Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion
Offline Hello everyone,
I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.
To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, by the way, since you said that you borrow heavily from the JW's, after the failed prophecies of 1914, 1925, and 1975 concerning the coming War of Armaggedon™ , when do you feel we should expect this historic event ?
Also, does the possibility of transfusions of whole blood into your veins cause you to recoil in terror ?
And why did you JW's ( and hangers on such as yourself ) feel the need to abandon the KJV and retranslate God's "inerrant" and "infallible" scriptures into a version ( the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ) which only you JW's use ?
Based upon my previous dealings with the average theist I predict a certain political / self serving type of response from you but I will withhold judgement for the time being.
- Login to post comments
Offline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Sorry, but you don't win anything with me.O, but I have! I have won, because you are like we, you see?
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Your assertions are worth no more to me than the trinitarians are because neither interpretation are based upon a supernatural being who actually exists.Lies! You brought it up in the first place, in answer to the first part of your statement, and in answer to the second I will participate in a little interpretive dance I enjoy referring to little known now defunct southwestern musical ensembles with nominative cases resembling the past time of consumption - see if I don't!
Anyway . . . how could I have not known that the argument of a great theologian such as myself as well as the trinitarians would both be of little import to you - an atheist agnostic running around sneaky knees bent forward advanced type behavior would fill me with the urge to defecate!
ProzacDeathWish wrote:You are both losers who are arguing about who's lie is the most consistent with a book of lies.The protest singer's stuff goes on, and on, and on, and on . . . and yet, as aforementioned - brought it up.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:You are like two groups of Star Trek nerds who argue over whether Captain Kirk is more bad ass than Captain Picard. What does it matter, it's a fucking fairy tale!You haven't a clue, do you, poor human. Your ego is scared with a word. You can't get past it because you can't understand it. You never bothered to before when you loved it and you surely will not now that you hate it, but love and hate are the same intensity of emotion.
And it never mattered enough to you to rise above or below.
Wow, you could have simply called me a poopy pants, potty mouth and provided the same quality of "rebuttal". Very impressive.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, by the way, since you said that you borrow heavily from the JW's, after the failed prophecies of 1914, 1925, and 1975 concerning the coming War of Armaggedon™ , when do you feel we should expect this historic event ?
About 4ish on Tuesday.
Also, does the possibility of transfusions of whole blood into your veins cause you to recoil in terror ?
Nah, its just like Heroin without the high.
And why did you JW's ( and hangers on such as yourself ) feel the need to abandon the KJV and retranslate God's "inerrant" and "infallible" scriptures into a version ( the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ) which only you JW's use ?
As I have indicated elsewhere here in my dealings with - the unwashed heathen - Jehovah's inspired word is, of course infallible, but the translation of it is neither inspired, nor infallible.
Based upon my previous dealings with the average theist I predict a certain political / self serving type of response from you but I will withhold judgement for the time being.
Pthhhhhtttptptpt!!
- Login to post comments
Offline Wow, you could have simply called me a poopy pants, potty mouth and provided the same quality of "rebuttal". Very impressive.
Yes, well, you have to realize that the typical apostate former Christian agnostic atheist types have, shall we say, some unique requirements indeed once the discourse has reached a certain point. It becomes a game, you see, almost like the elementary aged school boys and girls taunting one another. This is a very confusing time . . . for both of us!
Carry on with your asinine remarks while I respond with even more blatant disregard for your compounded reality and the Bogey man creepeth upon thee without thy knowledge . . .
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:Oh, by the way, since you said that you borrow heavily from the JW's, after the failed prophecies of 1914, 1925, and 1975 concerning the coming War of Armaggedon™ , when do you feel we should expect this historic event ?
About 4ish on Tuesday.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Also, does the possibility of transfusions of whole blood into your veins cause you to recoil in terror ?Nah, its just like Heroin without the high.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:And why did you JW's ( and hangers on such as yourself ) feel the need to abandon the KJV and retranslate God's "inerrant" and "infallible" scriptures into a version ( the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ) which only you JW's use ?As I have indicated elsewhere here in my dealings with - the unwashed heathen - Jehovah's inspired word is, of course infallible, but the translation of it is neither inspired, nor infallible.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Based upon my previous dealings with the average theist I predict a certain political / self serving type of response from you but I will withhold judgement for the time being.Pthhhhhtttptptpt!!
Are you seriously offering this dribble as a valid reply ? My questions to you are grounded in JW doctrine and you can only makes jokes about it ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Are you seriously offering this dribble as a valid reply ? My questions to you are grounded in JW doctrine and you can only makes jokes about it ?
Uh, that is correct. I don't care about the JW doctrine or any other, you will have to find some other way to get at me. Like trying to have an intelligent conversation about the Bible, and how wonderful it is.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Uh, that is correct. I don't care about the JW doctrine or any other, you will have to find some other way to get at me. Like trying to have an intelligent conversation about the Bible, and how wonderful it is.
.... there is the "political / self serving" answer that I knew was coming. Move the goalposts much ?
- Login to post comments
Offline .... there is the "political / self serving" answer that I knew was coming. Move the goalposts much ?
Well, you are talking to a guy who used to post on h2o, the mega message board of the Jehovah's Witnesses for reform and accused them of murder and child molesting. I'm supposed to get upset when you start insulting them obviously trying to piss me off? Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. You wanna get down and dirty on the JW's talk about the Standfasters, the bans on Organ Transplants, education, and their practice of covering up and protecting child molesters to save embarrassment for the congregation. Its a fucking religion, what do you expect?!
- Login to post comments
Offline
So what happened, you've realigned with some other theological faction or are you simply a lone wolf who operates outside of all know categories ? Isn't this whole process of dissatisfaction you describe why there are so denominations to begin with ? Everything is an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot.....
It's a fucking religion, what do you expect?!
I pretty much expect to see people behaving in exactly the manner that you do.....
- Login to post comments
Offline
So what happened, you've realigned with some other theological faction or are you simply a lone wolf who operates outside of all know categories ? Isn't this whole process of dissatisfaction you describe why there are so denominations to begin with ? Everything is an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot.....
The Theist wrote:It's a fucking religion, what do you expect?!
I pretty much expect to see people behaving in exactly the manner that you do.....
But I'm only imitating you. Try to see people as people rather than as groups of people.
- Login to post comments
Offline There you go, Brian, preaching again.
No,what I do is challenge people to think without a hand up their back. There is no difference between preaching and marketing. Coke and Islam and Christianity and any religion all sell you crap you don't need. Unless you are willing to have your own claims kicked around and have the shit knocked out of them by an independent party, you have nothing but mental masturbation.
When you can universally and empirically prove your pet invisible friend like DNA and the fucking computer you type your garbage on, you'll surely win a Nobel Prize. If you want to hold your breath waiting for that to happen, good luck, but P.T. Barnum loves people like you, "A fool and their money are soon parted". In your case "A whim and a fool are a quick buck or can lead to a great dictator".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Try to see people as people rather than as groups of people.
....says the theist who characterizes atheists like something he saw in a Jack Chick Tract. 
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:You're right, if anything can be god than we couldn't have a disbelief.What about Lords. We've established that atheist can't believe that there are gods unless there are gods but what about Lords. Do atheists believe in Lords?
Lord can refer to both people and deities. I try to avoid using terms that are confusing. I think in this case Lord would be one of those confusing terms.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline The Theist wrote:Sapient wrote:You're right, if anything can be god than we couldn't have a disbelief.What about Lords. We've established that atheist can't believe that there are gods unless there are gods but what about Lords. Do atheists believe in Lords?
Lord can refer to both people and deities. I try to avoid using terms that are confusing. I think in this case Lord would be one of those confusing terms.
Theists, or at least the trained apologists use that confusion to cop out to metaphor when it puts them in a bad light. But the reality of all cultures back then is the rulers considered themselves as divinely chosen. That gives the theist the cop out to avoid their dictator god, because back then, the ruling family thought their god gave them the right to dictate.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline and the Bogey man creepeth upon thee without thy knowledge . . .
just the usual underlying appeals to force...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline Lord can refer to both people and deities. I try to avoid using terms that are confusing. I think in this case Lord would be one of those confusing terms.
But so can gods. The only real difference between the words god and lord is that everybody mistakenly thinks gods only applies to supernatural or mythological and lords typically implies being given authority, i.e. landlord.
Amazing. You all are brainwashed with the word god.
- Login to post comments
Offline Like trying to have an intelligent conversation about the Bible, and how wonderful it is.
Well, the Bible does have some really good parts, but (except for the book of Proverbs) they're rather few and far between...
In my opinion, there are tons of books far more wonderful than the Christian Bible...
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:Lord can refer to both people and deities. I try to avoid using terms that are confusing. I think in this case Lord would be one of those confusing terms.But so can gods. The only real difference between the words god and lord is that everybody mistakenly thinks gods only applies to supernatural or mythological and lords typically implies being given authority, i.e. landlord.
The idea of God is well established. In your first few posts you referred to God as being able to be anything. This is a definition that is your own, it's not commonly accepted and requires an explanation in conversation when you use it. Notice that I don't have to define any of the words I'm using here? The reason is because I am using their common usage meaning. You seem to want to use something with a rare usage in order to use it commonly. It's disingenuous.
When I look to define God, it is very easy to find the major uses and referring to people as god is not a common usage, however it is embedded in the main definition for Lord(s).
God /gɒd/
noun
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
lord [lawrd]
noun
1.a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.
2.a person who exercises authority from property rights; an owner of land, houses, etc.
3.a person who is a leader or has great influence in a chosen profession: the great lords of banking.
4.a feudal superior; the proprietor of a manor.
5.a titled nobleman or peer; a person whose ordinary appellation contains by courtesy the title Lord or some higher title.
Notice how the dictionary definitions focus on God referring to a supernatural entity and Lord referring to a human entity? These are the common uses.
If I look towards wikipedia I would be guided in a similar manner:
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian andMuslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for the existence of God[3] and in modernityagainst.
The opening paragraph doesn't refer to God being a person anywhere, even if you dig hard in the disambiguation page. Additionally as you can see the definition you used for God is not accepted and therefore if you expect to engage in conversation in an honest manner you will need to revise your made up definition and embrace the one that everyone else uses.
And on the wikipedia page for Lord...
Lord is a deferential appellation[2] for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.[3][4] In only a few cases is "lord" a substantive title in itself, most commonly that of the Lord of the Manor and certain vestigial titles from the age of feudalism such as Lord of Mann, in other cases it is a generic term applied, for example, to persons who hold a title of the peerage or persons entitled to courtesy titles, or to refer to a group or body of peers.
Why work so hard at finding confusing terms? Does it help make you feel better about holding a belief in God if you can convince atheists to say they believe in God too? Will it make you feel better about your own belief in a God that lives in the sky and looks over you if I admit I believe in a God which to me is my TV remote control? Fine... I have a remote control, it's god... I believe. All better?
Amazing. You all are brainwashed with the word god.
You were doing so well, I was enjoying your presence, try avoid being a smug dick especially when you're wrong. You're the one who is brainwashed, and it's turned you into a liar in hopes of defending it.
Yet another example of The Theory of Inherent Dishonesty in Theism.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline I wanted this point to be separate so that you really get it...
When atheists talk about issues they have with people believing in God they are using the terms honestly. They are using the commonly held definitions. We aren't speaking out against remote controls that are referred to as god, we are speaking out against the commonly held beliefs.
What you've done is akin to this....
The Anti-Defamation league helps to fight against racism. You've gone to their forum and suggested that racism isn't prejudice or discrimination based on race, but that racism is the right of all men to race (whether it be cars, or by foot, or some other method). Then you proceeded to ask them if racism is just people racing, then how can they fight against it?
Stop lying to yourself, stop defining words how they suit you best, you're viewed as dishonest.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline
Stop lying to yourself, stop defining words how they suit you best, you're viewed as dishonest.
+1 
- Login to post comments
Offline You asked what scrapple was, it is basically a block of pork parts, like a sausage loaf sold in a brick shape, you slice it up and fry it in a pan like a sausage patty. It is made up of all the pork parts left over ground up and made into the loaf. It is basically the crap part of the pig, like your arguments. Tastes great, but really not good for you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:My reality does not encompass the supernatural. Yours does.How do you know whether or not the supernatural encompasses your reality? How could you?
If you truly want to test reality jump out of an airplane without a parachute, I personally wouldn't recommend that. But with humans, making shit up is the non existent parachute that when they jump out of the plane they get all out of sorts when the rest of humanity doesn't put their fantasy on a pedestal and slam into the ground like babies when faced with the reality they are not the center of the universe.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MAGIC MAN WITH A MAGIC WAND, NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE. Humans make up gods because the idea of having a super hero is appealing to them.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline You were doing so well, I was enjoying your presence, try avoid being a smug dick especially when you're wrong. You're the one who is brainwashed, and it's turned you into a liar in hopes of defending it.
Thanks for saying it when I couldn't find the right words to say it myself.
- Login to post comments
Offline try avoid being a smug dick especially when you're wrong. You're the one who is brainwashed, and it's turned you into a liar in hopes of defending it.
This guy really thought he was going to present a cogent defense of his beliefs ? All he did was to discredit himself with his emotionally fueled rants.
- Login to post comments
Offline This guy really thought he was going to present a cogent defense of his beliefs ?
I'm not sure if his intent was/is to present a cogent defense of his beliefs, or a weak defense of why we shouldn't act on ours. And if he's not delusional he has to know that simply redefining words so as to not be against something based on how it is commonly defined is in fact one of the weakest possible defenses.
It's ludicrous when you think about it. Think of all the examples of people who have an issue or disagreement with other people. Now imagine redefining the words in those disagreements and "issues" so as to completely remove the issue or disagreement, simply by lying to yourself as to what you will now define the words as. In fact now that I think about it, it's rather fucked up. It's incredibly dishonest... or delusional.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:This guy really thought he was going to present a cogent defense of his beliefs ?
I'm not sure if his intent was/is to present a cogent defense of his beliefs, or a weak defense of why we shouldn't act on ours. And if he's not delusional he has to know that simply redefining words so as to not be against something based on how it is commonly defined is in fact one of the weakest possible defenses.
It's ludicrous when you think about it. Think of all the examples of people who have an issue or disagreement with other people. Now imagine redefining the words in those disagreements and "issues" so as to completely remove the issue or disagreement, simply by lying to yourself as to what you will now define the words as. In fact now that I think about it, it's rather fucked up. It's incredibly dishonest... or delusional.
This is why I don't like dancing down their Yellow Brick road. The entire history of claims of deities/super natural are broken concepts and mere emotional placebo gap answers. Once you understand evolution you KNOW that thoughts don't occur outside a material process, so making ANY claim of an invisible brain with no material is just flat out fantasy an false, no mater who is claiming it, no matter what name they want to give it, no matter the proxy of popularity or tradition.
Deities are merely childish fantasies that have real adult repercussions.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:ProzacDeathWish wrote:This guy really thought he was going to present a cogent defense of his beliefs ?
I'm not sure if his intent was/is to present a cogent defense of his beliefs, or a weak defense of why we shouldn't act on ours. And if he's not delusional he has to know that simply redefining words so as to not be against something based on how it is commonly defined is in fact one of the weakest possible defenses.
It's ludicrous when you think about it. Think of all the examples of people who have an issue or disagreement with other people. Now imagine redefining the words in those disagreements and "issues" so as to completely remove the issue or disagreement, simply by lying to yourself as to what you will now define the words as. In fact now that I think about it, it's rather fucked up. It's incredibly dishonest... or delusional.
This is why I don't like dancing down their Yellow Brick road. The entire history of claims of deities/super natural are broken concepts and mere emotional placebo gap answers. Once you understand evolution you KNOW that thoughts don't occur outside a material process, so making ANY claim of an invisible brain with no material is just flat out fantasy an false, no mater who is claiming it, no matter what name they want to give it, no matter the proxy of popularity or tradition.
Deities are merely childish fantasies that have real adult repercussions.
This is why I don't debate faith based opinions; this is why people of faith need to learn to accept their faith and stop trying to prove it to others.
BTW - when are you going to get around to answering my questions? I'm still waiting for your response.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Sapient wrote:ProzacDeathWish wrote:This guy really thought he was going to present a cogent defense of his beliefs ?
I'm not sure if his intent was/is to present a cogent defense of his beliefs, or a weak defense of why we shouldn't act on ours. And if he's not delusional he has to know that simply redefining words so as to not be against something based on how it is commonly defined is in fact one of the weakest possible defenses.
It's ludicrous when you think about it. Think of all the examples of people who have an issue or disagreement with other people. Now imagine redefining the words in those disagreements and "issues" so as to completely remove the issue or disagreement, simply by lying to yourself as to what you will now define the words as. In fact now that I think about it, it's rather fucked up. It's incredibly dishonest... or delusional.
This is why I don't like dancing down their Yellow Brick road. The entire history of claims of deities/super natural are broken concepts and mere emotional placebo gap answers. Once you understand evolution you KNOW that thoughts don't occur outside a material process, so making ANY claim of an invisible brain with no material is just flat out fantasy an false, no mater who is claiming it, no matter what name they want to give it, no matter the proxy of popularity or tradition.
Deities are merely childish fantasies that have real adult repercussions.
This is why I don't debate faith based opinions; this is why people of faith need to learn to accept their faith and stop trying to prove it to others.
BTW - when are you going to get around to answering my questions? I'm still waiting for your response.
No no no no, look, from a political perspective. and a human rights perspective, I agree, but from an intellectual standpoint faith is inexcusable and nowhere justifiable. Not even yours.
Buddhism requires as much "faith" as any other religion. Not having a god does not make it not a religion. It is still a club with superstitious rituals. Buddhism was born in the same age of scientific ignorance as any other club.
Buddhism does not prevent people from doing anything. It is merely a placebo you justify in order to maintain some sense of control in your life. It is merely your own personal predilection. But just like all other labels in our species history, none of them are required for evolution to occur.
If it gets your rocks of and gets you by and keeps you non-violent, have at it. But even you have tried to justify your label as being a credible source of morality and by proxy the sudden start of morality. Buddhism can only be your own prism, but they are not your eyes and eyes in humans existed long before Buddhism and eyes would still exist, and false perceptions would still happen if your club had never been invented. Life would go on as it has with or without it.
Buddhism exists in a very literally chance sense, if the sperm that became Buddha had not become an adult life, another sperm may have become another person and your religion never would have started. WE exist, outside of labels because of evolution, not labels.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline What would qualify me to judge logical consistency in general in your opinion? Is there a particular degree or discipline that is more, or less susceptible to logical fallacies? Also it helps to define your terms when debating. Most commonly a god is not a person or thing deified, that definition would best be suited by idol. However if you want to play semantics, I'm game.
In order for there to be logical consistency you have to have some sort of knowledge in application which, if put to the test, supersedes that of a pocket dictionary and Wikipedia, this would also prevent the claims of intellectual dishonesty when the atheist is confronted with the idiocy of his / her idealism.
god (gd)
n.
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
note that definitions are listed by their frequency of occurrence.
True, but also, from the dictionary:
"6. an image of a deity, or an idol"
"7. a deified person or object."
"8. the upper balcony in a theater."
"9. the spectators in this part of the balcony."
Note that you only gave part of the definitions of a good dictionary. Also note that atheism doesn't claim that one specific God, that of the Bible, doesn't exist. It claims disbelief or non existence of any god or gods.
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]
Wikipedia isn't an impressive source in a theological debate and this is a stunning example of exactly why that is. It is blatantly false. God isn't a name, it is a title, and The Bible, unlike modern day Judaism or Christianity, doesn't support either the monotheistic or polytheistic, it supports the henotheistic. Look that up on Wikipedia. The Bible refers to historical persons, to men, and to objects, as God. Gods. Goddesses.
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
This is misleading at best. This portion of the wiki quote deals specifically with the majority of theologians and one specific God, Jehovah, of the Bible. Atheism doesn't subscribe any such erroneous attributes to any specific gods as a qualifier to their idealism.
- Login to post comments
Offline No,what I do is challenge people to think without a hand up their back. There is no difference between preaching and marketing. Coke and Islam and Christianity and any religion all sell you crap you don't need. Unless you are willing to have your own claims kicked around and have the shit knocked out of them by an independent party, you have nothing but mental masturbation.
Independent party! Bullshit! Gather an independent party, like Constantine's? The advertising agency never kicks the shit out of it's own ideas and the protestation of the competition is obviously self serving. Any idiot would know that? Whenever some lame ass atheist starts shouting "Peer review, empirical testing, blah, blah, they are selling their world view which is historically as flawed, biased and potentially dangerous to mankind as any superstitious nonsense you are so foolishly opposed to.
When you can universally and empirically prove your pet invisible friend like DNA and the fucking computer you type your garbage on, you'll surely win a Nobel Prize. If you want to hold your breath waiting for that to happen, good luck, but P.T. Barnum loves people like you, "A fool and their money are soon parted". In your case "A whim and a fool are a quick buck or can lead to a great dictator".
Just like that.
- Login to post comments
Offline The Theist wrote:Try to see people as people rather than as groups of people.
....says the theist who characterizes atheists like something he saw in a Jack Chick Tract.
I don't know who Jack Chick is, but I characterize atheist the same as I do theist or any other group. As people. When they gather together for a cause the worst always comes out.
- Login to post comments
Offline The idea of God is well established. In your first few posts you referred to God as being able to be anything. This is a definition that is your own, it's not commonly accepted and requires an explanation in conversation when you use it. Notice that I don't have to define any of the words I'm using here? The reason is because I am using their common usage meaning. You seem to want to use something with a rare usage in order to use it commonly. It's disingenuous.
You have basically made the same post as Ktulu, making the same mistakes. I'm going to make a separate thread on why the atheist idea of Gods is wrong and therefore wrong itself.
- Login to post comments
Offline You have basically made the same post as Ktulu
Even more interesting: I didn't read his post.
Great minds think alike I guess.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't know who Jack Chick is, but I characterize atheist the same as I do theist or any other group. As people. When they gather together for a cause the worst always comes out.
The absolute pessimist. Does the worst come out of people who gather at Church? How about a pep rally for their school? How about at the inauguration of a President? Always the worst? How about a group of Red Cross workers entering an area that was ravaged by a natural disaster? How about a group of Americorps workers? How about a group of buddhists gathering for meditation? How about a group of moms gathering in their unified M.A.D.D. efforts? Oh and also a group of atheists trying to help the world overcome their outdated superstitions.
You're slowly slipping down the slope towards ridiculousness. At least you have cool graphics.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline The Theist wrote:You have basically made the same post as Ktulu
Even more interesting: I didn't read his post.
Great minds think alike I guess.
The Theist wrote:This would require organizational skills and the atheists are, thus far, about as organized as an animal one might encounter running around a farmyard with it's head cut off. I do believe there are variations of atheism in a more general application, unorganized, and a rising trend in atheistic quasi denominational divisions. These seem to be an attempt to reconcile the fallacy of their paradigm.
Perhaps atheists are as organised as people that don't hunt. A theist is someone that believes in at least one god, an atheist is someone that is not a theist. As for the fallacy of our paradigm... from what you have so far posted, you have created a tautology between a "god" and " Anything that is considered by the observer to be mighty or is venerated ".
That may be a fundamental property of your paradigm, but it sure isn't mine. Also, you can have an opinion regarding my paradigm, but you don't get to define it based on something that I do not do, namely believe in god.
Myself, and the majority of atheists on here, consider ourselves to be agnostics atheists. Meaning that I do not believe in any god, but I allow the very remote possibility that a god may exist. I most definitely do not believe in a god that is not logically consistent.
The Theist wrote:To me an agnostic is the more practical, less political, emotional and perhaps more intelligent of the two because they have the sense not to make such a bold assumption based upon a faulty premise. Namely, that there is no god.
Ok, you seem to define your terms to fit your paradigm rather then base your paradigm on actual definitions. An agnostic is someone that believes something (most often a deity) unknowable. This says nothing about their pragmatism, political inclination, psychology or iQ. I'm sure you can back up those assertions with examples and statistics, and you didn't just pull that out of your ass.
Sapient... you actually make a very valid point.
I thank you for pointing out Ktulu's latest gem,
...however... (!)
Welcome to the forum otherwise, I will gladly debate you on any topic of your choosing. I hope you don't turn irrational and vulgar like the majority of theists in here.
David... I, on the other hand... I hope you become an insane, envious creature of such distorted, warped thinking that >YOU< decide to create your own faith with >YOU< as the central, "venerated" figure!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:No,what I do is challenge people to think without a hand up their back. There is no difference between preaching and marketing. Coke and Islam and Christianity and any religion all sell you crap you don't need. Unless you are willing to have your own claims kicked around and have the shit knocked out of them by an independent party, you have nothing but mental masturbation.
Independent party! Bullshit! Gather an independent party, like Constantine's? The advertising agency never kicks the shit out of it's own ideas and the protestation of the competition is obviously self serving. Any idiot would know that? Whenever some lame ass atheist starts shouting "Peer review, empirical testing, blah, blah, they are selling their world view which is historically as flawed, biased and potentially dangerous to mankind as any superstitious nonsense you are so foolishly opposed to.
Brian37 wrote:When you can universally and empirically prove your pet invisible friend like DNA and the fucking computer you type your garbage on, you'll surely win a Nobel Prize. If you want to hold your breath waiting for that to happen, good luck, but P.T. Barnum loves people like you, "A fool and their money are soon parted". In your case "A whim and a fool are a quick buck or can lead to a great dictator".Just like that.
Science is not a world view any more than gravity is a world view. You are demonstrating complete ignorance.
DNA doesn't run for political office. Quarks don't worship anything or sell anything. Their discovery by scientists is because scientific method puts quality control on observation to insure quality output of data. It is no more a religion than taking a shit is a religion.
If religion were good for measuring life, next time you take a science test don't attempt to answer it, just write "Thor did it" or "Allah did it", or "My penis did it" because that is about as much fucking sense you are making.
Scientific method is not political nor is it a world view, that's like accusing a hammer of building house bias. Scientists are people, method is a tool. The difference between scientists and theologians, are that ethical scientists, even if believers, SEPARATE THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS from their labs or teaching positions. And they also self correct when other scientists point out their flaws.
Scientific method is about testing, theism is merely about bullshit marketing and doesn't require any damned oversight or control groups.
Please tell me if science didn't work then what the fuck are you typing on right now? I't must be pixie dust running your computer and if not you are just selling an anti pixie agenda, you have an anti pixie world view.
I'll tell you what, since you are having a hard time grasping reality, I'll send someone over to help you tie your shoes.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline At least you have cool graphics.
I noticed you said that earlier. What do you mean, here on the forum or my website? Thanks for the compliment, I do pay attention to detail and think the graphics on my site are important.
- Login to post comments
Offline The Theist wrote:You have basically made the same post as Ktulu
Even more interesting: I didn't read his post.
Great minds think alike I guess.
Or you used the same sources. People are always criticizing me as a Jehovah's Witness wannabe, because they removed the pagan nonsense from their beliefs as do I. When you look at the Bible without the pagan influence which is about 90% of the teachings of 99% of Christendom, you come up with the same stuff.
My biggest criticism of atheism is that they are influenced too heavily by those apostate Christian teachings. They have never raised above it because they are only really socially and politically opposed to the idea of Christianity and its hold upon their lives.
- Login to post comments
Offline David... I, on the other hand... I hope you become an insane, envious creature of such distorted, warped thinking that >YOU< decide to create your own faith with >YOU< as the central, "venerated" figure!
That will never happen. Even if I formed the perfect "faith" is the word you use, I would use religion, within 10 years it would transmogrify into something entirely different because once something gains momentum it is always the power hungry who take advantage of the ignorant masses to turn it into something which it isn't for their own egotistical or political ends.
And you don't need it anyway. You don't need 5 billion screaming idiots latched onto some idea in order to validate it. It never works that way. Besides, if Israel failed miserably with Jehovah God himself among them, and the early Christian disciples warned of the "myth" and "fables" (Greek mythous / Latin fabulas 2 Timothy 4:3-4) infiltrating Christianity even as early as then, what could Oral Roberts or I hope to improve upon that outside of making money and fame for ourselves. Not interested.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is why I don't debate faith based opinions; this is why people of faith need to learn to accept their faith and stop trying to prove it to others.
BTW - when are you going to get around to answering my questions? I'm still waiting for your response.
Yeah, we need to talk about your repeated insistence upon avoiding faith based opinions. If you think the Bible is false without really knowing much about it, that is a faith based opinion. If you want to know what the Bible says and want to discuss it you have to reference it, and your faith based opinion don't mean shit to me any more than mine means to you. If everything I say, is in your uninformed opinion, "faith" based then we have nothing to talk about except music and stuff on the other forum.
- Login to post comments
Are you saying that it isn't possible to determine such things ?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You seem so sure of yourself. The question was how could you be so sure?
I have a theory.
How can you be so sure when so many of your fellow theists are constantly asserting their own supernatural theories which squarely contradict your own. They also believe in a supernatural realm yet their God is Trinitarian, yours isn't. They're absolutely sure. You're absolutely sure. It's hilarious !!!
Of course you do...
I like giving him a difficult time.
Wishful thinking on your part.
(1 John 3:20) - For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
There are others...
Just because this "god" sent angels to Sadom and Gomorrag doesn't mean he didn't already know what was going on; see he needed the angels there so that specific actions could take place so that he could have the "master plan" work out.
I didn't say he was omni-present. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said he was all knowing, all seeing and omnipotent.
But since you brought it up...
(Psalm 139:7–10) - “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me”.
(Jeremiah 32:17) - "Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you".
(Revelation 19:6) - “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!”
There are others...
Yawn... so... do you do any tricks? Can you turn water into wine? You're not wowing us with your theistic reasoning and logic, so maybe you can wow us with your devine miracles. I thought you wanted to debate, it seems you just like to type.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
This is why discussing religion with people of "faith" is ridiculous.
And you are absolutely sure! Its like that Dire Straits song, isn't it? "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong. There's a protest singer singing a protest song."
Here today we settle this!
3. The Trinity is well documented as unscriptural pagan nonsense.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
Dictionary of the Bible: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." - (New York, 1965), p. 899.
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." - (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." - (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." - (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
2. You don't know and you don't care.
1. I do. I win.
Sorry, but you don't win anything with me.
Your assertions are worth no more to me than the trinitarians are because neither interpretation are based upon a supernatural being who actually EXISTS.
You are both losers who are arguing about who's LIE is the most consistent with a book of LIES.
You are like two groups of Star Trek nerds who argue over whether Captain Kirk is more bad ass than Captain Picard. What does it matter, it's a fucking fairy tale !
O, but I have! I have won, because you are like we, you see?
Lies! You brought it up in the first place, in answer to the first part of your statement, and in answer to the second I will participate in a little interpretive dance I enjoy referring to little known now defunct southwestern musical ensembles with nominative cases resembling the past time of consumption - see if I don't!
Anyway . . . how could I have not known that the argument of a great theologian such as myself as well as the trinitarians would both be of little import to you - an atheist agnostic running around sneaky knees bent forward advanced type behavior would fill me with the urge to defecate!
The protest singer's stuff goes on, and on, and on, and on . . . and yet, as aforementioned - brought it up.
You haven't a clue, do you, poor human. Your ego is scared with a word. You can't get past it because you can't understand it. You never bothered to before when you loved it and you surely will not now that you hate it, but love and hate are the same intensity of emotion.
And it never mattered enough to you to rise above or below.