Bad news, atheists. Federal Court rules ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ not a real religion

The proper definition of an Atheist is a person who has the belief that there is not God. But there are attempts by "Atheists" to redefine the word to simply mean those who lack a belief in God, or even those that lack a belief in the primary religion of their culture but may believe in another kind of God.

However the proper term for somebody without either a belief there is a God or a belief there is not a God is "agnostic". If we used the word "atheist" as another word meaning this, we would lose having a word for somebody who believed there is no God.

But why does it matter? Why do Atheists want the term atheist to include agnosticism? The reason is because Atheism is so damn hard to defend intellectually, and yet if they call themselves "agnostic" then openly mocking religion as stupid is harder for them to justify. So they need to equivocate on the term Atheist to mean either agnostic or what it really means, according to their current purpose.

My Webster's Seventh Tattered Collegiate Dictionary states it a little differently, but I think the difference is quite significant:

agnostic 1 : of or relating to the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable ... syn see ATHEIST

so ... ultimate reality ... unknowable . That's my takeaway.

I have no hard copy of a dictionary right now...just my smart phone. I googled atheist definition and the search page came up with an athiest page saying it meant something like agnostic. And dictionary pages saying it means believing there is no God. And an urban dictionary that seems to say it could mean either. I only scanned first few entries and did not follow links...and it’s hard to provide links in smart phone while eating in car. But it seems consistant with my view that new athiests seem to be trying to change it. Will see if I can research its etymology properly when home...What does your tattered dictionary say in the actual atheist entry?

Ok that is pretty much what I was saying about atheist. The traditional established meaning has been someone who believes there is no God as opposed to someone who merely does not have a belief in God nor a belief there is no God.

The definition I remember growing up with of agnostic is somebody who thinks there is not enough evidence to tell if there is a God or not. But in regard to Theism (being belief in God) and Atheism (belief there is no God) is kind of a neutral position.

I also think it a natural extension for the person that lacks belief about God one way or the other and also is not sure whether there is enough evidence to decide the matter under the heading agnostic, until I learn a word specific to them.

For the person that thinks there is a God but is not sure the God is the one common in religion, I think the most specific term is Deist, which I understand to be a specific kind of Theist--although I did watch a new atheist you-tuber try to claim that such a person should be counted as an Atheist...

I have heard a specialized term for people that maintain that the question of God lacks proper definition so is unfathomable and does not have an answer. So in my vocabulary it seems I would have to put them in the agnostic camp until I look up and remember that term ;-).

In any case my point was, I don't think it proper to expand the term Atheists to include the various people I would call Agnostic, and even more so not expand it to include Deists.

In any case my point was, I don't think it proper to expand the term Atheists to include the various people I would call Agnostic, and even more so not expand it to include Deists.

I generally agree. The language of the dictionary explanation included the word "rejects" for atheism, which expresses an antagonistic stance towards religion and Belief in general, which is not present in the various philosophical demurrals.

Atheists are idiots.

I disagree, being wrong does not necessarily mean one lacks intelligence. I think it has more to do with a willingness to look up and see what is greater than oneself, and that is a heart thing more than an intelligence thing. Although Natural Theology offers very good intellectual arguments for God's existence, it seems to me that until one can wrap their heart around the concept of God, they will not have the courage to fully comprehend Him, and thus will invariably not attend to the evidence well enough to be convinced.

Unlike the reasonable agnostic, the atheist declares the intimate insight of another to be fallacious. And without knowing another’s insight, the atheist demands the explanation of something he is incapable of understanding.

I’m not saying the atheist is unintelligent. My point concerns the atheist’s argument is absolutely dependent on the intuition of another without ever having the means to understand it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.