Atheist 1 - Christian guy 0

[AJ Camacho]

Definitions do not exist as arbitrary scrabble rules to define a word. Dictionaries are tools, meant to inform other of the most likely meaning of a word within a given context. If somebody says, "I believe this, and it has this meaning." then contextually they are correct. It's like a legal contract, if you lay out a term and define the term, from that point on within the context of the legal agreement the term holds the meaning laid out by the lawyer.

So you are not arguing against any contextual argument laid out by modern respected atheists. You are literally arguing against a dated and biased use of the term designed by theists to label and stigmatize people that don't follow their beliefs. Only from the perspective of someone who believes in god, would a person "who had no need to believe in god" be viewed as someone who "denies the belief of god". The very important contextual difference is missed by the theist who would make such a claim. (not saying that you are a theist)

Dawkins lays out quite clearly his atheistic belief. Arguing against a form of atheism that is devoid of his contextual point, is arguing against nothing and nobody (well, maybe somebody, there's always somebody).

[Sam Weston]

Religion is just a way to controll the masses, Global warming?

[rock d]

Any Bad Religion Fans out there? In my opinion some of the most important words ever written by mere mortals.

[Karim Graham]

over 100 posts and still no end?
i wonder why -_-

[Mike Noronowicz]

Jesus christ is lord !

[Andrew Maxwell]

Definitions do not exist as arbitrary scrabble rules to define a word. Dictionaries are tools, meant to inform other of the most likely meaning of a word within a given context. If somebody says, "I believe this, and it has this meaning." then contextually they are correct. It's like a legal contract, if you lay out a term and define the term, from that point on within the context of the legal agreement the term holds the meaning laid out by the lawyer.

So you are not arguing against any contextual argument laid out by modern respected atheists. You are literally arguing against a dated and biased use of the term designed by theists to label and stigmatize people that don't follow their beliefs. Only from the perspective of someone who believes in god, would a person "who had no need to believe in god" be viewed as someone who "denies the belief of god". The very important contextual difference is missed by the theist who would make such a claim. (not saying that you are a theist)

Dawkins lays out quite clearly his atheistic belief. Arguing against a form of atheism that is devoid of his contextual point, is arguing against nothing and nobody (well, maybe somebody, there's always somebody).

This is my very first post in this thread. It's clear from the start that the way I use the term Athiest is the same as dictionarys use of the term. Then I go on to define the the term Agnostic in the manner in which you, Dawkins, etc. use the word Athiest. So in my argument I was setting the peramiters of those terms. I layed out what those terms ment in my argument. That is what this debate stemed form, the terminology I used in my first post. But, since It was my argument and I set the peramiters of the terms, what I was saying isn't incorrect it's just a varience from terms that are used by others. The reason I used the term Agnostic is because that's the term I was taught to use and I was also taught that Athiesm is the term used to identify the "there is definately no god"
group.

Speaking in terms of logic, it is equaly illogical to be an Atheist as it is to be a person of any faith. Both beliefs have an equal amount of evidence backing them. There is just as much evidence that god exists as there is that god doesn't exist. The only logical decision at that point is to be Agnostic and admit to yourself that the truth value of certain claims, especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims are unknowable.

[AJ Camacho]

Fair enough.

[Andrew Maxwell]

Fair enough.

I do apologise for any miscommunication caused on my part, I was slightly confused in the begining about all of the different variations of deffinitions for the terms being used by all the people posting in the thread.

[AJ Camacho]

I do apologise for any miscommunication caused on my part, I was slightly confused in the begining about all of the different variations of deffinitions for the terms being used by all the people posting in the thread.

That seems to be the inherent nature of any online conversation. At least we seem to understand we each of us stands on this issue.

[Enrique "Kiko"]

I believe in JJ, hitting hard, and being elusive. Let us now bow our heads in solace to the MMA and JJ gods.