geeser said:
funny how you erm (I use the term loosely) atheists use so many religious references
Last edited:
Atheist = Closet theist
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
- Status
funny how you erm (I use the term loosely) atheists use so many religious references
geeser said:
see my example re the dude who did indeed after supporting atheism for yrs publically too went back to theism!
Um, it's culturally ingrained as you well know my little theist strumpet.Theoryofrelativity said:
Many people are confused. Sounds a bit like secular/sacred schitzophrenia.Theoryofrelativity said:
superluminal said:
Oops. Strumpet means something completely other than what I thought. Apologies.
superluminal said:
hehe
you're so 'proper'
tits, bum, anus!
anyway, I shall have to deliver my proof mid week, off to bed now and busy few days hence.
Fine then. Nightey night, strumpet (in a friendly way).Theoryofrelativity said:
strumpet
NOUN: A woman who engages in sexual intercourse for payment: bawd, call girl, camp follower, courtesan, harlot, prostitute, scarlet woman, streetwalker, tart2, whore. Slang : hooker, moll. Idioms: lady of easy virtue, lady of pleasure, lady of the night.
Hmm supe, I'm disappointed in you
NOUN: A woman who engages in sexual intercourse for payment: bawd, call girl, camp follower, courtesan, harlot, prostitute, scarlet woman, streetwalker, tart2, whore. Slang : hooker, moll. Idioms: lady of easy virtue, lady of pleasure, lady of the night.
Hmm supe, I'm disappointed in you
Hey! I corrected it and apologized! I didn't know! Really! And then she made fun of my "properness". What am I supposed to do?samcdkey said:
samcdkey said:
I understand the context in which it was delivered ....
TheoryOfRelativity:
You might do well to consider the fact that the majority of Atheists are so ill equipped to prove their statements concerning the non-existence of God, that it is really laughable as there is so very little to distinguish them from the Theists! Few can even name the three genres of main philosophical arguments for the existence of God, nor can they in general present anything but "religion has no foundation and it hasn't been proven". It is a shameful state of affairs when we consider that we are lead by fraud-philosophers to believe in anything, least of all the existence or non-existence of God.
You might do well to consider the fact that the majority of Atheists are so ill equipped to prove their statements concerning the non-existence of God, that it is really laughable as there is so very little to distinguish them from the Theists! Few can even name the three genres of main philosophical arguments for the existence of God, nor can they in general present anything but "religion has no foundation and it hasn't been proven". It is a shameful state of affairs when we consider that we are lead by fraud-philosophers to believe in anything, least of all the existence or non-existence of God.
Funny. Really funny. Didn't I see you on comedy central last night?Prince_James said:
Huh? We don't ever claim to do such a nonsensical thing! You theists are the ones making the fantastic claims of super power beings. We just maintain a lack of belief and ask politely for some actual supporting evidence for this super friend in the sky. We don't have to prove a damned thing.Prince_James said:
Ha! Really funny, seeing as our approaches are polar opposites.
1) Silly
2) Inane
3) Deluded
So? It dosen,t and it hasn't. You somehow follow this really strange idea that because you have "faith" in something, that makes it "real". This is well known in psychological jargon as "delusional".
I agree completely. I'm glad you see the true nature of your "belief" and what it leads to. Finally, a theist who acknowledges the truth.
superluminal:
"Huh? We don't ever claim to do such a nonsensical thing! You theists are the ones making the fantastic claims of super power beings. We just maintain a lack of belief and ask politely for some actual supporting evidence for this super friend in the sky. We don't have to prove a damned thing."
"You theists"? I am not a Theist. I am an Atheistic Pantheist, as I have noted throughout the religion and philosophy section. Please, address the record before accusing me.
But no, if you had any knowledge of the history of philosophical theology, you would know well that the "fantastic claims" for "supernatural beings" are not here being considered, but the august tradition of dealing with the issue of God separated from dogma and founded upon seeking arguments that imply necessity of one or more aspects of God. That is to say, there are arguments, from the Pre-Socratic to the present, that aren't "supernatural" in nature, but are metaphysical/ontological.
Moreover, when speaking of Atheism - as opposed to Agnosticism, I.E. theological indifference - we are speaking of the denial of the existence of God. This implies positive proof as to the non-existence of a being on the foundations of contradictory philosophic evidence. For instance, it is claimed that omnibenevolence - an aspect given to God by many philosophers - is incoherent, or if free-will exists, then omniscience is an impossibility. All imply a refutation of a concept. This is the proper course to take if one is going to adopt the belief that something does not exist. If one, such as yourself, wishes to sit on the fence, then properly signify what you are, an Agnostic, and not an Atheist.
Although just out of curiousity: Do you happen to know the three main arguments for the existence of God?
"Ha! Really funny, seeing as our approaches are polar opposites."
Really? Baseless, non-justified statements, regarding the non-existence of a being, because they ridicule Theistic beliefs, and give no philosophical refutations...
"1) Silly
2) Inane
3) Deluded"
Which proves my point. Moreover, to declare these you must declare the non-existence of God. Proof of that, please?
Oh and do not give the standard "the onus of proof is on the Theist". If we both agree that God is a concept to be discussed philosophically, then any argument against him based on internal inconsistancy of the arguments presented, can and does count as a positive claim to contradict the Theistic ones. Similarly, arguments devoid of the content of Theistic claims directly, can and are made to show that aspects of God are incoherent and illogical. Make some of those to back it up.
"So? It dosen,t and it hasn't. You somehow follow this really strange idea that because you have "faith" in something, that makes it "real". This is well known in psychological jargon as "delusional".'"
You are very good at proving my points. You have now made this assumption twice, that I am a Theist, or even religious. You ought to investigate things more thoroughly.
Also, just for kicks, I shall ask you to present an argument as to why faith is invalid?
"I agree completely. I'm glad you see the true nature of your "belief" and what it leads to. Finally, a theist who acknowledges the truth. "
Third time.
"Huh? We don't ever claim to do such a nonsensical thing! You theists are the ones making the fantastic claims of super power beings. We just maintain a lack of belief and ask politely for some actual supporting evidence for this super friend in the sky. We don't have to prove a damned thing."
"You theists"? I am not a Theist. I am an Atheistic Pantheist, as I have noted throughout the religion and philosophy section. Please, address the record before accusing me.
But no, if you had any knowledge of the history of philosophical theology, you would know well that the "fantastic claims" for "supernatural beings" are not here being considered, but the august tradition of dealing with the issue of God separated from dogma and founded upon seeking arguments that imply necessity of one or more aspects of God. That is to say, there are arguments, from the Pre-Socratic to the present, that aren't "supernatural" in nature, but are metaphysical/ontological.
Moreover, when speaking of Atheism - as opposed to Agnosticism, I.E. theological indifference - we are speaking of the denial of the existence of God. This implies positive proof as to the non-existence of a being on the foundations of contradictory philosophic evidence. For instance, it is claimed that omnibenevolence - an aspect given to God by many philosophers - is incoherent, or if free-will exists, then omniscience is an impossibility. All imply a refutation of a concept. This is the proper course to take if one is going to adopt the belief that something does not exist. If one, such as yourself, wishes to sit on the fence, then properly signify what you are, an Agnostic, and not an Atheist.
Although just out of curiousity: Do you happen to know the three main arguments for the existence of God?
"Ha! Really funny, seeing as our approaches are polar opposites."
Really? Baseless, non-justified statements, regarding the non-existence of a being, because they ridicule Theistic beliefs, and give no philosophical refutations...
"1) Silly
2) Inane
3) Deluded"
Which proves my point. Moreover, to declare these you must declare the non-existence of God. Proof of that, please?
Oh and do not give the standard "the onus of proof is on the Theist". If we both agree that God is a concept to be discussed philosophically, then any argument against him based on internal inconsistancy of the arguments presented, can and does count as a positive claim to contradict the Theistic ones. Similarly, arguments devoid of the content of Theistic claims directly, can and are made to show that aspects of God are incoherent and illogical. Make some of those to back it up.
"So? It dosen,t and it hasn't. You somehow follow this really strange idea that because you have "faith" in something, that makes it "real". This is well known in psychological jargon as "delusional".'"
You are very good at proving my points. You have now made this assumption twice, that I am a Theist, or even religious. You ought to investigate things more thoroughly.
Also, just for kicks, I shall ask you to present an argument as to why faith is invalid?
"I agree completely. I'm glad you see the true nature of your "belief" and what it leads to. Finally, a theist who acknowledges the truth. "
Third time.
superluminal said:
And yet when we provide proof you decry it and jump and down like little children. I have seen two year olds with more composure.
Really? You staunchly believe there is no possibility of a higher being while I staunchly believe there is one. The core of it is belief. Without it the whole thing falls apart.
Is that because it wasn't 'proof'? Churches still rely on 'faith'. If there was proof, they wouldn't need to do so. And if there was any respectable proof, stands to reason we should all know about it, but we don't... so kindly refresh my memory of this pseudoscience.
Not quite so 50/50. The existence of a sentient creator of the universe is remote enough as a guess, nevermind all the other attributes this creator has been given by humans: Heaven, hell, prayer, the holy spirit, the soul, afterlife, son sent to Earth etc. All of these far-fetched guesses add up to something that doesn't exist. No evidence in the face of thousands of statements of 'faith'. Good luck providing proof for it all.
KennyJC said:
No pseudoscience involved, actually. If there is no hard evidence for or against anecdotal evidence is considered valid. That is the rules of the game. Don't like it, get out of the science field and practicice philosophy.
Here's the rub, you are saying that the chance is so remote that it couldn't possibly happen. Go flip a thousand coins. It's a 1 in 1.07x10^301 that they come up in that order. What do you know...they did. Amazing how this argument is used by both sides.
To clarify something I do believe in a Creator. God may not be responsible for the universe, or even the world. It's not too unthinkable that life may have come about becuase of some tinkering. I do not believe Hell exists the way it is illistrated. I think that the souls that are self absorbed stay in one part of afterlife. They aren't mistreeted except by each other.
Prince James,
Wow! I apologise. But in fairness, that was one misleading post. After reading your response, I still have no fucking clue as to your position. What the fuck is an "atheistic pantheist"?
First I signify that I be an Atheist, yar. As in a-tonal (lacking tonality). A-theist (lacking theistic beliefs).
As to your faith question, invalid in what realm? The objective or the subjective? Here's a working definition:
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
This definition squarely places faith in the realm of the subjective. In this realm, one of personal truths and ideas, the idea of validity or invalidity is clearly meaningless as the validity or lack thereof is also purely subjective.
Now to the real debate - the validity of "faith" as it applies to the objective world. Given the above definition, unless something can be shown to exist by logical proof or material evidence, then it must be considered invalid in an objective sense.
I would submit that there is certainly no convincing objective material evidence for a god. I would like to see the logical proof for the existence of gods. If it is convincing enough, I will capitulate.
Wow! I apologise. But in fairness, that was one misleading post. After reading your response, I still have no fucking clue as to your position. What the fuck is an "atheistic pantheist"?
Wrong bub. A-Theism. The absence of theism. A neutral statement of lack. Agnostics refuse to make a position statement based on a percieved lack of evidence either way. As atheists, we have no more need of theism than we do for alien visitors. But no atheist will assert that god 100% certainly does not exist. Ask the atheists here if you don't trust that.
Ok. But if you want any more responses from me, you'll need to stop with the philosophical theology in the august tradition of dealing with the issue of God separated from dogma including Pre-Socratic metaphysical/ontological arguments regarding omnibenevolence as the refutation of a concept. 'K?
First I signify that I be an Atheist, yar. As in a-tonal (lacking tonality). A-theist (lacking theistic beliefs).
As to your faith question, invalid in what realm? The objective or the subjective? Here's a working definition:
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
This definition squarely places faith in the realm of the subjective. In this realm, one of personal truths and ideas, the idea of validity or invalidity is clearly meaningless as the validity or lack thereof is also purely subjective.
Now to the real debate - the validity of "faith" as it applies to the objective world. Given the above definition, unless something can be shown to exist by logical proof or material evidence, then it must be considered invalid in an objective sense.
I would submit that there is certainly no convincing objective material evidence for a god. I would like to see the logical proof for the existence of gods. If it is convincing enough, I will capitulate.
- Status