Talk:The rationality of atheism/Needs to be NPOVed
|
|
All of the discussion re "agnosticism" misses a basic point: one either believes or does not believe. There is no middle ground possible. One cannot "not know" whether one believes something or not. A person who believes in the existence of some god is by definition a theist. Otherwise, by definition, that person is an atheist, whether he believes there is no god or is not sure.
- Not necessarily. As the article on atheism says, "There are various ways of using the term. It may mean lack of belief in gods ("weak atheism") or belief in the non-existence of gods ("strong atheism")." The latter definition seems to be more widely used than the first, and furthermore seems more useful and more in line with other "-ism" words. Words ending in "-ism" generally denote beliefs, not lack of them. I would therefore only use the word "atheist" to mean "someone who believes that there is no god". Following this usage, one can therefore be a theist, an atheist, or neither. -- Oliver PEREIRA 23:29 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
The first paragraph is nonsense. I don't know if there is a God or gods, so what is there to believe or not believe? Atheism itself is a belief system. -- Zoe