{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Ric_Adbur:
8/7/2013 6:10:22 AM
4
I'm not exactly sure how you are tying these concepts to the notions of religions, but I [i]would[/i] like to point out that explicit atheists hardly need any additional help to make themselves look silly.
English
-
As I understand an explicit atheist is someone who recognizes that they reject the belief that God exists, such as you or me. An implicit atheist would be someone who does not believe in God, but does not explicitly reject it (like a baby). I think you're thinking of a gnostic atheist, who believes that God doesn't exist. Although I might be wrong, the wikipedia article seems a tad unclear.
-
The definitions I've seen describe an explicit atheist as someone who claims to know for certain that deities do not exist, while an implicit atheist merely sees no reason to believe in deities due to the lack of evidence supporting their existence.
-
gah, semantics I guess petarded will have to tell us which definition he means.
-
Edited by die wily: 8/7/2013 5:54:29 PMRic's definition was what I intended, though I can certainly see how it's vague. And I wasn't just referring to explicit / gnostic atheists either, but those that took their claims so far as to assert that *no* being / instigator outside physical reality can exist. If there were a purely logical world underlying a dirty physical world, self-contradictory beings would still not-exist, so if you showed the Judeo-Christian god self-contradictory you could still be a gnostic atheist for that particular god.
