materialists and atheists

Author: janesix

Posts

Total: 52
#31
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
There is One True God.

Yes, you said that. And it remains undemonstrated and unsupported by anything other than your usual "I said it! You can't prove it isn't true!" So I will give you a challenge.

Please conclusively disprove any of the Roman Pantheon gods. 
#32
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Prove gods you don't think exist. Like the atheists always do. 

#33
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
The Ultimate Reality exists.

It should be obvious that stating the opposite is self defeating.

#34
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Atheism is literallly defined in its relation to God.

No, it is not. It is defined as the lack of belief in ANY gods. Not capital g god. 


Lack of belief is not a belief or system of thought.

Think of Atheism as a belief, or a system of thought
#35
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
I'm asking for the proof that must have convinced ANYONE that Roman gods aren't real. I don't have any reason to believe in any gods, because none have been reasonably demonstrated. I know you believe in every god somehow, and witches and like spells and stars and auras and whatever, you're a credulous angry person, so you are on the opposite end of the spectrum: you do not require proof because you think every possibility is equally true somehow, even the contradictory ones, simultaneously. THe difference is this person is saying there's only one god. I'm asking for the method by which he eliminated all of the other gods and is sure there's only ONE TRUE GOD. I'm surprised you're not on board, but you're not really a thinker. Carry on! 
#36
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
If I told you I could jump from here to the moon, would your lack of belief be a 'system of thought'? I think that's a distinction without a difference. 
#37
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
If I told you I could jump from here to the moon, would your lack of belief be a 'system of thought'?

My system of thought in this instance, is relative what you are claiming.
#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
Yeah, distinction without a difference. My system of thought is also relative to what anyone who claims knowledge of a superbeing is claiming. I don't get why people get such a hard on working out the definition of atheism, it is immaterial to any real argument. In other words if you eliminated that word from the language and just changed it to "I don't believe in any gods at all," the underlying discussion doesn't change. 
#39
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
I think that's a distinction without a difference. 

There is a distinct difference between saying "I am without God" and "I do not know of God" and "...…."

This should be obvious I think, but it can be obscured by the false notion that a state of ignorance is a belief, or a system of thought.
#40
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
NO where is it stated proof is required to have a right to faith/ religion/ belief of any kind. Especially in the constitution. 
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,359
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
There is a distinct difference between saying "I am without God" and "I do not know of God" and "...…."
What about Deism?
#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
There are two ways to interpret deism.


The first way is that you believe God exists.


The second way is that you believe God exists, created the universe, but is not present in the universe.


Which of these forms of deism are you refering to, and if neither, how would you describe deism?


#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,359
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
There are two ways to interpret deism.
The first way is that you believe God exists.
The second way is that you believe God exists, created the universe, but is not present in the universe.
Which of these forms of deism are you refering to, and if neither, how would you describe deism?
There is a god, but there is no holy book.
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you mean God or god?

They mean different things.

What do you mean by holy book?





#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,359
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Do you mean God or god?
I mean god.  Just because you think there may only be one of them doesn't mean you are expected to capitalize it.

Like universe, there's only one, but you still don't capitalize it.

They mean different things.
Not really.

What do you mean by holy book?
We have no way of determining if god is any "more" or any "less" responsible for any particular book.

I mean, if god created everything, then it seems logical to conclude that god inspired the writing on the back of your cereal box with equal effort and power as they imbued into the works of William Shakespeare.
#46
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
We don't capitalize God because there is "only one". They are actually different words. They have different meanings. The word "God" capitalized means "The Ultimate Reality". Uncapitalized it means something else, some of which are even gods we acknowledge to have some reality to them.

When the artist wrote on the back of a cereal box, was God their inspiration or did they find their muse in cornflakes? When Shakespeare wrote his plays, was God his inspiration or human experience?

Certainly, you could say that God created all things, but we Orthodox don't even believe that God dictated the bible. It should be obvious that the personalities of the authors are present in the writings.


Muslims believe the Koran was dictated in this way. Maybe some protestants do too. We Orthodox would see that as a type of idolatry.


That said, we do revere scripture, but we also know what it is used for. It is, after all, a product of our church tradition and a part of it. It is our book(s).

#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,359
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
We don't capitalize God because there is "only one". They are actually different words. They have different meanings. The word "God" capitalized means "The Ultimate Reality". Uncapitalized it means something else, some of which are even gods we acknowledge to have some reality to them.
The word "god" to a deist merely notates some unknown, unknowable, origin of everything.

When the artist wrote on the back of a cereal box, was God their inspiration or did they find their muse in cornflakes? When Shakespeare wrote his plays, was God his inspiration or human experience?
(IFF) god made everything (THEN) everything is directed and inspired by god.

Certainly, you could say that God created all things, but we Orthodox don't even believe that God dictated the bible. It should be obvious that the personalities of the authors are present in the writings.
That seems strange, do you believe that god made everything except "The Bible"?

Muslims believe the Koran was dictated in this way. Maybe some protestants do too. We Orthodox would see that as a type of idolatry.
It's only logical to conclude that god also wrote the Quran and the Popol Vuh and the Bardo Thodol as well. 

That said, we do revere scripture, but we also know what it is used for. It is, after all, a product of our church tradition and a part of it. It is our book(s).
It makes sense that your private club would choose to have the flexibility of making up its own rules on the fly.
#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't think that there is a difference between inspiration that comes from love of God and inspiration that comes from the love of this world?



#49
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
It's neither, it's the rejection of an unsupportable claim made by man.
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,359
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You don't think that there is a difference between inspiration that comes from love of God and inspiration that comes from the love of this world?
If god made the world, then anything inspired by the world is inspired by god.
#51
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@Mopac
You don't think that there is a difference between inspiration that comes from love of God and inspiration that comes from the love of this world?
Huge difference, we can see from many of your hate filled troll posts that inspiration from God destroys ones honesty, integrity and ability to think.

#52
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
If god made the world, then anything inspired by the world is inspired by god.

I don't believe that someone who is inspired by the cartoons I drew on the back of a cereal box is inspired by me.