Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Bet You Didn't Know You're an Atheist

Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anyone who has read through this religious forum, or any other, knows that there is a huge variety of beliefs among theists. If there is only one supreme intelligence, then not all of those beliefs can be correct, and yet everyone insists that their particular version is the most, or only, correct one. They reject all others, adamantly clinging to their own "truth." Some of that "truth" can be quite eccentric, sounding as nutty as squirrel vomit; spewed out in a mindless pile of senseless idiocy. And yet, if there is, in fact, a supreme intelligence, then at least one of those beliefs can be "truth", but this post isn't about truth. Truth will be set aside so that we can instead discuss, and disagree on, reason and logic.

Since everyone cannot be correct, it is safe to say that many are believing in a supreme intelligence that does not exist. Atheists will, of course, say that all theists believe in a non-existent supreme intelligence, but for the sake of this post, we'll say that at least one exists. Many may argue that a variety of beliefs does not change the overall belief in "God." I would disagree. If everyone were to point at me, but apply characteristics I do not possess, then I would have to say that regardless of their pointing, they are not talking about me. The same would apply to a supreme intelligence.

Logically, it is correct to say that most believe in a false god, and since they reject all other versions, they technically believe in no god at all, because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god. As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists. Since no one can prove that their version of "God" is the correct version, then, until evidence is provided to the contrary, every theist can be, categorically, called an atheist.

By that logic and reasoning--which will no doubt be greatly argued against--all religious forums consist purely of atheists.

Arguing against my own logic and reasoning, I am not an atheist. I just can't prove it.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 1:51:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Anyone who has read through this religious forum, or any other, knows that there is a huge variety of beliefs among theists. If there is only one supreme intelligence, then not all of those beliefs can be correct, and yet everyone insists that their particular version is the most, or only, correct one. They reject all others, adamantly clinging to their own "truth." Some of that "truth" can be quite eccentric, sounding as nutty as squirrel vomit; spewed out in a mindless pile of senseless idiocy. And yet, if there is, in fact, a supreme intelligence, then at least one of those beliefs can be "truth", but this post isn't about truth. Truth will be set aside so that we can instead discuss, and disagree on, reason and logic.

Since everyone cannot be correct, it is safe to say that many are believing in a supreme intelligence that does not exist. Atheists will, of course, say that all theists believe in a non-existent supreme intelligence, but for the sake of this post, we'll say that at least one exists. Many may argue that a variety of beliefs does not change the overall belief in "God." I would disagree. If everyone were to point at me, but apply characteristics I do not possess, then I would have to say that regardless of their pointing, they are not talking about me. The same would apply to a supreme intelligence.

Logically, it is correct to say that most believe in a false god, and since they reject all other versions, they technically believe in no god at all, because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god. As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists. Since no one can prove that their version of "God" is the correct version, then, until evidence is provided to the contrary, every theist can be, categorically, called an atheist.

By that logic and reasoning--which will no doubt be greatly argued against--all religious forums consist purely of atheists.

Arguing against my own logic and reasoning, I am not an atheist. I just can't prove it.

Tick
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Anyone who has read through this religious forum, or any other, knows that there is a huge variety of beliefs among theists. If there is only one supreme intelligence, then not all of those beliefs can be correct, and yet everyone insists that their particular version is the most, or only, correct one. They reject all others, adamantly clinging to their own "truth." Some of that "truth" can be quite eccentric, sounding as nutty as squirrel vomit; spewed out in a mindless pile of senseless idiocy. And yet, if there is, in fact, a supreme intelligence, then at least one of those beliefs can be "truth", but this post isn't about truth. Truth will be set aside so that we can instead discuss, and disagree on, reason and logic.

Since everyone cannot be correct, it is safe to say that many are believing in a supreme intelligence that does not exist. Atheists will, of course, say that all theists believe in a non-existent supreme intelligence, but for the sake of this post, we'll say that at least one exists. Many may argue that a variety of beliefs does not change the overall belief in "God." I would disagree. If everyone were to point at me, but apply characteristics I do not possess, then I would have to say that regardless of their pointing, they are not talking about me. The same would apply to a supreme intelligence.

Logically, it is correct to say that most believe in a false god, and since they reject all other versions, they technically believe in no god at all, because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god. As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists. Since no one can prove that their version of "God" is the correct version, then, until evidence is provided to the contrary, every theist can be, categorically, called an atheist.

By that logic and reasoning--which will no doubt be greatly argued against--all religious forums consist purely of atheists.

Arguing against my own logic and reasoning, I am not an atheist. I just can't prove it.

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

You can correctly say that the vast majority of theists are wrong in their beliefs in God even if a God exists - that much is inescapable. But they would not be incorrect in the notion that a God exists.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 9:45:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Anyone who has read through this religious forum, or any other, knows that there is a huge variety of beliefs among theists. If there is only one supreme intelligence, then not all of those beliefs can be correct, and yet everyone insists that their particular version is the most, or only, correct one. They reject all others, adamantly clinging to their own "truth." Some of that "truth" can be quite eccentric, sounding as nutty as squirrel vomit; spewed out in a mindless pile of senseless idiocy. And yet, if there is, in fact, a supreme intelligence, then at least one of those beliefs can be "truth", but this post isn't about truth. Truth will be set aside so that we can instead discuss, and disagree on, reason and logic.

Since everyone cannot be correct, it is safe to say that many are believing in a supreme intelligence that does not exist. Atheists will, of course, say that all theists believe in a non-existent supreme intelligence, but for the sake of this post, we'll say that at least one exists. Many may argue that a variety of beliefs does not change the overall belief in "God." I would disagree. If everyone were to point at me, but apply characteristics I do not possess, then I would have to say that regardless of their pointing, they are not talking about me. The same would apply to a supreme intelligence.

Logically, it is correct to say that most believe in a false god, and since they reject all other versions, they technically believe in no god at all, because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god. As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists. Since no one can prove that their version of "God" is the correct version, then, until evidence is provided to the contrary, every theist can be, categorically, called an atheist.

By that logic and reasoning--which will no doubt be greatly argued against--all religious forums consist purely of atheists.

Arguing against my own logic and reasoning, I am not an atheist. I just can't prove it.

There's also the possibility that a god could exist, yet all religions are wrong, that no one has it right. This would be a god that accepts all those who never followed religions, those who realized that all religions were man made and that this god does not want to be worshiped or praised, that he gave us all a brain to use to learn, think and understand in order to discover the universe and all it contains.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:20:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Forgive me, but I'm about to open a big ol' can of wriggling semantics.

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

From Wiki: The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities.

And: With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may [include] the existence of a deity...

Your argument presupposes an absolute dichotomy. Granted, that dichotomy exists in today's generally accepted definitions of theism/atheism, but that does not make it absolute.

You can correctly say that the vast majority of theists are wrong in their beliefs in God even if a God exists - that much is inescapable. But they would not be incorrect in the notion that a God exists.

While the "notion" allows us to call ourselves theists, it fails to establish the fact. I believe that science exists. Does that make me a scientist?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:25:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 9:45:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

There's also the possibility that a god could exist, yet all religions are wrong, that no one has it right. This would be a god that accepts all those who never followed religions, those who realized that all religions were man made and that this god does not want to be worshiped or praised, that he gave us all a brain to use to learn, think and understand in order to discover the universe and all it contains.

The imagination can compose all kinds of "possibilities", which can write their own definitions. However, on a tangent, I agree that "He gave us all a brain to use, to learn, think and understand in order to discover the universe and all it contains."
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:33:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
. . .because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god.

I don't think that's true.

As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists.

No, a theist is somebody who believes in a god, whether that god actually exists or not. An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in any god. Being an atheist or a theist has nothing to do with whether there is actually a god or not. It has only to do with what people believe or don't believe.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:35:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 10:33:06 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
. . .because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god.

I don't think that's true.

You can think it, but it doesn't necessarily make you correct.

As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists.

No, a theist is somebody who believes in a god, whether that god actually exists or not. An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in any god. Being an atheist or a theist has nothing to do with whether there is actually a god or not. It has only to do with what people believe or don't believe.

See my response to Envisage.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:38:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Anyone who has read through this religious forum, or any other, knows that there is a huge variety of beliefs among theists. If there is only one supreme intelligence, then not all of those beliefs can be correct, and yet everyone insists that their particular version is the most, or only, correct one. They reject all others, adamantly clinging to their own "truth." Some of that "truth" can be quite eccentric, sounding as nutty as squirrel vomit; spewed out in a mindless pile of senseless idiocy. And yet, if there is, in fact, a supreme intelligence, then at least one of those beliefs can be "truth", but this post isn't about truth. Truth will be set aside so that we can instead discuss, and disagree on, reason and logic.

Since everyone cannot be correct, it is safe to say that many are believing in a supreme intelligence that does not exist. Atheists will, of course, say that all theists believe in a non-existent supreme intelligence, but for the sake of this post, we'll say that at least one exists. Many may argue that a variety of beliefs does not change the overall belief in "God." I would disagree. If everyone were to point at me, but apply characteristics I do not possess, then I would have to say that regardless of their pointing, they are not talking about me. The same would apply to a supreme intelligence.

Logically, it is correct to say that most believe in a false god, and since they reject all other versions, they technically believe in no god at all, because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god. As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists. Since no one can prove that their version of "God" is the correct version, then, until evidence is provided to the contrary, every theist can be, categorically, called an atheist.

By that logic and reasoning--which will no doubt be greatly argued against--all religious forums consist purely of atheists.

Arguing against my own logic and reasoning, I am not an atheist. I just can't prove it.

Not really, the definition of a theist is the belief in a god. It doesn't specify that the god actually has to be real. The forum is filled with theists who just believe in a god that doesn't exist, but they are still theists not atheists.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:40:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 10:38:53 AM, Rubikx wrote:
At 5/9/2015 1:23:42 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Anyone who has read through this religious forum, or any other, knows that there is a huge variety of beliefs among theists. If there is only one supreme intelligence, then not all of those beliefs can be correct, and yet everyone insists that their particular version is the most, or only, correct one. They reject all others, adamantly clinging to their own "truth." Some of that "truth" can be quite eccentric, sounding as nutty as squirrel vomit; spewed out in a mindless pile of senseless idiocy. And yet, if there is, in fact, a supreme intelligence, then at least one of those beliefs can be "truth", but this post isn't about truth. Truth will be set aside so that we can instead discuss, and disagree on, reason and logic.

Since everyone cannot be correct, it is safe to say that many are believing in a supreme intelligence that does not exist. Atheists will, of course, say that all theists believe in a non-existent supreme intelligence, but for the sake of this post, we'll say that at least one exists. Many may argue that a variety of beliefs does not change the overall belief in "God." I would disagree. If everyone were to point at me, but apply characteristics I do not possess, then I would have to say that regardless of their pointing, they are not talking about me. The same would apply to a supreme intelligence.

Logically, it is correct to say that most believe in a false god, and since they reject all other versions, they technically believe in no god at all, because to believe in a false god is to believe in no god. As such, the vast majority of theists are technically atheists. Since no one can prove that their version of "God" is the correct version, then, until evidence is provided to the contrary, every theist can be, categorically, called an atheist.

By that logic and reasoning--which will no doubt be greatly argued against--all religious forums consist purely of atheists.

Arguing against my own logic and reasoning, I am not an atheist. I just can't prove it.

Not really, the definition of a theist is the belief in a god. It doesn't specify that the god actually has to be real. The forum is filled with theists who just believe in a god that doesn't exist, but they are still theists not atheists.

Please read my response to Envisage.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:48:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 10:20:49 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Forgive me, but I'm about to open a big ol' can of wriggling semantics.

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

From Wiki: The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities.

And: With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may [include] the existence of a deity...

Your argument presupposes an absolute dichotomy. Granted, that dichotomy exists in today's generally accepted definitions of theism/atheism, but that does not make it absolute.

You can correctly say that the vast majority of theists are wrong in their beliefs in God even if a God exists - that much is inescapable. But they would not be incorrect in the notion that a God exists.

While the "notion" allows us to call ourselves theists, it fails to establish the fact. I believe that science exists. Does that make me a scientist?

Another TICK.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:53:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 10:25:33 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 9:45:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

There's also the possibility that a god could exist, yet all religions are wrong, that no one has it right. This would be a god that accepts all those who never followed religions, those who realized that all religions were man made and that this god does not want to be worshiped or praised, that he gave us all a brain to use to learn, think and understand in order to discover the universe and all it contains.

The imagination can compose all kinds of "possibilities", which can write their own definitions.

Exactly, which is most likely how religions came to be.

However, on a tangent, I agree that "He gave us all a brain to use, to learn, think and understand in order to discover the universe and all it contains."

Awesome.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:32:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
one could accuse atheism of being a religion and claiming anyone who does not believe in their God as a atheist. The God of athiesm being Logic.

At 5/9/2015 10:53:01 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/9/2015 10:25:33 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 9:45:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

There's also the possibility that a god could exist, yet all religions are wrong, that no one has it right. This would be a god that accepts all those who never followed religions, those who realized that all religions were man made and that this god does not want to be worshiped or praised, that he gave us all a brain to use to learn, think and understand in order to discover the universe and all it contains.

The imagination can compose all kinds of "possibilities", which can write their own definitions.

Exactly, which is most likely how religions came to be.

However, on a tangent, I agree that "He gave us all a brain to use, to learn, think and understand in order to discover the universe and all it contains."

Awesome.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:38:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me respond. Bet you didn't know you believe in a God. Logos. Latin logic/wisdom/word. Garden of eden. Tree of knowledge. Ringing any bells. Lol yup your god has another name. I won't mention it, lest I be accused of blasphemy and crusified by the believers of Logos.
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:41:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:38:42 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Let me respond. Bet you didn't know you believe in a God. Logos. Latin logic/wisdom/word. Garden of eden. Tree of knowledge. Ringing any bells. Lol yup your god has another name. I won't mention it, lest I be accused of blasphemy and crusified by the believers of Logos.

Bet you didn't know that you don't know sh1t from apricot jam.
But that's ok we make allowances for the feeble of mind.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:57:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's a saying. The truth hurts. You respond like someone hurt. I'm here laughing my axx off at your typical religious reaction.

At 5/9/2015 11:41:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/9/2015 11:38:42 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Let me respond. Bet you didn't know you believe in a God. Logos. Latin logic/wisdom/word. Garden of eden. Tree of knowledge. Ringing any bells. Lol yup your god has another name. I won't mention it, lest I be accused of blasphemy and crusified by the believers of Logos.

Bet you didn't know that you don't know sh1t from apricot jam.
But that's ok we make allowances for the feeble of mind.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:30:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 10:20:49 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Forgive me, but I'm about to open a big ol' can of wriggling semantics.

*sigh*

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

From Wiki: The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities.

So?

And: With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may [include] the existence of a deity...

Deity = God. An atheist who believes a God exists is like a triangle with two sides. I don't care if Romans liked two sided triangles - it doesn't change the fact that what they said is logically absurd. You would have to completely change the definition of atheism/theism to make it work.

Your argument presupposes an absolute dichotomy. Granted, that dichotomy exists in today's generally accepted definitions of theism/atheism, but that does not make it absolute.

It is an absolute dichotomy. Law of excluded middle - unless one insists that atheism is not just the lack of belief, but the positive belief in God's non-existence. In which case it is not a dichotomy. Depends on your preferred semantics.

You can correctly say that the vast majority of theists are wrong in their beliefs in God even if a God exists - that much is inescapable. But they would not be incorrect in the notion that a God exists.

While the "notion" allows us to call ourselves theists, it fails to establish the fact. I believe that science exists. Does that make me a scientist?

No, because the label "scientist" has nothing to do with the belief that science exists. The label "theist" and "atheist" is by definition tied to belief. One can actually be a scientist without actually knowing what "science" is - since it is just an applied methodology.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:49:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 12:30:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/9/2015 10:20:49 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Forgive me, but I'm about to open a big ol' can of wriggling semantics.

*sigh*

Sorry.

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

From Wiki: The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities.

So?

So, who's to say that the Romans cannot also establish definitions?

And: With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may [include] the existence of a deity...

Deity = God. An atheist who believes a God exists is like a triangle with two sides. I don't care if Romans liked two sided triangles - it doesn't change the fact that what they said is logically absurd. You would have to completely change the definition of atheism/theism to make it work.

Where and when was the definition established?

Your argument presupposes an absolute dichotomy. Granted, that dichotomy exists in today's generally accepted definitions of theism/atheism, but that does not make it absolute.

It is an absolute dichotomy. Law of excluded middle - unless one insists that atheism is not just the lack of belief, but the positive belief in God's non-existence. In which case it is not a dichotomy. Depends on your preferred semantics.

It can only be an absolute dichotomy if the definition of "deity" is absolute. Is it?

You can correctly say that the vast majority of theists are wrong in their beliefs in God even if a God exists - that much is inescapable. But they would not be incorrect in the notion that a God exists.

While the "notion" allows us to call ourselves theists, it fails to establish the fact. I believe that science exists. Does that make me a scientist?

No, because the label "scientist" has nothing to do with the belief that science exists. The label "theist" and "atheist" is by definition tied to belief. One can actually be a scientist without actually knowing what "science" is - since it is just an applied methodology.

If there is no belief in science, how can the label "scientist" exist?

One can be a scientist without believing in science, but not an atheist while rejecting the true supreme intelligence?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:59:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How about we try this...

Let's agree on what the definitions of the words we are using are, then make our arguments.

I know, genius.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 1:06:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 12:59:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
How about we try this...

Let's agree on what the definitions of the words we are using are, then make our arguments.

I know, genius.

That just makes way too much sense to work.

"Let's agree" ... in this forum? Sorry, I'm still laughing.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 2:14:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 12:49:35 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:30:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/9/2015 10:20:49 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Forgive me, but I'm about to open a big ol' can of wriggling semantics.

*sigh*

Sorry.

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

From Wiki: The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities.

So?

So, who's to say that the Romans cannot also establish definitions?

I have no problem with you using your own definitions of words. I said already words are just labels for specific concepts. This entire thread is you wanting to change the concept the label "atheist" refers to to something that is completely different to anything that is both colloquially and formally used today.

This thread should be re-entitled "I want to change how we use the word "atheist", because that it all it equates to.

Perhaps you should define your terms before making your arguments. If someone wants to redefine "two" to mean 3 objects, I have no problem with that - they just need to make that explicit first.

The philosophical insight/enlightenment in this topic is exactly 0. Nothing new is learned by changing labels. If this is what religious discourse in these forums has come down to, then I am not sorry for leaving it behind.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 2:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 2:14:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:49:35 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:30:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/9/2015 10:20:49 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Forgive me, but I'm about to open a big ol' can of wriggling semantics.

*sigh*

Sorry.

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

From Wiki: The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities.

So?

So, who's to say that the Romans cannot also establish definitions?

I have no problem with you using your own definitions of words. I said already words are just labels for specific concepts. This entire thread is you wanting to change the concept the label "atheist" refers to to something that is completely different to anything that is both colloquially and formally used today.

This thread should be re-entitled "I want to change how we use the word "atheist", because that it all it equates to.

Perhaps you should define your terms before making your arguments. If someone wants to redefine "two" to mean 3 objects, I have no problem with that - they just need to make that explicit first.

The philosophical insight/enlightenment in this topic is exactly 0. Nothing new is learned by changing labels. If this is what religious discourse in these forums has come down to, then I am not sorry for leaving it behind.

How are the definitions, labels and terms changed by me as opposed to provided by me? Where and when were they firmly established that I am now changing them?

Perhaps that should be addressed before debasing the "insight/enlightenment" of the topic. Though, personally, I think it's all more trivial than anything else.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 3:09:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 2:26:06 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 2:14:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:49:35 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 12:30:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/9/2015 10:20:49 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/9/2015 3:23:39 AM, Envisage wrote:

Your argument presupposes that:
1. One can only be a theist if and only if the God they believe in actually exists

Forgive me, but I'm about to open a big ol' can of wriggling semantics.

*sigh*

Sorry.

Which is not the definition of theism or atheism. Belief/lack of belief is the only requirement for either. Thus theists are theists, regardless of whether or not God actually exists.

From Wiki: The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities.

So?

So, who's to say that the Romans cannot also establish definitions?

I have no problem with you using your own definitions of words. I said already words are just labels for specific concepts. This entire thread is you wanting to change the concept the label "atheist" refers to to something that is completely different to anything that is both colloquially and formally used today.

This thread should be re-entitled "I want to change how we use the word "atheist", because that it all it equates to.

Perhaps you should define your terms before making your arguments. If someone wants to redefine "two" to mean 3 objects, I have no problem with that - they just need to make that explicit first.

The philosophical insight/enlightenment in this topic is exactly 0. Nothing new is learned by changing labels. If this is what religious discourse in these forums has come down to, then I am not sorry for leaving it behind.

How are the definitions, labels and terms changed by me as opposed to provided by me? Where and when were they firmly established that I am now changing them?

We have commonly accepted concepts for words in order to converse in English. I never said that they were ever firmly established, as language is an evolving thing. English 200 years ago is very different to English of today.

However, if you try reading old English (e.g. anything prior to KJV of the Bible) then you are going to run into serious difficulty since the commonly associated concepts with the word labels has largely changed.

Once again, I have no problem with you diverging from today's commonly used concepts, but be explicit if you are going to do so. We communicate on the unsaid assumption that we are using the commonly used concepts of the word labels - if we break that assumption knowingly in an obtuse way, then retarded threads like this happen.

The commonly used concepts for "atheist" are nothing like the one you are forwarding in this thread, even the uncommonly used ones are nothing like it. So my point remains.

Perhaps that should be addressed before debasing the "insight/enlightenment" of the topic. Though, personally, I think it's all more trivial than anything else.

Define your controversial terms beforehand. It's basic courtesy. Whenever I debate god, and the existence of - I always demand a definition, since there are a million and one of them, and no widely agreed upon concept of "god". This is to prevent me composing strawman arguments against a god concept that is irrelevant to my opponent's arguments/position.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 4:20:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 3:09:36 PM, Envisage wrote:

We have commonly accepted concepts for words in order to converse in English. I never said that they were ever firmly established, as language is an evolving thing. English 200 years ago is very different to English of today.

However, if you try reading old English (e.g. anything prior to KJV of the Bible) then you are going to run into serious difficulty since the commonly associated concepts with the word labels has largely changed.

Once again, I have no problem with you diverging from today's commonly used concepts, but be explicit if you are going to do so. We communicate on the unsaid assumption that we are using the commonly used concepts of the word labels - if we break that assumption knowingly in an obtuse way, then retarded threads like this happen.

The commonly used concepts for "atheist" are nothing like the one you are forwarding in this thread, even the uncommonly used ones are nothing like it. So my point remains.

Perhaps that should be addressed before debasing the "insight/enlightenment" of the topic. Though, personally, I think it's all more trivial than anything else.

Define your controversial terms beforehand. It's basic courtesy. Whenever I debate god, and the existence of - I always demand a definition, since there are a million and one of them, and no widely agreed upon concept of "god". This is to prevent me composing strawman arguments against a god concept that is irrelevant to my opponent's arguments/position.

You called my thread retarded. That cuts me. That cuts me deep ... oh okay, not really; ad hominems are a dime a dozen in this forum.

The definitions are implied in the OP. You simply disagree with them.

Me:

He believes in a false god (established for the sake of argument)
He dismisses the true God (which exists for the sake of argument)
A false god does not exist
Non-existence negates the belief
It is non-belief
He believes in no gods (because an idea is not a god however much you call it one)
He is an atheist

You:

He believes in a false god
A false god does not exist
Non-existence fails to negate the belief (because belief remains belief however much you say it is not)
It is still belief in a god (because a false god is still recognized as a god by the believer)
He is a theist

Let's say that someone decides to become a writer. He's going to do this by writing one word. He writes:

tca

He says that it is the common general term by which a domestic feline is called.

Opinion #1: He has failed to spell the word "cat" correctly. He has therefore failed to write a word. Because he failed to write a word, he cannot be called a writer.

Opinion #2: He has failed to spell the word "cat" correctly. Nevertheless, writing the word incorrectly has no impact on the fact that it was written. Regardless of incorrect spelling, he is a writer.

Which opinion is correct and why? How is your answer other than more opinion? How is it not "retarded"? ;)
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:37:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:32:54 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
one could accuse atheism of being a religion and claiming anyone who does not believe in their God as a atheist. The God of athiesm being Logic.

Yes, I would say that is very true, but only from someone very confused that has no understanding of atheism or logic.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:14:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:38:42 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Let me respond. Bet you didn't know you believe in a God. Logos. Latin logic/wisdom/word. Garden of eden. Tree of knowledge. Ringing any bells. Lol yup your god has another name. I won't mention it, lest I be accused of blasphemy and crusified by the believers of Logos.

Bet you my OP made it very clear that I believe in God. I'll also bet I don't believe in your god. I do believe the OP says something about that.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.