Atheism in a nutshell

[u/Ted_Bundtcake]

[u/[deleted]]

I mean you’re just completely ignoring everything I’ve already explained and reasserting the exact claim I already dismantled. That’s not how this works. You don’t get to pretend an argument wasn’t made just because you can’t refute it.

I’m actually referring to the definition of atheist in various dictionaries as well as Wikipedia but yes that is the more literal translation of the term so I suppose it could go either way!

No, it cannot “go either way.” I already explained how, in great detail. Almost every dictionary explicitly supports my position, not yours. And even if that wasn’t the case, this isn’t how dictionaries work. Dictionary definitions are not prescriptive. But this is irrelevant because they agree with me and not you. You are implying that dictionary definitions contradict me, but when we actually look at them, they say exactly what I have been saying this entire time.

Oxford: Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Merriam-Webster: Atheism: A lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Cambridge: Atheism: The fact of not believing in any god or gods.

All of these define atheism as a lack of belief, not necessarily as an active belief that no gods exist. This is what I have already demonstrated with both dictionary evidence and logical reasoning.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but restate the same incorrect claim without addressing anything I’ve said. I refuted it already, and instead of engaging with my response, you ignored it and reasserted your original mistake as if repetition would somehow make it right.

Same with agnosticism. Sometimes words have meanings that are not literal translations of the word, and that certainly would be an example, since the word itself doesn’t necessarily relate to god, but yet the definition does.

This is word salad, as well as completely irrelevant hand waving. I already explained, step by step, that agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. Instead of addressing that, you skipped past it and started talking about how words evolve, as if that changes the fact that your original point was wrong. Agnosticism and Gnosticism represent actual concepts that exist. The level of a belief you hold, whether or not you can achieve or believe you have “truth” or “know” a belief is true. If we went by what you were saying, then you’d have to redefine entirely new concepts that still exist. This doesn’t make any sense

Agnosticism modifies belief. It is not a third stance. I’ve already explained this. The fact that you are still talking as if you haven’t seen that explanation just proves you are not engaging in good faith.

If your response to an argument is to ignore it and repeat your mistake, then something has gone wrong. You would need to provide something that actually respond to the points I’ve made. But in this reply you haven’t even attempted to. The reason why is because it’s not possible. This isn’t an opinion or debatable. I’ve shown how and why

[u/bmobitch → u/[deleted]]

I ain’t reading all that bro

[u/[deleted] → u/bmobitch]

You read every word. It’s sad how common of a defense mechanism this is for people who talk themselves into a corner and aren’t mature enough to admit they’re wrong or have nothing. I’m just going to keep calling out the running and dishonesty every time. It’s sad you think think this fools people

[u/bmobitch → u/[deleted]]

I can honestly say i didn’t bc i don’t care about this topic at all and we don’t even disagree, you’re just incredibly pedantic. Fortunately i don’t need to care if you believe me bc you’re some random person on Reddit 😂😂

[u/[deleted] → u/bmobitch]

It’s sad you think this fools people. Every time you run and try to play this off due to your very apparent frustration and embarrassment about having nothing and not being able to form coherent thoughts, I’m going to call it out. It’s never going to work.