What would it take for you to believe in God?

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Garth, you seem to have ignored the fact that the very issue you believe you've resolved is still up for debate among philosophers, theists, and even atheists themselves.

There are people that "debate" whether or not the earth is 10,000 or several billion years old. That there is a "debate" doesn't mean that the facts are not still the facts.

Your own link to Wikipedia acknowledges that with its information on positive and negative definitions of atheism. That's nice you took the time to put together one side of the debate, but there is another opposing view that you seem to have ignored. I don't see the point in typing out such a lengthy response as the arguments for my side are widely available, on the Wikipedia article for example and I'm sure many other places on the web.

You are welcome, if you think you are capable, to rebut anything I've said with your own contravening claims. I think it would be cute to see you try, actually. Sorta like when my infant sister used to smear her face with mommy's lipstick.

The fact remains that he was not wrong in his definition. The definition of atheism is still not a black and white matter like you seem to believe it is.

This claim is utterly laughable.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
There would have to be some sort of evidence.

Like what?

Some tangible piece of evidence. Something that can be measured/observed and recorded.

Not some story about someone's interpretation of an event that must be the will of a God.

But then it wouldn't be believing, I would be acknowledging a truth. I do believe in something beyond what we know now, because there's so much more to be explained about life and the universe. But for me to believe in some germanic father figure in the clouds, or some guy that chose a specific group of people...I can't do that. For me to deny some sort of god like being, I cannot do that either.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
There would have to be some sort of evidence.

Like what?

Some tangible piece of evidence. Something that can be measured/observed and recorded.

Not some story about someone's interpretation of an event that must be the will of a God.

But then it wouldn't be believing, I would be acknowledging a truth. I do believe in something beyond what we know now, because there's so much more to be explained about life and the universe. But for me to believe in some germanic father figure in the clouds, or some guy that chose a specific group of people...I can't do that. For me to deny some sort of god like being, I cannot do that either.

A completely logical and reasonable response. Well said! :thumbsup:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

This is not a passive statement, Garth.

Really? What does it say about what "I" do?

That makes your post here more than a bit uncalled-for arrogant in its tone.

Perhaps it would if I were wrong, but I'm not.

And let's be clear about something else: God or gods, it doesn't matter. If Zeus came down to earth like the Second Coming, the Christians wouldn't be pissed. He'd be God. They'd be ecstatic. If there are 10 trillion gods but collectively they create the whole of reality, then they are God. A thing is defined by what it is and what it does, and not by what we choose to label it.

It perplexes me that you feel the need to make such irrelevant contributions.

 

[3NF]

http://www.thereisnogod.info/

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3NF
http://www.thereisnogod.info/

I can link to!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

This is not a passive statement, Garth.

Really? What does it say about what "I" do?

That you do not believe in God.

That makes your post here more than a bit uncalled-for arrogant in its tone.

Perhaps it would if I were wrong, but I'm not.

Exactly.

And let's be clear about something else: God or gods, it doesn't matter. If Zeus came down to earth like the Second Coming, the Christians wouldn't be pissed. He'd be God. They'd be ecstatic. If there are 10 trillion gods but collectively they create the whole of reality, then they are God. A thing is defined by what it is and what it does, and not by what we choose to label it.

It perplexes me that you feel the need to make such irrelevant contributions.

Because your previous post made the implication that polytheism was akin to atheism.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.


Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.

Yeah, and black people are always committing crimes too, isn't that right Vic? Hell if you're going to stereotype, go the whole 9 yards why don't you?

I'm referring to this thread specifically, which is an attempt by a believer to proselytize.

Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|

If you're looking for the stereotyping, I suggest you look to your own posts, fsckhead.

Hey Dic, what's up with the name calling?

I don't like being called a racist or even insinuated such.

He didn't resort to name calling though. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds? Isn't that the EXACT thing you criticized me for in the past. Vic, it seems to me you are just a hypocrite and a liar (you've lied about me personally in the past). Not good character traits. And exactly the reason I don't take you seriously.

The reason you don't take me seriously is because you don't want to understand what I'm trying to say. Your mind is already made up.

I know EXACTLY what you're trying to say. The problem with you Vic, is that all you do is make moronic assumptions about people and then base your arguments off those assumptions.

As to the rest of your tirade, yes, he did resort to name-calling (IMO) when he equated me to a racist (which was also quite uncalled-for IMO, particularly given his generalizations of certain people earlier in this thread).

And you didn't basically call me stupid earlier in this thread? You're worthless man. Quit trying to backpedal. Your little outburst was uncalled for and you were just looking for an excuse to blow up.

As to the rest, get over yourself. Address the topic not your opinions of my character, 'cause I don't care about them and they couldn't be any worse than what I think of you. So if you can't address the topic beyond spouting, "Heh, Beavis... what if it was like... umm... Zeus that came down... like... instead of God... wouldn't that like... heh... piss off the God believers... ?.. heheh... " then don't bother, eh?

I don't even know what you're talking about here, but if that was what you interpreted that as, then you've made another moronic assumption.

 

[Tuktuk]

Garth, first off I don't see why you are so pissed off. This tells me that either a) you had a hard day at work or b) you are not familiar with how a productive debate works.

With that said, the debate on this issue is lengthy and that is why I referred you to the numerous counterarguments on the subject. The fact is if you and I wanted to get into this, there would be at least five back and forth lengthy replies bringing up new points until we were finally able to analyze each claim individually, and continue on another few pages. By your knowledge on the subject I assume you already know this and if you do I'd hope you can see why it is quite pointless to take that route further. At least it is pointless to me because for that lengthy of an argument I'd rather the person I was debating wasn't as childish as to put irrelevant personal insults into every other sentence.

You obviously take one stance on the definition of atheism, one that many people share. However many other people, scholars, theologans, and atheists, take another position that you laugh off as ridiculous. What you think of it is irrelevant. Without a concrete definition existing, with the definition itself up for debate, you cannot call someone "wrong" for using it with an audience that shares their view of the definition. In their view the word atheism means one thing, and to many people in their audience it means that as well. Therefore by its popular usage, the term was correctly used.

For a poor analogy, let's say the word "tiger" was widely disputed. Some say a tiger is a a striped cat. Others say it is a fish. Both are widely used definitions of that single word. So to say "A tiger is a ferocious land mammal" is not wrong. Although there are disputes as to what a tiger actually is, the claim is consistently using one definition and is therefore valid.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
blah, blah, blah, blah

That is the correct replacement for your comments, yes?

Let see, although I've already posted this, I'll post it again.

Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

That is confirmed by Dictionary.com, American Heritage Dictionary, WordNet, American Heritage New Dictionary, and even, as you link, Wikipedia. So guess what genius, you're both right. If only you weren't such an prideful idiot, you might have realized that. Yeah, your definitions in there, but so is the other one. And since you are the one who made the claim that that was not a correct definition, I'd say that creates this equation.

Garth: where the curves of ignorance and arrogance intersect at their respective maxima.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Alone
Nothing short of Him coming down and saying "hey" and filling my pockets with gold.

I don't even need the gold. I want the son of a bitch to show up and explain the killing, raping, pedophilia, torture and wars that his followers claim were done for him, in his name and with his approval,

qft. And as far as the OP's articles, humans tend to make things up to explain the unknown...

prophet bamacre, please answer why God won't do this for us.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

This is not a passive statement, Garth. That makes your post here more than a bit uncalled-for arrogant in its tone.


And let's be clear about something else: God or gods, it doesn't matter. If Zeus came down to earth like the Second Coming, the Christians wouldn't be pissed. He'd be God. They'd be ecstatic. If there are 10 trillion gods but collectively they create the whole of reality, then they are God. A thing is defined by what it is and what it does, and not by what we choose to label it.

That is the most moronic statement and shows you have a COMPLETE disconnect with the Christian faith. Go into a Christian church and make that statement? Seriously, I need a good laugh. I'll DEFINITELY be laughing my ass off when they throw you out.

And let me clear this up for you Vic, as you're likely to make another moronic assumption about me. I KNOW what you are trying to say, but Christians will simply not see it that way.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

This is not a passive statement, Garth.

Really? What does it say about what "I" do?

That you do not believe in God.

Do |= do not. Reading comprehension FTL.

It perplexes me that you feel the need to make such irrelevant contributions.

Because your previous post made the implication that polytheism was akin to atheism.

You misinterpreted me.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth
I said:

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Tuktuk

Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

No, he isn't. Agnosticism is not a theistic position. Trust me on this. It will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

To which you said:

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Yes, he is. Trust me on this, it will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

Note first and foremost the glaring omission in your lame parody. You weren't willing to contradict my statement that agnosticism is not a theistic position. Implicit is your acknowledgment that agnosticism is not a theistic position, despite your earlier insistence that agnosticism is some kind of "middle ground" between theism and atheism.

So let's examine the terms in question: theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

First let's deal with yours and RapidSnail's sophomoric assertion that atheism is the affirmative belief that no god exists. We begin by defining the root: theism. Theism is a belief in the existence of a god. That is simple enough. Atheism, then, because of its construction with the "a-" prefeix must be the negation of theism.

But what is negation, and what can we derive from negation? It should be obvious that negations create dichotomies. Consider "symmetry," and it's negation, "asymmetry." Obviously, geometric shapes are either symmetrical or they are not. There is no "in between" symmetry and asymmetry. The two are dichotomous. Likewise it is with many other dichotomies: chomatic & achromatic, hydrous & anhydrous, sexual & asexual.

So it is with theism. A person is either a theist, or he is not. If he is not a theist, he is an atheist.

So what does this mean? It means that anyone without an affirmative belief in the existence of a God is an atheist. Theists say "I believe God exists." Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

Read: Etymological fallacy.

There are many english words that have meanings different than their root makeup. And "atheism" is one of them. Just because there is an "a" and a "theism" does not create an exact negation in terms. The meaning of the word is different.

You act like your opinion on this topic is actually the only possible way; in reality it is not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

This is not a passive statement, Garth. That makes your post here more than a bit uncalled-for arrogant in its tone.


And let's be clear about something else: God or gods, it doesn't matter. If Zeus came down to earth like the Second Coming, the Christians wouldn't be pissed. He'd be God. They'd be ecstatic. If there are 10 trillion gods but collectively they create the whole of reality, then they are God. A thing is defined by what it is and what it does, and not by what we choose to label it.

That is the most moronic statement and shows you have a COMPLETE disconnect with the Christian faith. Go into a Christian church and make that statement? Seriously, I need a good laugh. I'll DEFINITELY be laughing my ass off when they throw you out.

And let me clear this up for you Vic, as you're likely to make another moronic assumption about me. I KNOW what you are trying to say, but Christians will simply not see it that way.

That's good, because I'm not Christian.

You missed my point entirely though. I'm not concerned what they would say TODAY, I was referring to what they do given your hypothetical situation.
Let me refresh your memory on that:

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Quite the contrary. I would LOVE to see Zeus come down from the clouds and appear infront of the world. I'd be laughing my ass off at the expression on all the Christians' faces. LOL, man, that would be great! And let me tell you, me being wrong would never have felt so good.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
blah, blah, blah, blah

That is the correct replacement for your comments, yes?

Let see, although I've already posted this, I'll post it again.

Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

That is confirmed by Dictionary.com, American Heritage Dictionary, WordNet, American Heritage New Dictionary, and even, as you link, Wikipedia. So guess what genius, you're both right.

Ah, such sophomores. Would that they educate themselves before such unwitting embarrassment.

Here's a little lesson for you, Einstein: Dictionaries do not define words. Dictionaries record word usage. I'll be the first to say that there are plenty of morons out there misusing the term, and evidently you are another one of them. It doesn't change a thing about what I've said, however.

If only you weren't such an prideful idiot, you might have realized that. Yeah, your definitions in there, but so is the other one. And since you are the one who made the claim that that was not a correct definition, I'd say that creates this equation.

Definitions are not "correct" or "incorrect." They are useful, or unuseful. They are descriptive or non-descriptive. They are accurate or they are inaccurate. The simplistic definition that you rubes continue to argue from is plainly less useful, less descriptive, and less accurate. That is why it reveals you for the imbeciles that you are when you use it.

Garth: where the curves of ignorance and arrogance intersect at their respective maxima.

Let me know when you graduate to Jr. High.

 

[Tuktuk]

Actually, Garth, I'll just go with what totalcommand said :laugh: He explained what I was rambling on about in much simpler terms.. I suppose I'd just forgot what the label of the fallacy was.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Read: Etymological fallacy.

There are many english words that have meanings different than their root makeup. And "atheism" is one of them. Just because there is an "a" and a "theism" does not create an exact negation in terms. The meaning of the word is different.

Read: Argument from authority fallacy.

Since when does your say-so make for a sound argument?

You act like your opinion on this topic is actually the only possible way; in reality it is not.

I did not say that there are no other possible usages. I'm simply showing that people who use it differently are ignorant, and they are.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
prophet bamacre, please answer why God won't do this for us.

Prophet? :roll:

And secondly, the question...

"want the son of a bitch to show up and explain the killing, raping, pedophilia, torture and wars that his followers claim were done for him, in his name and with his approval,"

...is just ignorant. I can't give you a logical answer to an illogical question.

And if you want to know why God does not interfere in attrocities as those, my answer is "I don't know." I have never claimed to know why God does or does not do anything. God gave man free will, he gave man the capability to do Good and to do Evil. One cannot blame God for the actions of man.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Actually, Garth, I'll just go with what totalcommand said :laugh: He explained what I was rambling on about in much simpler terms.. I suppose I'd just forgot what the label of the fallacy was.

Of course you would. Thinking independently is obviously too taxing on the likes of you.

 

[Tuktuk]

Garth, you don't seem to understand that you are guilty of the fallacy of psuedoauthority ("argument from authority"). "Since when does your say-so make for a sound argument?" I couldn't have said it better myself, Garth. You are taking a disputed definition and stamping your foot down claiming "My definition is right, yours is wrong, therefore your claim using the other definition is wrong."

Thanks for telling us another fallacy you have committed in your argument. You did say there were no other possible usages by labelling them ridiculous and the users of them morons.

edit: and your last comment there, the insult. I did think independently but like I said, totalcommand simply said what I said more concisely so I referred you to that. You are like a fish out of water at this point.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Read: Etymological fallacy.

There are many english words that have meanings different than their root makeup. And "atheism" is one of them. Just because there is an "a" and a "theism" does not create an exact negation in terms. The meaning of the word is different.

Read: Argument from authority fallacy.

Since when does your say-so make for a sound argument?

Authorities you can trust:

http://www.bartleby.com/68/98/2298.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

Exposition:

The etymology of a word is an account of its historical derivation from older words often from a different language. An older, usually archaic, word from which a current word is historically derived is called its "etymon". The term "etymological fallacy" is applied to two types of error:

1. Semantic: The etymological fallacy as a semantic error is the mistake of confusing the current meaning of a word with the meaning of one of its etymons, or of considering the meaning of the etymon to be the "real" or "true" meaning of the current word. If one's goal is to communicate, then the "real" or "true" meaning of a word is its current meaning. Since the meanings of words change over time, often considerably, the meaning of an etymon may be very different from the current meaning of the word derived from it. The fact that a word historically derives from an etymon may be interesting, but it cannot tell us the current meaning of the word.
2. Logical:The etymological fallacy as a logical mistake results when one reasons about the etymon as if the conclusion applied to the current word. This is a logical error similar to equivocation, which involves confusing two meanings of the same word; but it differs from equivocation in that the etymological fallacy involves the meanings of two different words, though those words are historically connected.

You act like your opinion on this topic is actually the only possible way; in reality it is not.

I did not say that there are no other possible usages. I'm simply showing that people who use it differently are ignorant, and they are.

The point is that there are multiple definitions for atheism: there is yours, and the others put forth here.

It's not such a big deal having multiple definitions for a word. Just replace your definition for the word in all your arguments.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
Ah, such sophomores. Would that they educate themselves before such unwitting embarrassment.

Here's a little lesson for you, Einstein: Dictionaries do not define words. Dictionaries record word usage. I'll be the first to say that there are plenty of morons out there misusing the term, and evidently you are another one of them. It doesn't change a thing about what I've said, however.

:laugh:

You really are an idiot, aren't you? You can keep making your own little pathetic attempts at exalting your intelligence, but let's take a look at what you said.

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

Moreover, atheists are not just those that affirmatively believe that no god exists, but rather they are also those that simply do not believe a god exists for lack of justification. These are often called "strong" and "weak" atheists.

Your own comments verify that both definitions are accurate. Damn those dictionaries again! You are so ignorant. In your 'brilliance' to prove that such a definition is not true, you've proven it is!

Definitions are not "correct" or "incorrect." They are useful, or unuseful. They are descriptive or non-descriptive. They are accurate or they are inaccurate. The simplistic definition that you rubes continue to argue from is plainly less useful, less descriptive, and less accurate. That is why it reveals you for the imbeciles that you are when you use it.

Wait. What?

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

No, he isn't. Agnosticism is not a theistic position. Trust me on this. It will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

I thought definitions are not correct or incorrect? If that's the case, how could he be wrong? There's no such thing as incorrect definitions?

Signs of your ignorance are just popping up everywhere.

Let me know when you graduate to Jr. High.

If your intelligence is an indication of Jr. High, I think I'll stay where I am.

 

[BillyBatson]

are we talking about other than god himself coming down and showing himself to me in all his "glory?" ummm pretty much it i would have to see god, someone else perform real miracles int he name of god, or die and see the afterlife if there is one

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Authorities you can trust:

http://www.bartleby.com/68/98/2298.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

Wow, did you all take some 'ludes tonight, or what?

I don't doubt that there is a legitimate etymological fallacy, but it isn't a formal fallacy. That means that just because someone argues from etymology doesn't mean his claims are false.

The point is that there are multiple definitions for atheism: there is yours, and the others put forth here.

And the others are less useful, less descriptive, less consistent, and less accurate than mine. That's why only idiots use them.

It's not such a big deal having multiple definitions for a word. Just replace your definition for the word in all your arguments.

Why would I need to replace my own definition in my own arguments?