Why are atheists hated so much?

I conclude that I will die without air. You don't need to believe to know you'll die without oxygen, dude.dreDREb13

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

You're misunderstanding language. I'm saying atheism is a conclusion and not a belief. Do you know the difference? You might say I'm playing word games, but I'm not: my understanding of language is intensely literal. I say there is no god because evidence points that way. That's it, so, I do not believe in a god. If evidence ever pointed elsewhere, immediately I would reconsider. I do not believe there is no god. I can safely say at the moment there is none based on what is known. What we know as mere apes is freakishly close to explaining the beginning of time without any need for a god. So, I'm left with simple deduction. I believe the Christian god is as likely as Zeus, or Ba'al, or Shiva, or anything I can imagine right now. I believe the probability for gods mentioned in texts on earth to be real at 0%. The only remaining possibilities are speculatory, unsupported by evidence, and inane to consider until the evidence says otherwise. So, my conclusion that there is no god is simple to reach.

dreDREb13

Conclusions lead to a belief. So you either have not concluded and Don't believe in anything, or have concluded that you believe there is no god. There is no other category other then belief in God. Who really cares what the definition is? It doesn't matter what I'm saying is that you can't not have a lack of belief and not be in the category of what people generally call agnostic whether or not its the dictionary definiton of agnostic or not.

You're joking right? You do need to believe to conclude you'll die without air. Some one could believe they'll live without air. That doesn't mean its right, but a belief doesn't have to be right to make it a belief.

Conclusions lead to a belief. So you either have not concluded and Don't believe in anything, or have concluded that you believe there is no god. There is no other category other then belief in God. Who really cares what the definition is? It doesn't matter what I'm saying is that you can't not have a lack of belief and not be in the category of what people generally call agnostic whether or not its the dictionary definiton of agnostic or not.

magnax1

Stop failing at language. A belief in the context you mean it is not identical to the conclusion I am representing. The belief you mean is something unsubstantiated, faith-based. A religious belief is not a logical conclusion based on tangible evidence and all that is known of the physical world. A 'belief' does not mean what you want it to mean, it does not equate to atheism's implication. As I've said, countless dictionary entries I'll be happy to post oppose your claim.

Agnosticism is a belief that god is unknowable.

Atheism is a lack of any theistic beliefs. Strong atheists say there is no god, this is only because no evidence to the contrary is presented. OBVIOUSLY if this was not the case, all atheists would change their position. I am a strong atheist, I say there is no god and to say it's a belief would be laughed at in a scientific realm. The evidence points this way, plainly, clearly. I have no belief in any deities, so . . . I believe there are no deities? No, let me refer you back to a previous point: if not believing in god is a belief, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Your reasoning is flawed.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

I don't need to "try again". You were misusing the word agnostic, although that definition of the word has become widely used.

But getting past that, what does disbelief mean?

Disbelief:the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

And what does disbelieving mean?

Disbelieving:to hold not worthy of belief ; to withhold or reject belief.

(Merriam Webster)

That goes back to a "lack of belief".

It's only in the narrow definition that atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's why you have the difference between "weak atheists" and "strong atheists". As an broad statement, if you will, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity.

SgtKevali

Nay.

Here is disbelief.

": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/disbelief"

Ergo, atheism is a belief that theism is not true.

Disbelieving:to hold not worthy of belief ; to withhold or reject belief.

(Merriam Webster)

That goes back to a "lack of belief" (to withhold belief) .

I don't know why you ignored that part. :?

Hmm, I was going with the "rejection of something as untrue" using disbelief as defined above. You may very well have grounds to go with lack of belief going with "disbelieving" though.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/disbelief

dhyce

Rejecting something on the grounds of it having no truth = not believing in something.

Am I on Mars?

Not believing something, and rejecting the notion of it are two seperate things.

This is a favourite of mine:

[QUOTE="whatrevolution"][QUOTE="dreDREb13"]I conclude that I will die without air. You don't need to believe to know you'll die without oxygen, dude.dreDREb13

You can't figure that out yourself? Everything requires faith. Everything could be fake, you could be the only person that exists and the universe could all just be in your head. It requires belief to believe that other people are real, that the planet is real, everything requires faith or belief.

maybe because we don't go along with religion? my mom and dad are both very religious and i'm gratful that when i told them i was an atheist they didn't

1. disown me

and 2. try to get an exorcism done on me since i could have been possed by a demon or devil that made me think this way, i'm an atheist who respects other peoples faith. if you believe, keep on doing that

[QUOTE="JML897"]:? Is it some sort of religious summer camp? mr_poodles123

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="dreDREb13"]How is it self-inflicted? Atheism has done nothing to give itself a bad name, it's merely done things that are rational and logical, but a lot of religious people dismiss as "going too far" and being overkill. Of course, religions can get away with much more and not receive any flak like atheism would.dreDREb13

How is complaining about God on coins logical? Its the exact opposite. There is no logical reason to care whether or not someone put God on coins and Bills.

You can't figure that out yourself? Everything requires faith. Everything could be fake, you could be the only person that exists and the universe could all just be in your head. It requires belief to believe that other people are real, that the planet is real, everything requires faith or belief.

magnax1

No, no it doesn't. Your reasoning is faulty, and to even consider that everything but you is false is just such an intellectual crock that I'm questioning my ability to even take you seriously. That's not a valid argument, it's a speculatory pile of demonstrably fallible crap. How can people before you know what you do not know? Therefore: people and knowledge has existed prior to you. It's really that simple. A mind cannot invent what it does not know.

Same reason Christians are hated, I suppose. Don't know why that is.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Conclusions lead to a belief. So you either have not concluded and Don't believe in anything, or have concluded that you believe there is no god. There is no other category other then belief in God. Who really cares what the definition is? It doesn't matter what I'm saying is that you can't not have a lack of belief and not be in the category of what people generally call agnostic whether or not its the dictionary definiton of agnostic or not.

dhyce

Stop failing at language. A belief in the context you mean it is not identical to the conclusion I am representing. The belief you mean is something unsubstantiated, faith-based. A religious belief is not a logical conclusion based on tangible evidence and all that is known of the physical world. A 'belief' does not mean what you want it to mean, it does not equate to atheism's implication. As I've said, countless dictionary entries I'll be happy to post oppose your claim.

Agnosticism is a belief that god is unknowable.

Atheism is a lack of any theistic beliefs. Strong atheists say there is no god, this is only because no evidence to the contrary is presented. OBVIOUSLY if this was not the case, all atheists would change their position. I am a strong atheist, I say there is no god and to say it's a belief would be laughed at in a scientific realm. The evidence points this way, plainly, clearly. I have no belief in any deities, so . . . I believe there are no deities? No, let me refer you back to a previous point: if not believing in god is a belief, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Your reasoning is flawed.

What I am saying, for the ten thousandth time is that you are either agnostic, atheist or theist. If you are saying that agnostic is a belief that god is unknowable, and atheism is a lack of belief (which is really what agnostic is) then there is a fourth category. Also what Im saying is these stupid dictionary definitions don't matter. I'm saying by societies definition you are agnostic, if you don't want to be called agnostic, you'll have to get over it because thats what people call it.

So

if you have no beliefs you are agnostic

if you believe there is no god you are atheist

if you believe there is a god you are theist

Isn't that simple enough?

This country was founded on Christen beliefs so even if you do not agree with the religious reasons there is still historical reasons why it should be kept on

gangstaa9

No it wasn't, read a book. Most of the founding fathers were deists fleeing a world of religious persecution. The USA was founded on the idea that everybody should be able to freely practice any religion and no religion should be held above any other. See: the first amendment.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

You can't figure that out yourself? Everything requires faith. Everything could be fake, you could be the only person that exists and the universe could all just be in your head. It requires belief to believe that other people are real, that the planet is real, everything requires faith or belief.

dhyce

No, no it doesn't. Your reasoning is demonstrably false, and to even consider that everything but you is false is just such an intellectual crock that I'm questioning my ability to even take you seriously. That's not a valid argument, it's a speculatory pile of demonstrably fallible crap. How can people before you know what you do not know? Therefore: people and knowledge has existed prior to you. It's really that simple. A mind cannot invent what it does not know.

[QUOTE="dreDREb13"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

How is complaining about God on coins logical? Its the exact opposite. There is no logical reason to care whether or not someone put God on coins and Bills.

gangstaa9

So what you're saying is that every fact known to man means nothing, as all of them are based solely on the belief in said fact. dreDREb13

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Nay.

Here is disbelief.

": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/disbelief"

Ergo, atheism is a belief that theism is not true.

coolbeans90

Disbelieving:to hold not worthy of belief ; to withhold or reject belief.

(Merriam Webster)

That goes back to a "lack of belief" (to withhold belief) .

I don't know why you ignored that part. :?

Hmm, I was going with the "rejection of something as untrue" using disbelief as defined above. You may very well have grounds to go with lack of belief going with "disbelieving" though.

Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is at least one god" is a false statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.

(wikipedia)

However, as an overall "idea" (or basic definition), atheism is the rejection, or lack of a belief in god. Positive atheists take it further than that when they actively say "there is no god".

To simplify, all atheists have a lack of belief in god (weak atheism), but the "strong atheists" actively say "there is no god".

It's a Catholics and Christians sort of thing.

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Conclusions lead to a belief. So you either have not concluded and Don't believe in anything, or have concluded that you believe there is no god. There is no other category other then belief in God. Who really cares what the definition is? It doesn't matter what I'm saying is that you can't not have a lack of belief and not be in the category of what people generally call agnostic whether or not its the dictionary definiton of agnostic or not.

magnax1

Stop failing at language. A belief in the context you mean it is not identical to the conclusion I am representing. The belief you mean is something unsubstantiated, faith-based. A religious belief is not a logical conclusion based on tangible evidence and all that is known of the physical world. A 'belief' does not mean what you want it to mean, it does not equate to atheism's implication. As I've said, countless dictionary entries I'll be happy to post oppose your claim.

Agnosticism is a belief that god is unknowable.

Atheism is a lack of any theistic beliefs. Strong atheists say there is no god, this is only because no evidence to the contrary is presented. OBVIOUSLY if this was not the case, all atheists would change their position. I am a strong atheist, I say there is no god and to say it's a belief would be laughed at in a scientific realm. The evidence points this way, plainly, clearly. I have no belief in any deities, so . . . I believe there are no deities? No, let me refer you back to a previous point: if not believing in god is a belief, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Your reasoning is flawed.

What I am saying, for the ten thousandth time is that you are either agnostic, atheist or theist. If you are saying that agnostic is a belief that god is unknowable, and atheism is a lack of belief (which is really what agnostic is) then there is a fourth category. Also what Im saying is these stupid dictionary definitions don't matter. I'm saying by societies definition you are agnostic, if you don't want to be called agnostic, you'll have to get over it because thats what people call it.

So

if you have no beliefs you are agnostic

if you believe there is no god you are atheist

if you believe there is a god you are theist

Isn't that simple enough?

Eh, I've been doing some research into the definitions of the words themselves, and it appears that some definitions of atheism state that it is a braoder term used to describe one who does not believe in a diety. Oxford still exclusively define atheism as the belief in the lack of a diety. Agnostic is unquestionabley defined as the lack of belief in a higher power or a belief in the lack thereof.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

You can't figure that out yourself? Everything requires faith. Everything could be fake, you could be the only person that exists and the universe could all just be in your head. It requires belief to believe that other people are real, that the planet is real, everything requires faith or belief.

dhyce

No, no it doesn't. Your reasoning is demonstrably false, and to even consider that everything but you is false is just such an intellectual crock that I'm questioning my ability to even take you seriously. That's not a valid argument, it's a speculatory pile of demonstrably fallible crap. How can people before you know what you do not know? Therefore: people and knowledge has existed prior to you. It's really that simple. A mind cannot invent what it does not know.

A mind cannot invent what it does not know? That is really not true at all. So you're basically saying no idea has ever been created? Which basically proves my point. Everything requires belief. EVERYTHING. Whether you like the fact or not, it is true.

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

You can't figure that out yourself? Everything requires faith. Everything could be fake, you could be the only person that exists and the universe could all just be in your head. It requires belief to believe that other people are real, that the planet is real, everything requires faith or belief.

TSNAKE617

No, no it doesn't. Your reasoning is demonstrably false, and to even consider that everything but you is false is just such an intellectual crock that I'm questioning my ability to even take you seriously. That's not a valid argument, it's a speculatory pile of demonstrably fallible crap. How can people before you know what you do not know? Therefore: people and knowledge has existed prior to you. It's really that simple. A mind cannot invent what it does not know.

For example, we can't claim that prior to Jesus' birth, the people of the world had faith and belief that Christianity was false. They simply held no belief towards it one way or the other. It didn't exist yet.

Similarly, babies and animals are atheistic towards all religions, as they do not have the mental capability to process the concepts. Yet this does not mean they have belief or faith it is false.

What I am saying, for the ten thousandth time is that you are either agnostic, atheist or theist. If you are saying that agnostic is a belief that god is unknowable, and atheism is a lack of belief (which is really what agnostic is) then there is a fourth category. Also what Im saying is these stupid dictionary definitions don't matter. I'm saying by societies definition you are agnostic, if you don't want to be called agnostic, you'll have to get over it because thats what people call it.

So

if you have no beliefs you are agnostic

if you believe there is no god you are atheist

if you believe there is a god you are theist

Isn't that simple enough?

magnax1

Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times. It is a single definition for a word conceived from a lack of understanding to begin with. What an atheist truly is, is simple, as I've stated; willing to provide countless sources backing up my claim. (Still willing.) There is no fourth category, only belief, uncertainty, or no belief. It's that simple.

Dictionaries don't matter? But societal slang does matter. Okay, cool. Personally, I'll decide to educate myself, unlike people who would claim no belief as Agnosticism. People who search multiple definitions then mine a single one that fits their argument rather than providing every definition given.

Your example is incorrect, as I've stated.

A mind cannot invent what it does not know? That is really not true at all. So you're basically saying no idea has ever been created? Which basically proves my point. Everything requires belief. EVERYTHING. Whether you like the fact or not, it is true.

magnax1

UGH. Stop the shenanigans. I'm saying something such as the electro-magnetic theory, all of these ludicrously complicated things you obviously have to study and learn about cannot come from your head, otherwise you would know of them and all concepts, no matter how complex, would come effortlessly. As this is all your design, and all information contained therein is of your making.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Disbelieving:to hold not worthy of belief ; to withhold or reject belief.

(Merriam Webster)

That goes back to a "lack of belief" (to withhold belief) .

I don't know why you ignored that part. :?

SgtKevali

Hmm, I was going with the "rejection of something as untrue" using disbelief as defined above. You may very well have grounds to go with lack of belief going with "disbelieving" though.

Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is at least one god" is a false statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.

(wikipedia)

However, as an overall "idea" (or basic definition), atheism is the rejection, or lack of a belief in god. Positive atheists take it further than that when they actively say that there is no god.

To simplify, all atheists have a lack of belief in god, but the "strong atheists" actively say "there is no god".

Eh, semantics. I get the general concepts just fine. Most I've known who have defined themselves as atheists (in addition to most dictionary references, although I read an article that states that it is changing towards your understanding of the definition of the word) positively affirm that there is no God. On the other hand, and the dictionaries do back me up on this one, define agnosticism as the lack of belief or rejection of a deity. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what words are used to describe what. But I prefer universal understandings of words for the sake of actual substantive conversation. Anyways, I think I'm going to get some sleep. I'll just leave with this quote from the wiki page, you non-believer.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[31] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times.dhyce

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

What I am saying, for the ten thousandth time is that you are either agnostic, atheist or theist. If you are saying that agnostic is a belief that god is unknowable, and atheism is a lack of belief (which is really what agnostic is) then there is a fourth category. Also what Im saying is these stupid dictionary definitions don't matter. I'm saying by societies definition you are agnostic, if you don't want to be called agnostic, you'll have to get over it because thats what people call it.

So

if you have no beliefs you are agnostic

if you believe there is no god you are atheist

if you believe there is a god you are theist

Isn't that simple enough?

dhyce

Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times. It is a single definition for a word conceived from a lack of understanding to begin with. What an atheist truly is, is simple, as I've stated; willing to provide countless sources backing up my claim. (Still willing.) There is no fourth category, only belief, uncertainty, or no belief. It's that simple.

Dictionaries don't matter? But societal slang does matter. Okay, cool. Personally, I'll decide to educate myself, unlike people who would claim no belief as Agnosticism. People who search multiple definitions then mine a single one that fits their argument rather than providing every definition given.

Your example is incorrect, as I've stated.

No, dictionaries in reality don't matter, because they don't always represent the societal meaning of the word. Thats great if you want to go and tell people you're atheist, but they'll think you mean you believe there is no god. So if you are planning on having any further sort of logical conversation whith people about it, I recommend the word agnostic.

[QUOTE="dhyce"]Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times.whatrevolution

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

What I am saying, for the ten thousandth time is that you are either agnostic, atheist or theist. If you are saying that agnostic is a belief that god is unknowable, and atheism is a lack of belief (which is really what agnostic is) then there is a fourth category. Also what Im saying is these stupid dictionary definitions don't matter. I'm saying by societies definition you are agnostic, if you don't want to be called agnostic, you'll have to get over it because thats what people call it.

So

if you have no beliefs you are agnostic

if you believe there is no god you are atheist

if you believe there is a god you are theist

Isn't that simple enough?

magnax1

Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times. It is a single definition for a word conceived from a lack of understanding to begin with. What an atheist truly is, is simple, as I've stated; willing to provide countless sources backing up my claim. (Still willing.) There is no fourth category, only belief, uncertainty, or no belief. It's that simple.

Dictionaries don't matter? But societal slang does matter. Okay, cool. Personally, I'll decide to educate myself, unlike people who would claim no belief as Agnosticism. People who search multiple definitions then mine a single one that fits their argument rather than providing every definition given.

Your example is incorrect, as I've stated.

No, dictionaries in reality don't matter, because they don't always represent the societal meaning of the word. Thats great if you want to go and tell people you're atheist, but they'll think you mean you believe there is no god. So if you are planning on having any further sort of logical conversation whith people about it, I recommend the word agnostic.

Your inclination towards a societal meaning of the word over the true meaning of the word speaks volumes about how weak your "belief" argument is.

This is why athiests are hated so much.whatrevolution

Because I'm willing to provide counter-arguments? Ones that prove his given definition is clearly cherry picked out of many? Okay, cool.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

A mind cannot invent what it does not know? That is really not true at all. So you're basically saying no idea has ever been created? Which basically proves my point. Everything requires belief. EVERYTHING. Whether you like the fact or not, it is true.

dhyce

UGH. Stop the shenanigans. I'm saying something such as the electro-magnetic theory, all of these ludicrously complicated things you obviously have to study and learn about cannot come from your head, otherwise you would know of them and all concepts, no matter how complex, would come effortlessly. As this is all your design, and all information contained therein is of your making.

[QUOTE="dhyce"]Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times.whatrevolution

People who complain about aggressive argument need to stay out of the kitchen.

[QUOTE="dhyce"]Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times.whatrevolution

This is just idiotic, really. I don't believe in God either, but all this dictionary stuff, and all the you don't have to believe in anything if you don't want to stuff is stupid.

I am saying they came from someones head. So that therefore proves my point, you can create thing in your mind, there for a mind can invent what it does not know.magnax1

[QUOTE="whatrevolution"][QUOTE="dhyce"]Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times.magnax1

This is just idiotic, really. I don't believe in God either, but all this dictionary stuff, and all the you don't have to believe in anything if you don't want to stuff is stupid.

Because they stay on topic?Danm_999

Because I'm willing to provide counter-arguments? Ones that prove his given definition is clearly cherry picked out of many? Okay, cool.dhyce

Eh, semantics. I get the general concepts just fine. Most I've known who have defined themselves as atheists (in addition to most dictionary references, although I read an article that states that it is changing towards your understanding of the definition of the word) positively affirm that there is no God. On the other hand, and the dictionaries do back me up on this one, define agnosticism as the lack of belief or rejection of a deity. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what words are used to describe what. But I prefer universal understandings of words for the sake of actual substantive conversation. Anyways, I think I'm going to get some sleep. I'll just leave with this quote from the wiki page, you non-believer.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[31] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

coolbeans90

Which is what I'm talking about (bolded). But yes, language is tricky and shifty, and somewhat unreliable (as you can see with definition chains)

Agnosticism, however, isn't simply the lack of belief in god; it has an additional requirement, if you will.

Agnosticism: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

Again, I've told you I can counter your definition at least three times. It is a single definition for a word conceived from a lack of understanding to begin with. What an atheist truly is, is simple, as I've stated; willing to provide countless sources backing up my claim. (Still willing.) There is no fourth category, only belief, uncertainty, or no belief. It's that simple.

Dictionaries don't matter? But societal slang does matter. Okay, cool. Personally, I'll decide to educate myself, unlike people who would claim no belief as Agnosticism. People who search multiple definitions then mine a single one that fits their argument rather than providing every definition given.

Your example is incorrect, as I've stated.

dreDREb13

No, dictionaries in reality don't matter, because they don't always represent the societal meaning of the word. Thats great if you want to go and tell people you're atheist, but they'll think you mean you believe there is no god. So if you are planning on having any further sort of logical conversation whith people about it, I recommend the word agnostic.

No, because people don't assume that. The fact that someone had to go and look it up in a dictionary is proof enough. The way you're saying not believing in god is the way people think of agnostic.

[QUOTE="UbiquitousAeon"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

Because they're hypocritical and illogical. Thats why I hate atheism

majwill24

A poor choice of words no doubt, but Atheism bad image is really self inflicted. I'm also an atheist, but generally dont have problems with religous people. Once people see that I'm not a militant atheist and can appreciate some of the positive aspects of their faith, most wont be so suspicous of me. I guess the reason why I'm not so much of a threat is because I dont waste my time on pointless childish things like God on coins or when someone give you well wishes by saying "God Bless you".

The big thing is I dont argue against some the critical aspects of religious people, mainly christians, like supporting the nuclear family and limiting sex and violence. All those things are good for society I believe. Christians fear that if Atheism gain ground that all the social standards that built the successful society will devolve into chaos.

That's a ridiculous fear and your sympathy towards it makes me suspicious of your motivations for posting in this thread. I mean, you're bascially saying that you have sympathy towards a claim that athiesm has some kind of inclination against the family and towards violence and sex. That's pretty prejudiced and like I said, I'm very surprised that you are so sympathetic toward those kind of prejudices.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Because they stay on topic?whatrevolution

Because I'm willing to provide counter-arguments? Ones that prove his given definition is clearly cherry picked out of many? Okay, cool.dhyce

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="whatrevolution"] This is why athiests are hated so much.Danm_999

This is just idiotic, really. I don't believe in God either, but all this dictionary stuff, and all the you don't have to believe in anything if you don't want to stuff is stupid.

I'm saying a semantics debate is stupid, because everyone already knows what people think of when they say atheism or agnostic.