Moral, amoral and imoral are a counter example example of what you speak of. 3 different meanings. However with theism and atheism there is no "i-theism", and yet the concept of agnosticism exists... So what is the difference in meanings between atheism and agnosticism? It's the one you reject, where atheism is the equivalent to imoral, and agnostic is the equivalent to amoral.

Basically a- an i- both mean negation. But negation is a very tricky concept in that it can represent both polarity and opposition as well strict negation. Strict logical negation of a predicate has one big problem. Sure it is elegant and somewhat prevents false binary thinking, but the group of not-something is kind of always infinite and therefore quite formless. Better left to mathematics and formal logic, where the operations that can be performed on such groups are often brain twisters of a high caliber.

So although you have great and very well argued points, I hope you can realize that as regards defining atheism you are being somewhat fundamentalist and oversimplifying common reality to your advantage. Pardon if I used any terms incorrectly, I do believe the point is getting across.

Bliksem, this thread still going strong?

Hey man, I can't prove he doesn't exist with absolute certainty. Can you?
An i- doesn't mean negation. In the example of immoral, it just means 'bad morals' not the absence of morals. On the other hand, 'a-' always means the absence of whatever it is modifying.

As an example of another a- word, there is "atypical". This is the absence of being typical, or, more simply, being untypical.

You can't stick to anglo etymology, you need to refer back to latin (or greek?), and i- or in- is a negation prefix.
See: infinite, independent, ignorant... these come to mind immediately.
As I said, the issue is that negation is a fuzzy concept.

Heck the whole debate, and much of philosophy, happens due to fuzzy concepts. Humans keep trying to push reality into black and white categories.

As per the way we both use the words, both theist and atheists can be fundamentalist in their exclusion of the neutral ground. In other contexts, this is called manicheaism I believe (is it in ethics?), and it is the "you're with us or against us mindset".

Speculating, this is likely caused by biological group dynamics... a bit more tolerance would go a long way, but we instinctively feel our survival is at stake.

Anyway, at least recently most folks bash each other verbally rather than bashng each others heads in physically. Progress... of a sort ;)

I hope realise the stupidity of what you just said. The fact that it is impossible to prove a negative does not mean you should be open to any baseless assumption.

The point I'm making, is that evidence supports or fails support the theory you have, it doesn't indicate one thing or another. Which is one of the reasons why trials are so complicated as evidence doesn't actually point at a specific reality, it just supports or fails to support possible chains of events.

I'm positive it's not true, because it's not true. It doesn't show up in the Torah and I highly doubt that the Talmud includes any support for them having their Messiah. I mean hell, even the location of the future Israel isn't supposed to be revealed until that happens and there's no guarantee that it will be where the old one was.

Just because one can't prove a negative, it doesn't mean one should believe the converse without reservation. Doing such is tantamount to blind faith, in my mind.

Huh?

"I have a god."
"Prove it."
"No, if you doubt my word you have to prove that he doesn't exist."
"Why? I can just stand here and not have a god."
"That's blind faith in his non-existence. I would have expected better of you."

The trouble I have is that if you lack belief in theism (which is the definition of atheist) then you have no belief in theism. Once you allow for the possibility of theism, then you no longer have no belief; you have the amount of belief equal to the probability you assign the possibly of theism. To assert a lack of belief in this case is to dismiss even the possibility that your theory might be wrong without proof. This is tantamount to blind faith.

This is not a "with us or against us" thing for me. As an Existentialist, I don't really belong in the theism camp or the atheist camp, thus I do not label myself as either one. I have no problem asserting that "I have no idea whether God exists or not". I don't believe a positive or negative assertion on the nature of a divine being is required for me to live my life at all. Personally, I just assume that, whether or not a divinity exits, that divinity doesn't directly take part in the affairs of my life. I make this assumption based on inductive reasoning (I have never witnessed anything I would call divine intervention), but I never delude myself that it is ever more than an educated assumption. I always allow for the possibility that I might be wrong; my belief in divinity, or absence thereof, is never absolute.

That is not what I said. I never tried to prove god's existence or nonexistence, I am merely saying that making an educated assumption (that there is no god) based on inductive reasoning is still nothing more than an assumption with a higher probability than the alternative. There is always the possibility the unlikely event is true.

Yes you are merely saying and you are merely wrong.It is precisely the opposite. A lack of belief in something is no assumption. And there is not always the possibility that the unlikely event is true.
Are you seriously telling me here that you think there is the possibility that Xenu is out there? That there are some magic dictators in the sky who scan our minds for thought crimes and punish us in some netherrealm? That team jamotide really created everything and only I know about it? How can a rational person even theoretically think such things could be reality and not just made up by someone like me?

You are making the assumption it is false based on inductive reasoning. Also, unlikely =/= impossible. An unlikely event is just one that is some lower degree of probable than the alternative. If there is a probability for an event, there is a possibility of that event.

I have already said I do. I have also said that I have made the assumption that he does not exist, because inductive evidence makes this a higher probability outcome.

Admitting that an unlikely solution to a problem is still theoretically possible is not irrational. The converse is quite irrational, however.

This is going to be a drunken rambling, so don't expect serious debate, this is a thought rather than a debate.

Say those, that think the stories in the bible as true events and actually happened as the bible says them.

The great flood, is a worse genocide than both nazi germany and stalin's russia combined. Yet those who believe the bible glorify it as a good thing. Hitler and Stalin got off way too easy for their crimes, yet the religious glorify "god" when he kills off the entire world in one swoop except for two people. As a person who is relatively peaceful. Never been in even a fist fight in school, I cannot and would not condone the killing of the entire planet because a holy book said that it was needed. Stalin and Hitler got off easy than what I think should have been done to them. Yet god gets a free pass if you believe the flood story and sodom and gamorah. Where do the religious draw the line on genocide, and how can any genocide be good even if their old man in the sky commanded it. Let alone eternal torture in the afterlife.

Hummm? I'm confused, already your earliest reply I was a bit surprised as I thought I was agreeing with you, and now again... as well the above two paragrpahs I see as just a bit contradictory...

Anyway, I'm not going back to check where the misunderstanding formed, nor try to dissect the above, so to simplify: you and me, as far I can determine, are both agnostic.

A lot of folks in the thread insist we are atheists, but to me that's semantics where they are:
1) trying to force us into an anti-religion position we do not share.
Or
2) not anti-religious (just like us) but taking an unusual definition of atheism that includes being "religion neutral", instead of just using the common use word: agnostic.

My money is on #1, because much as they position themselves as neutral to religion, the hostily and arrogance is palpable in many posts. Hence why I referred to with us or against us earlier, it was not directed at you.


Anyone else reading, kindly note, not naming any names - there are a lot of folks in this thread, and more than just two sides. If the cap fits and you feel offended feel free to PM me why I offended and we can square it, or just take a deep breath and try to be more tolerant of those that believe differently than you.

So for you not believing someone elses assumption is an assumption?

Please explain to me how it is theoretically possible that Xenu really exists, while trying not to sound irrational.

The things I really and seriously respect judaism for. is jews don't want nor try to convert me nor do they try to make their religious views the law in the US.