Well, you have done the same thing with your concept of atheism. (i.e. can't tell me what it is). You say it is a non issue, but that does not preclude you from providing your definition since you reject the definitions presented in the OP.Here, let's try it this way, pretend you are editing the American Heritage Dictionary, fill in the following blank:ATHEISM:___________________________________________

quote:

---

Would it be true to say that you have not yet come to know of the existence of God?

---

I believe that that would be misleading since it implies that there is a God that I could come to know.

Ahh, but you are using a different definition for agnostics other than presented in the OP. Is that what this board calls 'moving the goal posts'?P.S. That's an old photo of my little monkey, she's actually 5 years old now, but I always liked that photo.

I think what folk have been telling you is that the definitions you used in the OP simply are not correct. Remember, a Dictionary does not define the meaning of a word. Rather it is a historical document that records the common usage of words. It is not at all unusual to have a word that is commonly missused, and as such, that misuse will be reflected in dictionary.If limited to the definitions in the OP, it appears that many of the respondents would not be Aethists, but something else.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I told you exactly what it is for me. Several times.If you choose not to listen, that's your business.

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

agnostic "one who doubts the possibility of God.....etc..."
IMO is a bad definition. Agnostics do not doubt anything, they simply withold judgement on the grounds of incomplete data.Yes according to the definition in your original post anyone who doubts the possibility of God would sound like an atheist. But I am moving the goal post to include in my opinion a better definition of agnostic. One who witholds judgement pending further evidence.

That's unfortunate but figuratively true.

Huhh? A dictionary does not define the meaning of a word? Then what does? Is there other documented sources that can be mutually accepted by all parties which provides the meaning of words? If not, then we are all free to interpret the meaning of words ourselves. This then leads to neither side offering coherent arguments. Am I being coherent?

Here is how my atheism came about.1) I realized that I was god everytime I prayed.
2) I realized that the existence of god is as vague as the existence of an immaterial pink unicorn.
3) I realized that as long as the immaterial pink unicorn remains non-existent, god will remain non-existent.My stance in atheism is simple. Show me that an immaterial pink unicorn exist somewhere and I will consider the possibility of the existence of god. In the mean time, it can remain non-existent.

...nah. Way too easy.

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

Absolutely correct. As I said, a dictionary is a historical document. It simply records how a word WAS used. It's not as though the folk that publish the Funk&Wagnall make decisions about what something should mean. They do not. They don't even arbitrate.The way a dictionary is compiled is that folk go through volumes and volumes of sources, pull out every time a word in used and the context. The one that occurs most often is the first definition posted, the others follow.But what folk here have been telling you is that they consider themselves as Atheists but do not fit the definition that you provided. Since a Map is not the territory, the definition is not the thing defined, they are the ultimate authority, not the dictionary.If someone says they are and atheist but that they don't fit your definition, it is your definition and the dictionary that are wrong.

The Definition is not the object being Defined!

​

The Map is not the Territory!

This message has been edited by jar, 03-01-2005 14:19 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My question for agnostics is: Since you're presumably pretty negative about the existence of fairies, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and other fairy tales, why do you make an exception for God?As it turns out, there are some kinds of God you can be pretty certain don't exist. The only God you can't disprove is the do-nothing God that's specifically trying to hide from humanity.

Wait a minute, in 2) you say 'the existence of God is vague' and in 3) you say 'God will remain non-existent.' Just because something is vague does not mean it does not exist.I know, I know, games with words but I couldn't resist. FYI, the immaterial pink unicorns are what the angels ride on. ---just kidding

The community that speaks that language. Dictionaries do not define words; they merely describe them. That's why different dictionaries all have different definitions for the same words. Unless we're able to come to some kind of agreement about what words mean, that's exactly what happens.

No exception is made. Bigfoot is not god, fairies are not god. The Loch Ness monster is not god. You personally may lump God in with "fairy tales". But again that shows the difference between an atheist verses agnostic. Agnostics do not disbelieve god exist. They do not believe god exist. They are content to say they do not know. Atheist on the other hand take a stance on the issue and say: THERE IS NO GOD. Then again I could be wrong altogether.