is no god. The lack of belief would be agnosticism. Most people are apatheists without thinking though.

According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Just some more words to spend time on
That's a position that has been thrashed to death on many usenet newsgroups more times than can be counted.

A strict definition of an atheist as someone who is certain that there is provably no god, and which puts all other "non-believers" down as agnostic isn't very useful IMHO, as it puts the nominal dividing line in the wrong place in what is a continuous spectrum.

I can't prove there is no god, so by your definition that would make me an agnostic. However, by that measure I am agnostic about god in the same way that I am agnostic about the easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. I live my life assuming that none of these exist, despite my inability to prove that they don't, so despite technical agnosticism, I would suggest that I am functionally atheist. This, to me, seems like a more useful defintion of atheism.

/JB
jbjb is offline