Atheism is a belief.

I know how to use a dictionary.

  • Yes, and I incorporate its info.

    Votes: 28 57.1%

  • Yes, but I still like to make up definitions as I go along.

    Votes: 10 20.4%

  • No, I believe in "Truthiness"

    Votes: 17 34.7%
  • Total voters
    49
hehe that is a horrible now isnt it. thoughts get ahead of me. just read it 4 times in a row and read it as i had thought i wrote it haha add

but it does follow the logic of your comment in post #873 had i written it correctly. i will make a second attempt.

phlogistician said:
Doing that would not affect other non-stamp collectors who had not joined your club.
Click to expand...

you suggest that having a non stamp collecting club must affect other non stamp collectors that are not part of the club. so a club must some how affect others of like mind that are not in your club in order to be a club?

i made an AA reference.
there are many alcoholics that are not part of AA. the differnce between them and the members of AA is that the alcoholics of AA are supposed to be non drinkers. against drinking, stop drinking . they are for not drinking alcohol.

i certainly equate being against something and not being for something. being a group against drunk driving is the same as being a group not for drunk driving. for or not for, against or not against, yes or no.

fuck
 
buckybeam said:
i made an AA reference.
there are many alcoholics that are not part of AA. the differnce between them and the members of AA is that the alcoholics of AA are supposed to be non drinkers. against drinking, stop drinking . they are for not drinking alcohol
Click to expand...

Except that they aren't at all.
AA members are against themselves only having another drink, as opposed to, say, the Temperance League who advocate that no one should drink.
 
Oli said:
Except that they aren't at all.
AA members are against themselves only having another drink, as opposed to, say, the Temperance League who advocate that no one should drink.
Click to expand...

AA does believe that if you drink and get drunk that you are an alcoholic. that would suggest that you join AA. i suppose, im stretching.

but they are a group for not drinking. and they dont need to affect other non drinkers to be that group.


did i say that right?
 
buckybeam said:
AA does believe that if you drink and get drunk that you are an alcoholic.
Click to expand...
No:
If you get drunk it's not necessarily a problem - it happens sometimes...
AA is for people with a drink problem

that would suggest that you join AA. i suppose, im stretching.
Click to expand...
You are.
AA do not advocate that anyone who merely "gets drunk" should join.

but they are a group for not drinking. and they dont need to affect other non drinkers to be that group.
Click to expand...
No, they are a group for coping with drink problems - "not drinking" is merely one aspect of that coping.
Like I said the Temperanec League advocate "not drinking" so even if your assertion were to be correct then AA and the TL would be much the same.
Which they aren't.

did i say that right?
Click to expand...
Apparently not...
 
Oli said:
No:
If you get drunk it's not necessarily a problem - it happens sometimes...
AA is for people with a drink problem


You are.
AA do not advocate that anyone who merely "gets drunk" should join.


No, they are a group for coping with drink problems - "not drinking" is merely one aspect of that coping.
Like I said the Temperanec League advocate "not drinking" so even if your assertion were to be correct then AA and the TL would be much the same.
Which they aren't.


Apparently not...
Click to expand...

may differ from group to group. when at AA i was told that if i drink and i get drunk then i am an alcoholic. and they did suggest that i continue attending AA meetings and that i stop drinking.

you can have to very different groups that believe in some of the same things.

im not familiar with the temperance league but do see your point that not only are they non drinkers but also believe that everyone should be a non drinker.

but inregards as to whether you can have a group of non beleivers...

damn i cant even remember what the whole point of this thread was even....

the definition of belief i suppose?

which has more than one meaning duh...
 
Last edited:
Oli said:
No, they are a group for coping with drink problems - "not drinking" is merely one aspect of that coping.
Like I said the Temperanec League advocate "not drinking" so even if your assertion were to be correct then AA and the TL would be much the same.
Which they aren't.


Apparently not...
Click to expand...

whatever, it wasnt to try and define what AA is or isnt.
 
Oli said:
No, they are a group for coping with drink problems - "not drinking" is merely one aspect of that coping.
Like I said the Temperanec League advocate "not drinking" so even if your assertion were to be correct then AA and the TL would be much the same.
Which they aren't.


Apparently not...
Click to expand...

whatever, it wasnt to try and define what AA is or isnt.

added


but:
AA is certainly not for drinking
they are for not drinking that is why they are in the group ... to be a non drinker. they have support systems in place to help you if you feel like having a drink.

they do believe they will always be alcoholics so the goal is not to be cured. although i think they would like it if that was true, that they could be cured?
 
Last edited:
phlogistician said:
Go and read revelations, and tell me if it reads like the words of a sane man.

Now, tell me if a fundamentalist that believes the end of the world is going to go down as stated, literally, are they sane? Hey, you can't spell 'fundamentalist' without 'mentalist'!!!!!!!

Also, do you really believe in the virgin birth? The miracles? The resurrection?

Please, to believe in such is insane.

I can deal with apologetics, who admit the embellishments and the tale growing in the telling (although wish they would distance themselves from organised christianity) but that the message of peace and love Jesus allegedly told had some value, but I cannot take fundies seriously, or admit they are sane.

Buddhist koans are often not true stories, for instance, but that does not mean that they cannot contain truth, or enlightenment.

That is a sane approach to religion, but truly believing some things as true now, when many of the people that allegedly met Jesus then weren't swayed by him, definitely is insane.
Click to expand...
:confused::wtf:
In case you haven't been reading "I'm not a Christian".:bugeye:
 
(Q) said:
No one will ever "see" those phenomenon.

Using that VERY fallacious argument to support your beliefs is false.

Don't make ridiculous statements about science when you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yeah! He's an atheist. And, and, and he does KNOW what he's talking about!
:rolleyes::bugeye:

Jesus F&@#ing Christ! This is the arrogance I'm talking about!!! Get a grip, Q.
 
This might be some of the problem with definitions; It is possible to not believe in something that exists. Like "Do you believe in EST?." "No." "Does it exist?" "Well obviously."

I think it is entirely possible that Jehovah and his pal Satan do in fact exist. I do not however believe in either one. (In fact, if they do exist, they are raving lunatic psychopaths.)
I just don't think that Jehovah is the supreme being.
 
Cherry picking the Bible...

---Quote (Originally by JesseLeigh)---
Evening!

I don't know why this discussion is centered on belief. Belief, in and of itself, is of little import. The Bible (obviously the Christian perspective) tells us,
Your thoughts? - Jesse.
---End Quote---
My thoughts? This thread is centered on belief because it's the basic premise of my OP. Many Atheists speak as if, just because they don't believe in a god in one fashion or another, that their opinion should carry more weight in matters of science. That someone who does believe in some sort of god has no right giving an opinion about science. (A bit of an overstatement, true.)

The bible, the Christian bible is not germane. Now I have no problem with someone who comes with a Christian perspective, but please keep it in your perspective, not our faces.

I apologize if I'm being harsh or jumping the gun, it's just when I first started posting threads, they kept getting highjacked by christians wanting to convert others.:eek:
Click to expand...

Afternoon Tht1gy!

No apology is necessary, but I appreciate the courtesy, thank you. :)

Couple of points. First, I believe (please note that this is offered as my understanding at present and not as a claim to have the absolute truth) the Bible is germane in so far as the information we require for salvation has been preserved inviolate. Everyone knows that human errors have crept into the Bible over the centuries, but nothing of substance has been altered and we're not left guessing as to what God requires of us.

As far as the Apostle Paul writing this or that, that's precisely what he did - he wrote - he is not the Author of the Scriptures - God is. Therefore, it doesn't matter who did the writing. (Paul dictated most of his letters to others anyway, and merely signed them.)

Second point. Science is held up as a god on this forum and thousands of others. That's patently absurd since the English word 'science' is derived from the Latin word 'scientia' meaning *knowledge.* That's all science is - knowledge, and not necessarily factual knowledge. Science is 'best guess' most of the time and we all deal with that reality in every application of the word.

Third point, Christians can't convert anyone, they can only sow seeds and impart information. Jesus converts people and reconciles them to God the Father. It's rather like one of those tee shirts we see which says 'We catch 'em - God cleans 'em!" I like that one. LOL! ;)

Shalom Aleichem - Jesse
 
Tht1Gy...

You said,

I think it is entirely possible that Jehovah and his pal Satan do in fact exist. I do not however believe in either one. (In fact, if they do exist, they are raving lunatic psychopaths.)
I just don't think that Jehovah is the supreme being.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, what makes you think it's possible that Jehovah and Satan exist, and isn't it a bit of a dichotomy to say that and then add that you don't believe in them? Unless, of course, you simply meant that you don't believe that Jehovah is the Supreme Being - which would only mean you restated (with clarification) what you said in the first place.

What about Satan? Why d'you think it's possible he exists, and if he does exist, what do you believe his function is - if he has one?

As I said - just curious.

Cheers :cheers: - Jesse.
 
Last edited:
Tht1Gy! said:
:confused::wtf:
In case you haven't been reading "I'm not a Christian".:bugeye:
Click to expand...

You cleary do not read what you quote;

Phlogistician said:
Now, tell me if a fundamentalist
Click to expand...

Did I accuse you of being a fundie? No. Did I ask if you believed in some of the insane claims? Yes. Did you answer? No.

Read, understand, reply. It's quite simple.
 
JesseLeigh said:
As far as the Apostle Paul writing this or that, that's precisely what he did - he wrote - he is not the Author of the Scriptures - God is. Therefore, it doesn't matter who did the writing. (Paul dictated most of his letters to others anyway, and merely signed them.)
Click to expand...

Tell us Jesse, how did Paul know what to write? Did god talk to him?

Your answer here is important. Be careful. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top