My view and oppion and understanding of the term remains the same, I just didn't want to disrespect anyone or any thread that's not mine over a disagreement that is insignificant
Yet the point is that it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how other people use the words and coming to a mutual understanding so the words make sense when they are used conversing with one another. I could believe the word antagonist means something other than what everyone else thinks, but that is irrelevant when holding a discussion with others.
I believe you could be considered an antagonist.
If we are to find common ground and understand each others positions, we must agree on what terms mean. It is the only way to have a meaningful debate. If those definitions are the ones you chose in your head then fine, but don't bring them to the table as if they have some sort of validity.
The definitions i'm using are also the ones in the dictionary and encyclopedia, you can call things whatever you want or define them however you wish, If you and your friends want to start calling fire homo magic then by all means go ahead just don't expect me to agree that that is what it is called. We really don't need to agree on anything if you don't want to, God knows best and all I can recomend is that you go with God.
So are you saying it is incorrect for me to label myself as an atheist since I don't make the claim that there is no god? I don't believe there is a god but I don't know if there are things that we cannot sufficiently examine and test, leaving the possibility for some sort of god wide open. I am clearly agnostic but I am not a theist, so I must be an atheist. How is this wrong?
Yet your dictionary and your encyclopedia gave definitions that agreed with us more than you yet you fail to acknowledge that.
If you believe in God you will be saved and your right and will go to heaven. If you do not believe in God and believe their is no God and proof their is no God your Ahheist and If your not religious but are not sure and think their is potentally a God or that god can not be disproven you are Agnostic.
I guess you were unable to understand the definition of Atheist.
This post spells it out clearly.
And this might cause tension between some people but I will use the power that God gave me and not feed into this, I am stronger than that. I will pray for you both.
I answered what the person you describe would be called, I posted links that supported what I claim. If you do not like them or my interpretation of them then I am sorry if I have upset you and am glad you have a good life that allows you to worry about such trivial things. I wish you luck on your journey to inner peace.You're a fucking idiot. You post links that counter what you claim then accuse the opposition of not having reading comprehension.
You still have not answered the question as to what you call a person that doesn't accept the claims that a god exists yet doesn't himself claim that a god doesn't exist.
Pro Tip: It is not agnostic.
As a side note - Stop using their when you mean there.
I have been wrong in the past. I was wrong about Bush getting a second term-Didn't think he would. I was wrong about the price of Silver- Still not 100$. If I am wrong about what an atheist is or isn't oh well. If I am wrong about God I die and don't go to Hell, If I am right I die and go to Heaven. And either way I am blessed with Heaven on earth.
Reality is subjective, so isn't right and wrong.
I would only consider someone who claims their is no God atheist.
If the amount of pain and suffering organized religion causes is worth your level of comfort, then hey, that's your own deal. The torment you will face when you finally realize a genuine god, if it exists, will send you to Hell for that will be great, I assure you.
