What would it take for you to believe in God?

[senseamp]

I guess if I am really bored and have nothing else to entertain my mind with, I may start believing in God.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

Then why do you insist that atheism is a belief in something?

where did I say belief?

Right here:

Originally posted by: sao123
I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Theism - the condition or state of God.

That makes no sense at all. Theism is what describes a person who believes a god or gods exist. When a person says, "I am a theist," they are not saying "I am the condition or state of God."

There are only 3 choices...

a. Many Gods Exist - Polytheism
b. Exactly 1 God exists - Monotheism
c. Zero Gods exist - Atheism.

Still wrong. I do not have to believe any of those, and since I would not be a theist, I would, of necessity, be an atheist, still.

Choose 1, there are no other alternatives.

Of course there are. They are simply inconvenient to your preposterous claims. Naturally, you'd like to ignore them.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

Then why do you insist that atheism is a belief in something?

why do you insist that atheism is not a belief?

For the same reason I insist the sky is blue and water is wet.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Alone
Atheism means you believe there is no God, not that you don't believe in one.

Already shown to be the horse-puckey that it is.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

Then why do you insist that atheism is a belief in something?

why do you insist that atheism is not a belief?

For the same reason I insist the sky is blue and water is wet.

Because you can see and touch it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
I'm not wrong.

Yeah. :roll:

I'm sure in your eyes, that's true. Continue believing what you wish and saying what you want. It's only you that is looking stupid. That doesn't hurt my feelings any.

The only people looking stupid are those that continue to employ a sycophantic meanings of words that have clearly more accurate, useful, descriptive and valid definitions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Garth, the fact is you can neither prove God's existence, nor can you disprove his existence. Unless you can show empirically and conclusively that God is dead, you must accept by faith that which you do not know.

I don't need faith to know that I do not know something. Please work on your rational thinking. It needs it.

Furthermore, you are forced to chose a belief on the issue if for no other reason than the very supposition of the unknown.

I'm not forced to believe anything. How would that work, anyway?

Similarly, I must chose whether I believe in the "FSM" or not. I simply cannot say that I do not have a belief in him, regardless of how silly and absurd the proposition appears to me, except under the circumstances that he is proven to be nothing more than a figment of the imagination. When that happens, I would be safe to say that I have no belief in him.

Having no belief |= believing. How many times do I have to make that point?

In a nutshell, until science can show that there is no God, you must accept by faith that he does not exist.

1.) Science will never show that there is no god.
2.) I do not have to accept that he does not exist, just like I do not have to accept that he does.

If that ever happens, you will be able to say, in the true sense of the meaning, that you have no belief in God. In other words, you cannot not have a belief in something, whether you believe it to be veritable or not, until it is proven to be entirely untrue. Thus is my understanding.

I sure can have no belief in something. There is nothing incoherent about the idea at all.

And Garth, there is no legitimate discussion to be had if you wish to reply with one-word, presumptuous pseudo-rebuttals.

Your claims get the responses they deserve.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

Then why do you insist that atheism is a belief in something?

why do you insist that atheism is not a belief?

For the same reason I insist the sky is blue and water is wet.

Because you can see and touch it?

Because thats what they are.

 

[petey117]

reminds me of Star Trek the final frontier

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: petey117
reminds me of Star Trek the final frontier

Ugh, that one is nearly proof that there is no god.

 

[Praxis1452]

Whwat would it take for me tobelieve in god?

I'd have to get a complete explanation of everything. From the way the universe works to how the human mind works to morality and ethics and then to how god himself works.

Basically I want the objective truth.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
I'm not wrong.

Yeah. :roll:

I'm sure in your eyes, that's true. Continue believing what you wish and saying what you want. It's only you that is looking stupid. That doesn't hurt my feelings any.

The only people looking stupid are those that continue to employ a sycophantic meanings of words that have clearly more accurate, useful, descriptive and valid definitions.

Yeah.

You persist in the a- thing to prove your point. Here's the point. Theist has its root in the work 'theos', meaning God. Atheist has its root in the word 'atheos', meaning Godless. The a- rule was used for 'theos', not 'theism'. You can't tack the 'a' onto that and believe the '-ism' was part of the word already.

It breaks down like this. (a(theos))ism. It is not a((theos)ism). Those are two very, very different things and meaning. If you would like to accept the second, feel free. But if you deny the first, you are an idiot. Plain and simple.

And if you can disprove that, I'll concede that you are the smartest person on the board. But I've got several dictionaries and pronunciation guides that will prove you can't. Here's a great link that even says your pathetic interpretation simply isn't correct.

Atheist

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
I feel like I got in here late but I'll chime in anyway.

The times when I return to a belief in God, if only for a short time, is when the strangest coincidences happen. Sometimes I think there is a God and the bastard just has the greatest sense of humor. There have been times when situations have arisen that I seriously doubt could have happened without intervention. Situations like running into someone at the worst time in the worst place, where you never would have expected them and the chances of you two actually being there are one in a million. All I can really do after situations like that is laugh to myself and laugh at God for fscking with me.

I have had extremely similar experiences. If you have read the New Testemant, you know that Jesus was actually very comical.

Every person I have met that is, uhh, logically religious (if that makes sense, or maybe very religious, but not in a fundamentalist kind of way) has had a really good sense of humor, a very funny person. Including one member of AT, a gentleman I used to work with, and a few priests I knew from back in the days of my church-going.

MOONBEAM! Hehe I like his posts a lot - even if I may disagree with him, or don't even have an idea of what he is talking about

 

[3NF]

God is an alien

Jesus is 1/2 alien, 1/2 man (which was created by aliens)

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: 3NF
God is an alien

Jesus is 1/2 alien, 1/2 man (which was created by aliens)

Let's deport him.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
I'm not wrong.

Yeah. :roll:

I'm sure in your eyes, that's true. Continue believing what you wish and saying what you want. It's only you that is looking stupid. That doesn't hurt my feelings any.

The only people looking stupid are those that continue to employ a sycophantic meanings of words that have clearly more accurate, useful, descriptive and valid definitions.

Yeah.

You persist in the a- thing to prove your point. Here's the point. Theist has its root in the work 'theos', meaning God. Atheist has its root in the word 'atheos', meaning Godless. The a- rule was used for 'theos', not 'theism'. You can't tack the 'a' onto that and believe the '-ism' was part of the word already.

It breaks down like this. (a(theos))ism. It is not a((theos)ism). Those are two very, very different things and meaning.

So you allege, but simply cannot support.

If you would like to accept the second, feel free. But if you deny the first, you are an idiot. Plain and simple.

Physician, heal thyself!

And if you can disprove that, I'll concede that you are the smartest person on the board. But I've got several dictionaries and pronunciation guides that will prove you can't. Here's a great link that even says your pathetic interpretation simply isn't correct.

Atheist

What nonsense. The author of that little piece of propaganda expounds baselessly about the curious and uniquely strong form of negation in the instance of atheism. In fact every other source I could locate disagrees, describing it as any other ordinary negation: godless, or without god.

There simply isn't any basis for the claim that the essence of atheism must be a belief.

None of this rebuts the plain fact that theism and atheism form a perfect dichotomy, as I've already explained, and nobody has dared to contest. Naturally, it must follow that any persons not professing a belief in god cannot be theists, and therefore must be atheists. Yet you continue to insist that lacking a belief in X necessarily implies a belief in not-X -- an absurdity!

That is why my usage is superior. It accounts for ALL atheists, not simply the ones you like to pigeon-hole and stereotype.

But, by all means, continue to make yourself appear the fool. Don't let a little reason get in your way. Kudos for having the chutzpah to cite a Reverand as an authority on what atheism is, though. :roll:

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
I'm not wrong.

Yeah. :roll:

I'm sure in your eyes, that's true. Continue believing what you wish and saying what you want. It's only you that is looking stupid. That doesn't hurt my feelings any.

The only people looking stupid are those that continue to employ a sycophantic meanings of words that have clearly more accurate, useful, descriptive and valid definitions.

Yeah.

You persist in the a- thing to prove your point. Here's the point. Theist has its root in the work 'theos', meaning God. Atheist has its root in the word 'atheos', meaning Godless. The a- rule was used for 'theos', not 'theism'. You can't tack the 'a' onto that and believe the '-ism' was part of the word already.

It breaks down like this. (a(theos))ism. It is not a((theos)ism). Those are two very, very different things and meaning.

So you allege, but simply cannot support.

If you would like to accept the second, feel free. But if you deny the first, you are an idiot. Plain and simple.

Physician, heal thyself!

And if you can disprove that, I'll concede that you are the smartest person on the board. But I've got several dictionaries and pronunciation guides that will prove you can't. Here's a great link that even says your pathetic interpretation simply isn't correct.

Atheist

What nonsense. The author of that little piece of propaganda expounds baselessly about the curious and uniquely strong form of negation in the instance of atheism. In fact every other source I could locate disagrees, describing it as any other ordinary negation: godless, or without god.

There simply isn't any basis for the claim that the essence of atheism must be a belief.

None of this rebuts the plain fact that theism and atheism form a perfect dichotomy, as I've already explained, and nobody has dared to contest. Naturally, it must follow that any persons not professing a belief in god cannot be theists, and therefore must be atheists. Yet you continue to insist that lacking a belief in X necessarily implies a belief in not-X -- an absurdity!

That is why my usage is superior. It accounts for ALL atheists, not simply the ones you like to pigeon-hole and stereotype.

But, by all means, continue to make yourself appear the fool. Don't let a little reason get in your way. Kudos for having the chutzpah to cite a Reverand as an authority on what atheism is, though. :roll:

There is a proper term of those lacking a belief about a deities. You should learn to use this term.

ag·nos·tic
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
So you allege, but simply cannot support.

This has been supported over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ......., again by myself and nearly everyone else who has posted on this topic. That fact you're not willing to accept it has no bearing on it's existence.

Physician, heal thyself!

Been healed, for quite some time. I've got some left over medicine if you need some, or I should say want some, as the fact that you need it is completely obvious.

What nonsense. The author of that little piece of propaganda expounds baselessly about the curious and uniquely strong form of negation in the instance of atheism. In fact every other source I could locate disagrees, describing it as any other ordinary negation: godless, or without god.

Really? Is that because the only source you've sited or even looked at is on wiki? Besides, as has been pointed out already, that wiki link you've provided also completely validates the definition we have stated, which still makes you wrong.

I don't see many people saying that atheism can not be defined the way you believe it is. You are the one who said it isn't correct to define it as we have, and you own links prove that wrong. What is it you think you have? You've got nothing!

There simply isn't any basis for the claim that the essence of atheism must be a belief.

Here you go fruitcake. Straight from Wiki, you're only site.

The English suffix -ism was first used to form a noun of action from a verb. For example, baptize (or literally derived from "to dip") becomes "baptism." It is taken from the Greek suffix -ismos, Latin -ismus, and Old French -isme, that likewise forms abstract nouns from verbal stems. An example is baptism, from Greek baptismos "immersion", derived from baptizein, a Greek verb meaning "to immerse". Its usage was later extended to signify larger organized systems and concepts ?in belief, ideology, doctrine, and ritual practice.

Put it all together and what do you get?

Atheos - godless/no God
+-ism - belief in
= belief in no God.

(No God) + belief in != God + (No belief in). The a- is on theos, not -ism. It's very simple math/english, whichever you like, but I'm not sure that helps you any.

None of this rebuts the plain fact that theism and atheism form a perfect dichotomy, as I've already explained, and nobody has dared to contest. Naturally, it must follow that any persons not professing a belief in god cannot be theists, and therefore must be atheists. Yet you continue to insist that lacking a belief in X necessarily implies a belief in not-X -- an absurdity!

Then why is atheist formed from the Greek atheos? That little 'a' there dang sure does a good job of proving you wrong.

That is why my usage is superior. It accounts for ALL atheists, not simply the ones you like to pigeon-hole and stereotype.

Oh give it a rest. Poor little atheist are SOOOO stereotyped and SOOOOOO pigeon-holed. Cry me a freakin river. Unfortunately, there is no cheese icon, so I'll just have to give you a cookie to go with your wine.

But, by all means, continue to make yourself appear the fool. Don't let a little reason get in your way. Kudos for having the chutzpah to cite a Reverand as an authority on what atheism is, though. :roll:

Whatever scooter. You need sources other that a Reverand because you can abide the idea of being proven wrong by a religious guy, here you go.

Atheism

Now, given all the evidence against you, I see no further reason to comment on this. There is no way that I could make you look any dumber given the arguments you are using. Continue in ignorance or swallow your pride a little, I don't care. Doesn't bother me.

 

[TheJollyFellow]

$1,000,000.
wait....most politians have already done that...shoot

Religion is a way for humans to create excuses for the unknown, anyone who's taken a history class knows how many excuses religion has conjured up for curious happenings, like disease, the stars, gravity, apples, sex, earthquakes, floods....you name it, religion has an excuse for it, and will continue to have excuses until science can prove them wrong.

If religion were always true and honest, then thousands of different sects wouldn't have developed all over the world, all believing something different; there would be one religion, as there is hypothetically only one logical explanation for anything. Logic varies per culture, and therefore so will religion.

Religion compensates for what our brains cannot comprehend; it 'fills the gaps' so to speak, and helps to keep us sane. So no, I don't believe nor do I want religion to go away now and forever, I just don't think anyone should hold faith so strongly that it yields to crusades, murder, terrorism, or influence on politics (shoot, america's already done that too....).

 

[Zenmervolt]

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,

You've spoken with Him already then, to know that such things had His approval?

ZV

 

[PowerEngineer]

How about A meesage from God in Pi ?

 

[Regs]

I always believed in a higher power. Never much for organized religion. Organized religion has actually made me caste doubt more than anything else.

I'm more spirtual than religious.

 

[Doom Machine]

What would it take for you to believe in God?

6 hits of acid and 2 horny b****

 

[erickj92]

I need to have a dream of him saying "I am GOD!" and them have good stuff happen to me for 7 days and 7 nites. I already kinda belive in him but that is what it would take for me to say "hey God is real! you son of a ****"