Total posts: 327
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) sure, but this broadest of all possible definitions is NOT the one that most (if any) atheists are subscribed to
Okay, but that doesn't change it. If most creationists subscribe to a definition that is not evolution that doesn't change eveolution. If it isn't right it isn't right. If it isn't wrong it isn't wrong. The definition of atheism should be disbelief in supernatural gods. Just God or creator gods, or whatever. Not God and gods. Unless the belief isn't literal but trust in which case it should stipulate that.
So, if I say to an supposed atheist what is a god and they say something they don't have that controls other people, not them, or something that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omni etc. they don't understand what a god is, what it meant to Bible writers or how it isn't what they think it is and therefore so it does likely control them BUT they also don't care, wouldn't care even if they did know BECAUSE the gods aren't really the issue and they wouldn't change a thing.
(2) the term "rejects" is a loaded term - remains UNconvinced is more accurate
I know.
(3) depending on which specific definition of "god(s)" the speaker and the audience are entertaining, "god(s)" may be either unfalsifiable or logically incoherent - if a definition of "god(s)" has sufficient empirical evidence, for instance if one were to rename "the big bang" "god" then, in my experience, the atheist would explain that they are not an atheist in that specific case.
You've made this point before so . . . It doesn't really matter in that it isn't germane. But just in case I've already covered this and your response (if I'm not mistaken) is contrary to your conclusion because you conflate, as I've said repeatedly, God and gods. So, the "rejection" comes from ideology. Like racism, sexism, misogyny etc. Very powerful stuff. Almost impossible to change. In a sense meaningless. The racists don't care, they don't want to change or even know why they "reject."
The unconvincing may seem to come from ignorance but that's only on the surface. You say, for example, that some atheists wouldn't have a problem with the big bang as a god, but if that's true it's only because the term doesn't mean anything to them. It isn't dependent upon ignorance beyond the surface because if you educated them, they either wouldn't accept it or it wouldn't be meaningless to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
P1: It is reasonable/rational to withhold belief in an unfalsifiable entity.P2: God is an unfalsifiable entity.P3: Atheists withhold belief in God.C: It is reasonable/rational to be atheist.
I agree completely.
Now what about the gods. Atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of God or gods. We've covered and agree upon God, now what about gods. Obviously gods in general? None specified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
YOur the person using ambigous term of 'super'natural, and I was very clear early on that, Universe is the top dog when it comes to being supernatural.
Okay. That's a start. I've found the best way to, as Popper said "contradict [my] own assumptions" is to listen to contradictory positions. Give me yours. Elaborate.
The other words that use prefix super are analogies to help you grasp that just sticking the word super in front of word natural doesnt mean anything unless you can define it clearly what it is your talking about.
Very well. Good job. Supernatural from the Latin super- (above, beyond, or outside of) + natura (nature). So, simply, to me, supernatural are things science can't explain because science is knowledge of nature. That is roughly it. You could argue that in many ways, I suppose, by questioning the limits of scientific "knowledge" which is basically, more often than not, an opinion. As far as we can tell, subject to change - thus Popper's quote. An ideologue adheres dogmatically to while a scientist adheres to a continuing investigation. If we know something it isn't science because science is investigation not a belief system. See? It's contradictory depending on how you look at it.
Is Superman supernatural? Yes, because, tho fictional the concept is he is j man from another planet whose molecular design makes him supernatural by earth man standards.
Agreed.
Is a super-market super-natural? No, tho it is super-duper by al previous markets on Earth.
Okay. Now I see where those references came from. Still don't see the connection as far as any argument you would have against my statement that God is supernatural and can't be tested as such.
Is a super sale at a super market super-natural?
No, I would say, it's a supermarket. Literally (hyperbolic intensifier) above market. Superman literally above man. Our confusion could be linguistic. My grammar is horrible and English your second language? If I'm not making myself clear let me know.
Depends various factors, ex if the market manager looses money, then it becomes un-natural to have such a sale where you loose money. Maybe the owner just made a mistake is un-natural due to sickness in head and body.
Hmmm. Actually, such a sale would be natural. Or, heh, naturally stupid, i.e. Latin stupidus mercatus.
Earth is natural planet. --being of nature-- So is Venus, Jupiter etc. We have super this and super that in our super-natural Universe.The ultimate super-natural is finite, occupied space Universe.
Sure. Above. But earth isn't above earth. I used the epidemiological term isolate earlier. To isolate a pathogen, a virus, if I'm correct, doesn't mean to isolate it from everything, for example, the host, because it will die. It means "collecting specimens from infected patients and culturing (growing) the viruses present in those samples." You can't isolate a virus from its host. Isolating a patient means separating them. Some confuse the two applications of the same term. In our discussion super means above and natural means in nature. Theologically there is, for example, a physical heaven (Venus, Jupiter) which is "above" earth from the perspective of someone on earth, and a spiritual heaven above that. Spirit means invisible active force. Something we can't see but can see the force of. From the Greek word pneuma, where we get pneumatic, pneumonia. It can be translated in various ways contextually, wind, breath, compelled mental inclination (i.e. mean spirited) or spirit beings (highly advanced intelligent extraterrestrial beings we can't see) or even submicroscopic germs, energy perhaps.
So until you can define your super-natural, as Ive have done clearly twice for you, then your lost in your own mind game, that no one else knows what your going on about. Please be clear and define your supernatural whatever.
Okay. Can science falsify the Biblical God hypothesis by evidence? If so, how, if not why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that would be like claiming that NOT being a doctor is a medical position
No, it would be like saying a doctor has to be defined by some arbitrary adherence to some fraudulent criteria because the real doctors have been chased out of the country and called quacks, which the frauds who chased them out actually are. All by monetary incentive corrupting the legislature and medical profession. I.e. Fauci saying "I am science!" or a cop saying "I am above ze law!"
a dog is an atheist, that doesn't mean that a dog fabricates "a theological position"
The dog, then, in your words will . . .
"lack of theological belief
and are "merely unconvinced by any specific theistic claim"
and
"thinks about god(s) the same way you think about bigfootspacealienslochnessmonsters"
and
"clarify, that they are an "atheist" specifically relative to theistic versions of gods that demand humans obey them
in other words,
NOT a THEIST"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the "burden of proof" is quite obviously on the claim that NANABOZHO is the one true creator god
What claim? Scientific? Theological? Debate or Secular? It isn't the responsiblitity to prove to someone you saw a ghost if they refuse to believe ghosts exist. It isn't the responsibility of someone to prove to someone else that ghosts don't exist if someone refuses to believe they do. Who cares? Believe what you want. In debate it may be different but there is faith and faithlessness. Science can't prove or disprove God. Neither can theology or faith. It's a lame request. A fake victory.
You're wasting your time if you think you can prove or disprove anything to someone with a contrary ideology. First of all, who cares?
do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator god ?are you perhaps UNconvinced ?or do you think that people who DON'T believe in NANABOZHO have a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they don't believe in NANABOZHO ?
If someone says to me NANABOZHO is the true God and exists my likely response would be, okay. Whatever you say. I'm not going to go on a forum and argue with them on the subject. I'm also not going to go on a forum and argue Democrat / Republican or Labor / Conservative or whatever you happen to argue about in politics. I consider that stupid. I don't care about "proving God" to anyone. 1. it's faith and 2. it's your individual responsibility.
I always thought the cry of "burden of proof" was a fake cop out myself. Like a corrupt judge saying "I'm the law" or Fauci saying "I am science." It doesn't mean anything and anyone with sense can see that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps if 100% of your government officials told you they worship NANABOZHO and the teachings of NANABOZHO are the guiding principle of their moral compassthen you might be at least slightly concerned
From a theological perspective, no. From an ideological perspective, not me. When it comes to guiding principle, that is taken, by Jehovah. And moral compass - that isn't something that's dictated in the sense that I follow the laws of the government unless they interfere with God. If the government in your hypothetical says NANABOZHO says speed limit 55 I say okay. 55 it is. If the same government says I have to go to war and kill others for any reason or abort my firstborn child I say, no. Not going to do that. If they say we kill you I say kill me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Early Christians were atheists! At least, that’s how some people of the time viewed them in the earliest centuries, and it’s not difficult to see why. Most importantly, they refused to worship the traditional gods. But also, judged by Roman-era criteria, they didn’t even seem to practice a recognizable form of religion.
Not really. They were/are all theist. Theism isn't specific to any god, it's just a God and/or gods. There has always been a seemingly pointless (to me) debate on whether Judaism/Christianity are mono or polytheistic. Pointless to me because they are henotheistic. Which you can say is polytheistic but that isn't entirely true. Anyway. In the broad sense what you say may be true, but it was due to error. Today Christians have differences which they interpret as disqualifying others in that sort of way but they are all theists. Theism means gods, atheism means no gods. Right or wrong (most of them are wrong) they are still theists. Roman, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc. I say wrong because of the source and obvious history of apostacy.
it's a little weird that you want to apply the BROADEST POSSIBLE definition to "god(s)"but you insist on the most specific and inflexible definition of "atheist"
Both are applicable only in the broadest possible sense. There is only one sense. It's simple. God means venerated/mighty. Atheist means without gods, but confuses all gods as being in some sense, God. The Arabic word Allah means the (al) God (lah). The contention is that you can't logically say you have no gods if you confuse it that way because you don't understand the simple meaning. I know JWs. Much of our beliefs are the same because they removed the apostacy, the pagan influence. They know that if something as mundane as knitting, boating, sports, sex, nationalism becomes more important than their God, Jehovah, they must admonish the member of the congregation from doing that. And rightly so because those things can unknowingly become their God before Jehovah. A god is someone or something that you respect (venerate) more than anything else. So, yes, money and food (as Paul said their belly) can become gods. So the three companions captive in Babylon wouldn't eat the meat devoted to gods, wouldn't bow to the King or his idol, a simple pole. The JWs won't pledge allegience to a flag.
An atheist would do many of those things without thinking because they don't understand the meaning of the word god(s). It doesn't have to be creator, omnipotent, supernatural, spiritual, etc. It doesn't have to be anything but venerated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the claims and definitions of YHWH are falsifiable with LOGIC
Demonstrate, please? In another thread if you wish or this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Look up the definition of god.
Oxford Dictionary definition of God:
1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.
3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.
Regardless, these are the concepts typically associated with a god, which is where theism comes from, which is where atheism comes from.
Yes.
Sure, you can define god in any way you want but at that point you are no longer communicating with us, just playing silly semantic word games.
Which is what atheism does.
Exactly zero people read the title of this thread and thought it was referring to people who don't believe in sex.
That's nonsense. Sex isn't God, sex can be a god. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Gods defined above. Note, not just God, but gods. What gods? Your narrow silly semantic and limited definition which is redundant. God and gods aren't the same. Which gods? Presumably any gods.
Atheism isn't supposed to "have a clue" because that's categorically not what it is.
Dumb. Atheism denies the existence of gods but it is clueless or decides what gods are which isn't in line with theism or definition or it's just a xenophobic imitation of what it denies. The product of ignorant and hypocritical ideologues. Just a socio-politically motivated sort of class struggle. It's about control because theism has wrongly appointed itself as arbiter of global morality. The motivation is, in my opinion, justified, but the methodology is stupid and hypocritical. Control. World view. Ideological fixation. Xenophobia. For some reason I've never understood why we can't all get along even though we disagree. Without having to make everyone else think like us. So, abortion and homosexuality are against Christian practice. That don't mean you (Christians) make laws secularly or that you (atheists) have to protest and reform Christianity. Just do whichever you want to do. Both of you without interfering with the other.
Atheism isn't a world view, it's a response to theism.
A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. Theism is a worldview. How is atheism, as a response to that, not a worldview? What are you denying? Commonality? You can't train a cat? Disorganization? First of all, the commonality is - well, I would say stupidity but that is prevalent in theism and humanity at large (not excluding myself) so that would be moot, but a specific stupidity (willful ignorance) regarding what it criticizes or protests. And it does. But also, commonality in the simple fucked up basic tenet. Can't train a cat? Go to a circus, see a lion tamer. Disorganization due to lack of commonality? Nonsense. Minorities don't all have to think alike and anyway atheists do but seem to be oblivious to it.
It isn't a good argument.
You claim there is a God, I don't accept your claim. That's it. Anything else is something else.
You (collectively) just don't have an argument because you don't even understand what it would be. I'm fine with and completely empathetic to the argument against the claim of the existence of God. It's a completely rational one. Faith requires just that. Faith. What I object to is the ambiguity if not complete willful ignorance of the gods part of atheism. You just reject it because you conflate God with gods. That doesn't make sense. Tell me the difference. And not one you made up in your limited worldview group think I saw at a PTA meeting recently! (PTA reference source GTA VC Maurice Chavez Pressing Issues for my own odd approach to humor and entertainment)
Ya' know it?
One does not need to understand a claim in order to reject it, in fact rejection is the only possible position in that circumstance.
[Laughs] It's so obvious. It doesn't matter what theists think, what they think is untrue because their thinking gets in our way - not of thinking, who cares about that, it doesn't exist along with the God we know nothing about. It's about telling me what to do. We want the power. This is a democracy! Yeah, majority MOB rules and you aren't it! That's what it's about. When an atheist says theism is stupid and false they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. That's what it's all about. Do you see? What could possibly be the reason for obfuscating the obvious actual intent? Only ignorance or deception.
I'm using the word reject as in "to not accept".
And the word god in any arbitrary fashion as well. Wow. Obtuse. Rejecting is not the same as accepting if you perceive the acceptance to be mandatory. That isn't a claim that isn't even an offer. You aren't rejecting the claim in a reasonable manner which is totally acceptable, you are distorting the claim for the same reason the theists distort it. Power struggle. The claim isn't even relevant so why argue the OP without actually arguing or even addressing the claim? Ideologues coming out of the proverbial woodwork.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Response to post 70
and then they'll clarify, that they are an "atheist" specifically relative to theistic versions of gods that demand humans obey themin other words,NOT a THEIST
I comprehend and recognize. What you seem to be saying is that atheists think that theism is silly and pointless in a sense and theists think the same of atheism and I agree, but the sort of argument I'm making in the OP is that theists and atheists may be really confused on elements - data - regarding theism. A couple of points that are sort of relevant in a supplementary fashion to the OP.
1. The vast majority of atheists are apathetic rather than militant. They don't care to discuss the subject for a minute, they don't care about prayer in school, the 10 commandments at the courthouse, the separation of church and state, evolution vs. creation, in the schools or elsewhere, they don't march in atheist parades, put up billboards, have bumper stickers, identify with atheistic group think, or politicize abortion or homosexual rights. They may have differing opinions on those subjects but don't politicize them. Militant atheists, like on forums such as this, do those things to a greater or lesser extent or at least feel compelled to express contempt for theism. They are a very small minority comparatively speaking. Though you wouldn't think so online because the internet provides them with a means of expression and they gather. All of that, both apathetic and militant, is fine with me. I support both approaches and I have enjoyed debating with the militant for about three decades.
2. Atheism, at least militant, is a form of theism. A position of a theological nature, antithesis of theism, but theological nonetheless.
3. Biblical study is the study of what the Bible says. Theology is, put simply, the study of what the Bible (or other theistic texts, i.e. Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.) means. Interpretations vary but are (allegedly) dependent upon the source. Allegedly because, for example, religions are syncretistic. Like history, facts become legends, myths, and intertwine and mingle. Good examples are Christianity and Taoism because they are most obvious. A "Christ-myth" theorist will make references to similarities between pagan mythology and Christian mythology which exist, but not with the source. They intermingled later. They aren't contemporaneous with the source.
So, you can say "atheists believe in this" or "atheists believe that" but that doesn't necessarily mean that those beliefs comport with the source. The same goes for theism, thus the great debate. You have to acknowledge the source as well as the theological. What you are I believe is one thing, an argument on what the source says another thing. Every source, in every religion and every language as well as the common use of the word god has been the same. It doesn't always make that clear and so there is often confusion. Ironically or not, often unbeknownst to the theist or atheist because they see or are influenced by that syncretism.
That's what the OP is about, using the points of contention it presents. So that we can reevaluate them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A response to post # 68. I'll try, as always, believe it or not, to minimize verbosity as much as possible.
I pretty much agree with your sentiments on dictionary definition, and addressed this in response to @zedvictor4 in post # 69 prior to reading your post which I'm responding to here.
if you really want to know what an atheist thinks "a god" is, try asking a few atheists, you're likely to get a variety of answers
Someone (I'm new here and unfamiliar) maybe you? has made this point and I've responded. I've done it and I disagree that a variety of answers are given. That just isn't my extensive experience.
I don't think I quite understand your point with the bigfoot etc. references. I just think you aren't listening to me and you are basing your argument on anything other than from the perspective of an ideologue. From an atheist world view. And I believe it is only a world view.
Many gods exist in a literal sense. Many gods don't exist in a literal sense. It isn't necessary for a god to exist, so the question becomes which ones are alleged to and which ones aren't.
I don't know. Going over your argument in the thread I'm at a loss. I don't know if we are at cross purposes or not.
In my post # 61 I laid out a point-by-point clarification and I don't think you've addressed a single one of those except for perhaps (I'm not sure) an ambiguous sort of ideological knee-jerk response. Then I go over your posts again and I say "Okay, we agree here, and here, etc."
Address these: If your only response is it's irrelevant, that's okay, but give me something.
1. A god can be anything or anyone.
2. God is a term for a specific deity in occidental culture. Jehovah. Atheism rejects that specific God's existence. A completely rational position.
3. Atheism in general, also rejects the literal existence of all other gods. If a god can be extant how can an atheist reject its existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I know this post wasn't a response to me but I'm going to address the points being made as if it were, if you don't mind.
think of it this waydo you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?
I do not.
why not ?are you perhaps UNconvinced ?
Correct. I'm completely ignorant of NANABOZHO.
or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?
Uh, yes. I'm human and therefor xenophobic.
Joking. No, I simply don't know NANABOZHO.
have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?
I have not, simply because I am ignorant. However, from this day on I will speak out against - this, this, this - myth, this fable in the name of almighty science! Notice how I do so in abject ignorance? Mocking atheism to make a point.)
or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?
I do not. (I'm not seeing the point. Keeping in mind I have stated clearly in this thread that the existence of a god is not always relevant to the adherent of that god. Shinto Amaterasu was given as an example. Luck. Fertility gods)
furthermore,if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaoswould you think that person is probably insane ?
I would, but I think humanity itself is "insane." I've heard more insane things than that. Evolution, for example. But you've made my point. Atheism isn't simply the absence of gods, or the disbelief, or about theology as atheists often claim it is. It has very little to do with God, Allah, the Bible or theology, in my opinion. As I've repeatedly said in this thread, it is really only about a sociopolitical frustration of a minority (atheist, especially militant atheists) in a quasi-theocratic state. Muslim or Christian. Occidental culture. Not so much in Muslim culture because it'll get you killed there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Thats because you comment above makes clear, empirical evidence from observations is not your priority in regards to questions regarding atheism.
My problem is I don't understand your argument. Your problem is, perhaps, the same. You need to explain to me why you are (if you are) at odds with my statement that science doesn't test the supernatural and the God of occidental culture, YHWH of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Christian Greek scriptures, Jehovah is supernatural and therefore not falsifiable. In other words, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, angels, Satan, ghosts, because they are supernatural. That is the point you must (seem to) argue against. Your previous efforts haven't done that - maybe, I don't know - because I don't understand your argument. Explain it if you would please. Don't just rattle off ambiguous terms about supermarkets and superman without explaining them. From a theological perspective they make no sense to me. Science isn't my forte so if you are making a scientific argument you have to explain to me the theological relevance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think I quite understand your point on the arrangement of words. While I agree with it there has to be some agreement on what words mean. The meaning changes and even varies upon interpretation. For example, in epidemiology isolation means something specific that differs from the common use. Hell means something different to a Buddhist, traditional Christian and myself. The word has changed over time, like the word queer. But even then, they have to fit within the parameters of some colloquial fashion. So, the dictionary gives the common use that may not in fact be correct in the colloquial application. Etymology will give the history of the word. (See my OP on the immortal soul) In this thread the words god and atheism are in question.
While we may "appropriately apply meaning or significance to said data" and "how we have previously been conditioned to apply significance to previously acquired and established data." is relevant we are still bound by that colloquial fashion according either to a common or specific model. It's acceptable if they are at odds but the "data" has to abide by the agreed upon principles. Sometimes the common use is either wrong, or misapplied. God for example, in every language known to man, has always meant something or anyone that is venerated. Jehovah told Abraham that he would become their (Israel's) God. Jehovah told Moses to be God to Aaron and Pharaoh and said the judges of Israel were gods. The Christian Greek scripture said "Satan is the God of the world." Modern day theist and atheists think, wrongly, that God is more a name than a title, like King, and that god means godlike. That's wrong, and the dictionary or encyclopedia, Wikipedia will tell you that's wrong but in a way that allows for the common error. People "arrange" the data in an erroneous fashion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The case of Adragon De Mello is a really interesting one to me. I had never heard of it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Poor kid. Sounds like a hollywood kid whose parents live vicariously through their child. They want the kid to be the star they themselves never were but the kid doesn't really want that. Kit Culkin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
maybe try asking a few actual people who actually call themselves atheists
I was an atheist for my first 27 years. All my family and friends are atheists and I've been debating atheists online since 1996.
they will tell you that their atheism is definitely not a CLAIM that no possible definitions of god(s) could ever qualify as extant.
That doesn't even make sense to me. Could you explain?
it is simply a lack of belief in any specific god that cares about what humans do
You keep moving the goalposts. Look at the Oxford dictionary and tell me how each one of the examples are gods.
for examplespinoza wrote a logical proof of god and spinoza's god certainly exists by definition alonebut since spinoza's definition of god didn't match the general common colloquial defintion of YHWHhe was declared an atheistbecause he didn't believe in the "one-true-god"
By who? Irrelevant. Were the worshipers of Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth etc. atheists? No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Like Laveyan Satanists how? Not sure what you were responding to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're not listening to me.
1. A god is anything that is venerated. The Hebrew word el, translated god, comes from a root word that means mighty/strong.
2. You are conflating all gods with "God" of the Bible. Atheism lacks belief in God and gods - who are the gods? The Bible says have no other gods before me. Who are the gods? The Bible says Satan, Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel, the Summerian King Tammuz (Nimrod) were gods. You don't get to limit the definition to "Supernatural, omni etc. Bible sky magician." That's stupid.
3. The Bible says to the Egyptians, Pharoahs were gods. I.e. they were gods. God simply means venerated.
4. A god doesn't need to exist be a god so saying gods don't exist is stupid. Because a) they don't have to and b) many of them do.
5. People calling themselves atheist are claiming statues aren't gods. They're wrong.
5. You deny the dictionary definition of the word god in order to rationalize your ignorance of the thing you claim doesn't exist in the name of science which can't determine whether it does or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
an atheist is merely UNconvinced by any theistic claimsin simple termsan atheist is NOT a theist
In simple terms, then, tell me exactly what a god is and what veneration means. Then think money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, you win because atheists don't believe in anything or anyoneWTF
If only it were that simple.
Q: What is a god?
A: Something or someone venrated.
Q: Then everything is a god?
A: No, anything can be a god. Like anything can be hated or loved. That doesn't mean everything is hated and loved.
I don't believe in Zeus, don't believe he existed don't worship him. Zeus is a god. Although, as I mentioned, Zeus was also a title for Roman rulers. Like Pharaohs. Pharaohs were gods. Do atheists believe or lack belief in Pharaohs?
Philippians 3:19 "Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
atheism is a lack of theological beliefatheists are UNconvinced of any specific theological claims
That isn't true, and it doesn't even make sense. Atheism is the theological belief that God and gods don't exist. It's irrelevant because they (gods) don't have to exist, many gods I've just proven to exist and uh, there was something else but I've forgotten what it was. Oh, saying they are unconvinced is only saying they are idiots, and God knows we wouldn't want to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
physical images and statues of gods ghosts and goblins, aliensbigfootlochness obviously existthis is the most ridiculous straw-man argument i've ever seen in my life
NO! I WON'T HAVE IT!
There was the Epsilom Program
The main ideals of the Epsilon Program are established on their website. The religions main deity is Kifflom, and members follow his twelve tenets:
- The world is 157 years old, and it doesn't age.
- Dinosaurs are a lie that people believe because they are weak.
- You are happy, you just don’t know it.
- We all come from the same tree.
- Everyone is related to everyone else, except for people with red hair.
- Sperm does not exist - it is a lie spread by biology teachers - along with everything else you have ever been told.
- Men are supposed to lie with nine new partners a week. Women are supposed to lie with six, except for in July, when they must lie with five men a day.
- Aliens exist and are present on earth. If you have a birth mark, you may be descended from Kraff, the famous Emperor of the 4th Paradigm.
- Trees talk, but only some people hear them.
- People who believe in something live much longer than atheists, and they have eternal life thrown in for good measure.
- If you believe this and turn you hands and wallet over to EPSILONISM, you’ll live a happy life. Otherwise you are doomed.
- KIFFLOM - HAPPINESS IS YOURS! KIFFLOM!
Uh - anyway - I didn't say anything about "ghosts and goblins, aliensbigfootlochness" and I pointed out that a god doesn't have to exist. Giving the examples of Frodo Baggins and the Shinto goddess Amaterasu. Many of the Shinto gods were fictional creations concocted to instruct Japanes youth in the royally commissioned Nihongi and Kojiki. They weren't presented as literal existing. It's like the gods of luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The dead horse keeps philosophy and religon alive
42. Douglas Adams. The question that supplied job security for the philosophers for the next 7 1/2 billion years? The murine earth project before the Vogans built a whatsit. Goll!
Logical common sense critical thinking. Your not familiar with such apparrently.
No. Not at all. Might as well ask the cat. But, hey, "Your not familiar with such apparrently?" Good Job! That's worse than me.
It is obvious you fear the truth and logical common sense critical thinking with these kind of responsesPost 332 at
[Sigh] Alright.
To the ' creator God ' and their illogical, lack of common sense and lack of critical thinking;....naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed......see 1st law of thermodynamics, that,
You want to turn theology into science or science into theology? The sun will eventually do what? How could you create naught or destroy naught? Nuclear explosions? Energy, Bob. Matter.
I don't see the relevance of your observations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Well, I think according to the history channel they've been doing that for thousands of years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, we are just after your resources. We have no interest in managing human lives.
Then would it kill you to stop with the anal probes?! What resources are you looking for there anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Piece of candy?
Look up the IQ of Stephen Hawking and James Woods and tell me which one I should listen to on the subject of physics. Then look up the guys who invented the tests and coined the term - what it means and how it is used/abused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That is like me saying the same thing about math to Einstein. In almost complete ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
So that still doesn't disprove atheism.
It doesn't need to. It was a foregone conclusion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
atheism is merely a lack of theological beliefatheists are merely unconvinced by any specific theistic claim
Okay. Here is a theistic claim: a god is by definition "an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; an adored, admired, or influential person." How can an atheist remain unconvinced by the claim that the Christian cross is a god that exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
logic tells us that any two substances that CAN interact in any waymust necessarily maintain a FUNDAMENTAL similaritytherefore, MONISM
Explain? What does that have to do with - anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Atheists are borg
An alien group that appears as recurring antagonists in the Star Trek fictional universe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
all humans are born atheists (lack belief in any specific theology)
All humans are not born with a disbelief in anything. At birth they lack belief and disbelief. They are born atheist in the sense that they are without theism, theoretically, though theism shouldn't be misconstrued as exclusively a belief in a supernatural deity therefor atheism shouldn't be misconstrued as exclusively a lack of belief in any theololgy, it is, rather, allegedly lacking theism. If it is true, and it is, that a god can be anything or anyone, then theoretically newborns worship their parents. Allow me to give you glimps of a new perspective. Does atheism deny the existence or belief in the Lord or lords?
belief in an afterlife emerged, followed by shamanism and ancestor worshipancestor spirits or high gods who are active in human affairs were absent in early human societies
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you’re defining a god as anything other than an all powerful entity and creator of the universe then you are not talking about atheism.
In which part of the definition of atheism is entity, creator or all powerful mentioned?
You are free to provide some.
Historically, Zeus, Tammuz, Moses, Jesus, judges of Israel, Kim Jong-un, Eric Clapton, Frodo Baggins, Amaterasu. Dagon etc.
Which is why atheism rejects it.
No, atheism doesn't have a clue any more than science. That's the point. Atheism doesn't reject anything anyway. It can't reject what it can't understand. By it I mean, of course, it's representatives. As usual, they suck. Like representatives of theism as well. That's the problem with atheism or any theism.
Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. The reason for that rejection varies, but in most cases it’s due to the lack of evidence, which is the logical reason to deny any claim.
It's like there is a string on their neck. You pull it and you get nonsense. Claim is an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. Atheists don't have evidence they have a militant sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theistic culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheism is what it is.
And what it isn't? Everything is what it is. I take your comment to mean that atheism is a colloquialism of sociopolitical and philosophical dispute?
A term generally used to define the non-adherence to popular deistic/theistic ideologies.
Ideologies specific to those, you mean. Theism doesn't adhere to any general ideology at all though, does it? If anything, and anyone can be a god or gods then to be with one doesn't require any specific ideology unless you consider the general adherence itself the ideology. Singular. One can believe in God, reject God, even have faith in God and still be atheist because one doesn't adhere to that God. That is, doesn't venerate/worship God. Atheism simply means without God or - and this is very important - or gods. The problem with that is that anything or anyone can be a god. Money, food, sex, love, sticks, stones, bones and words.
The only commonality necessary between any of the myriads of gods is their being worshipped.
Though as ever, if one deconstructs the idea and expands upon definition, then the loose adherence to any social idea could be regarded as being theistic.
That seems a contradiction to your opening statement, which I expected and so replied with "and what it isn't?" If one makes the argument that atheism is simply a constructed idea defined as "disbelief in the existence of God or gods," that is nonsensical for a variety of reasons. First of all, it begs the question what is a god and why the distinction between God and gods, i.e. which God and which gods? Second, what is belief? Trust or acceptance? I believe our government exists but I don't believe in our governments, for example. Thirdly, as mentioned above one can believe and even trust in a God and still be atheist if they don't venerate said God. I'm apolitical. That doesn't mean "disbelief in the existence of King or kings," it means I'm without politics.
So, in terms of the Biblical magician [...]
Which I'm guessing you know virtually nothing about. Maybe you think he is alleged to have created the universe is 144 hours, sends people to hell, is three parts of a singular, came to earth and was hung on a cross, et cetera?
[...] I am atheistic.
It doesn't make sense to me that you are atheistic in terms of one specific god and theistic towards others. I don't believe (trust in or accept the literal existence of) the mythological Zeus (Roman rulers were also given the title Zeus) but that doesn't make me theistic in terms of the Biblical Jehovah and atheistic in terms of Zeus. Zeus and Jehovah are both gods whether or not they literally exist or I personally worship or believe in them or not.
But in terms of a GOD principle, I am open minded.
It doesn't matter, you know. If the Biblical magician as you call it, exists, he doesn't reward those giving him the benefit of the doubt. For merely being open minded. If, by GOD principle you mean a reflection of the specific magician without the responsibility it's a dawdle. If, however, you mean you are open and tolerant to interpretation it remains in a narrow window ideologically, I would think, being simply limited by definition. You only have to venerate something or someone. The Biblical gods, like any others. So, the so-called GOD principle isn't based upon the Biblical or any other. The Biblical and all others are based upon the principle.
Put simply atheism and deism tend to model their perception upon a paradigm that is, and as we've established, isn't.
Is that grammatically correct? I am open minded to the GRAMMAR principle.
It all depends upon how one arranges words.
A lone man makes his way slowly across the alluvial plain. He's cold, wet and hungry and there are piercing eyes glowing in the dark - following him. There's no wood to burn but eventually he stumbles on a dried clump of bovine excrement. Bull shit. He notices there is an abundance about the place and begins lifting them, supping on the creepy things crawling underneath. He then lights them afire. The fire warms him, protects him from the onslaught of savage beasts so that perhaps he may even roast them.
You know what I'm saying? The dung becomes his God. Think - fertility. The fertile land. Crops, children, procreation. Fucked. By the shit. We - are the flowers that grow from the shit. Unsure if we are dreaming that we are a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming we are - we. Huh? Gods are what we make them.
I couldn't resist going all wonky. Sabotaging preemptively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
can those gods help me complete the battle pass
Of course. Since I have no idea what that is I'll use a more common reference. A musician, a guitar player, for example, could theoretically be helped in their skill by a guitar god such as Eric Clapton or prior to his death, Eddie Van Halen.
Oxford Dictionary - God: an adored, admired, or influential person.
Makes no sense.
Of course it does. Sceintifically you can't establish whether or not something supernatural exists. So, from a scientific perspective you can't determine God does exist or does not. Pretty simple. Science can only examine the natural.
Created:
Posted in:
Atheism is nonsensical because:
a) It is practically non-existent. Everyone has gods, they just don't know it.
b) By definition falsifiable by the evidence. There are myriads of gods.
c) Specifically unscientific. God (supernatural) can't be tested.
d) Atheism is really either just apathetic irreligion or sociopolitical frustration of a militant minority.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Didn't we do this in some other thread? Just asking the question requires you specify which god and why you think he/she/it created those things anyway. And you should also acknowledge the cultural variations as well because your perspective differs from other cultures.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
People search in the dark for something thought not to be there in the light. Some elusive or illusive meaning that doesn't exist. We either distinguish an examination of ourselves as a product of our environment from that elusive search or form an ideology which rejects it from ignorance. It passes the time.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
No, no, no, you silly goose. The ante borg Borg. I, Borg - Wikipedia
By the way, I'm not into science fiction, Hugh is just something I stumbled upon one day while passing a television. I see interesting parallels in the nonsensical "Christian" misinterpretation of the Biblical I Am .
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@Best.Korea
I am Hugh.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, what really happens is that you cant make up your mind so I really dont have much to say to you who wants to have an insignificant life of a rock.
Ought-O folks, here it comes! You see it don't you. Looks like defeat to me, BK. I'm not even worth your time may be a practical defense but it isn't very productive or educational, is it?
No, fighting is good even if you lose, and peace is bad as it is both boring and non-challenging. Its the battle which drives progress.
Well, by all means, continue. You do you, and I'll do me. It, uh, it takes two to tango. Didn't I say that before?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
My mind was made up long before I got here, your intepretation was false. You're doing that logical falacy. Making my argument something it isn't to suit your counter. Projecting. My advise is to stop the personalization to further your argument for the mere sake of an ideologue. For example, what makes successful people is a stupid remark. We're both in the same sunken ship of fools here and the really successful people aren't wasting time mucking about it with us. Your point is moot at best, if not unsophisticated and hypocritical.
Ideas are a good thing and like all good things are neglected and abused. Money, religion, government, love, art, etc. Also like all things there are good and bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm full of quotes today. Brian Warner, AKA Marilyn Manson: "I never really hated a one true god but the God of the people I hated."
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you think that its better not to have ideas, then you have already failed
Failing is the key to success. I didn't say it was "better" (subjective term) not to have ideas, I said new ideas make old ideas obsolete so the process of advancement isn't, ideally, stagnant. It's continuance. Good ideas are formed to support old ideas, bad ideas are speculated upon by the subjects resulting in the balance of the quixotic (idealistic to an impractical degree) and mundane (irreligious). The consequence is that the great thinkers have to devise ideas to suppress the new ones to keep their old ones profitable. Your OP was is a tightrope. A balancing act.
since the path towards goal is built by ideas, unless your goal is something insignificant like mere existence like a common rock
[Grunts like a sigh repeated] Without existence your goal is surreal. A common rock? Like a diamond? Think for yourself. Humble yourself. Accept your ignorance. Frank Herbert paraphrased: "seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find liberation." "Show me someone for reform and I'll show someone with a headful of sick ideas." Read Dune, kiddo. All of them.
You sound like someone pretending to be rich. The real rich people don't do that. If you can't be your honest self, you sure as hell ought to do well marketing regurgitated nonsense. That is education. Indoctrination.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
People who actually achieve things dont need to define that.
Fortunately for them. [makes a rude gesture simulating masturbation].
It could only be unclear to you if you want to make equal someone's achievement to your lack of, but really, people who achieve greatness already know that they are great, and clearly above those who dont achieve anything, as lack of achievement by itself is a boring life, in addition to being lack of success.
[Sighs] People who achieve greatness have the sense to know better. Suicide of ideas. Achievement is temporal. Cyclical. Obsolete. Today's idea doesn't glorify the great thinkers it replaces them. The great thinker doesn't look back or gaze longedly in a mirror seeking the adulation of small minded subjects. He forges every stream, climbs every mountain. [Laughs at his own silliness]
What was I saying? What was the question?
Oh, yeah. People who strut around with status symbols aren't real. Your ideology is as fake as your persona. Your avatar. I don't care about that shit. The most interesting thing about your avatar is how boring and stupid it is. But still, that is interesting in some sense. I've seen many earthworms slithering across the superhighway of misinformation, the world wide wasteland, but you in that regard, have some pretty interesting ideas. Like a museum. All interesting and fake.
C'mon, man, snap out of it!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
sounds like you're describing religion
Same thing.
so, there are no atheist engineers or inventors ?
Well, of course there are, your point please? Invent a car that runs without oil. Invent a cure for disease. See where that gets you in an "oilagarchy" or sick society. We're talking big business. That takes ideas. Ideas outlive themselves. Ideas - JD Rockefeller said it - competition is sin. He funded the American Cancer Society to hush the fact that petrol-based pharmaceuticals caused cancer. That's a good idea, isn't it?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Okay, thats a stupid idea, so no wonder they never achieved anything significant, as those who achieve something significant are usually those who attacked with ideas and not without ideas.
Fucking hell! A stupid idea? It IS the idea. It's your idea. You constantly spout it here, do you not? Achieve something? Define something. Hell, define achieve!
I have an idea. Let's dig this stuff up out the ground and use it to power - everything. To make it, to run it, etc. Good idea! Now, who started the green movement, recycling and all of that bullshit that - apparently - wants to crush that idea? The industry that thought the idea up and use it everyday.
You think on the surface. Your ideas are used against you. Ideas within ideas within ideas.
Robert. Robert Zimmerman.
God don't make no promises that he don't keep
You got some big dreams, baby
But in order to dream you gotta still be asleep
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
And strengthen the things that remain?
Counterfeit philosophies have polluted all of your thoughts
Karl Marx has got ya by the throat
And Henry Kissinger's got you tied up in knots
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
And strengthen the things that remain?
You got innocent men in jail, insane asylums are filled
You got unrighteous doctors
Dealing drugs that'll never cure your ills
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
And strengthen the things that remain?
You got men who can't hold their peace
Women who can't control their tongues
The rich seduce the poor and the old are seduced by the young
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
Strengthen the things that remain?
Adulterers in churches and pornography in the schools
You got gangsters in power and lawbreakers making rules
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
And strengthen the things that remain?
Spiritual advisors and gurus to guide your every move
Instant inner peace and every step you take has got to be approved
When you gonna wake up
Said when you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
And strengthen the things that remain?
Do you ever wonder just what God requires?
You think he's just an errand boy to satisfy your wandering desires
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
And strengthen the things that remain?
You can't take it with you and you know it's too worthless to be sold
They tell you time is money
As if your life was worth its weight in gold
There's a man on a cross and he been crucified for you
Believe in his power, that's about all you got to do
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
When you gonna wake up
And strengthen the things that remain?
Created: