In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
What if he had to eat some of their children at the welcoming dinner in order not to insult their customs.Introduce the Pope to them
Alex
I guess being a man of the cloth and the Catholic church being well catholic he may be obliged to
There was another way I thought of how such beings may be of service
Trump could employ them as border officers
Put them at the Mexico border and say they can have anyone coming in but stay away from those going out
I had another idea but fell asleep and it must have dropped out of my ear
You are a living, breathing alternative fact, aren't you wellwisher? There is a reason you are not allowed to post in the hard science fora - because you lie like Trump (always).
Conservatives forget history in discrediting Trump protesters
According to conservatives on social media, “Republicans have jobs and responsibilities” and therefore couldn’t engage in civil disobedience to voice their discontent with the 2008 and 2012 elections. With this perception of the Obama elections and subsequent claims of “ Republican acceptance,” Trump supporters are now demanding the same “fairness” for Donald J. Trump’s presidency, “We sat through do nothing politics for 8 years, the least they can do is go shut up and sit in the corner for 8 themselves,” on Trump supporter explained.
However, these perceptions do not reflect what actually followed the election of our country’s first black president, much less the difference between why people are protesting Donald J. Trump’s presidency as compared to Barack Obama’s presidency.
Obama’s election in 2008 was preceded and followed by violent attacks and property destruction targeted against minorities.
Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted “Fuck Obama!” and “Nigger president!” as they broke Johnson’s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery.
More frequently, Obama’s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obama’s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...publicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit
According to conservatives on social media, “Republicans have jobs and responsibilities” and therefore couldn’t engage in civil disobedience to voice their discontent with the 2008 and 2012 elections. With this perception of the Obama elections and subsequent claims of “ Republican acceptance,” Trump supporters are now demanding the same “fairness” for Donald J. Trump’s presidency, “We sat through do nothing politics for 8 years, the least they can do is go shut up and sit in the corner for 8 themselves,” on Trump supporter explained.
However, these perceptions do not reflect what actually followed the election of our country’s first black president, much less the difference between why people are protesting Donald J. Trump’s presidency as compared to Barack Obama’s presidency.
Obama’s election in 2008 was preceded and followed by violent attacks and property destruction targeted against minorities.
Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted “Fuck Obama!” and “Nigger president!” as they broke Johnson’s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery.
More frequently, Obama’s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obama’s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...publicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit
I don't expect you to acknowledge this - you probably won't even read it because it contradicts the worldview you and the rest of the Trumpsters have concocted for yourselves. But there they are anyway - those pesky things called "facts"...
Without...
- in the absence of.
"he went to Sweden without her"
synonyms:unaccompanied by, unescorted by;
in the absence of
"I don't want to go without you" - 2.
not having the use or benefit of.
"the first person to make the ascent without oxygen"
synonyms:lacking, in need of, wanting for, needing, requiring, short of;More
archaicliterary
- 1.
outside.
"the enemy without"
archaicdialect
- 1.
without it being the case that.
"he won't be able to go without we know it"...
If it makes you feel better about your position, I'll let that one slide.
How is it possible to be in the absence of, or not have the use and benefit of, something that doesn't exist?
Nope. To be in the absence of something, means that something exists. And you can only make use of and derive benefit from something that exists.
Nice try. But you are without God, as defined by the label you designate for yourself, and based on discussions, and comments you write. If it helps you to accuse me of being without unicorns, who am I to stand in your way. Go for it Dave.
Yet you can't show where I am being hypocritical, unless of course you have to construct other issues, change definitions (without/atheist), in a bid to defend the indefensible.
You're currently incapable of comprehending my beliefs as a whole. You currently comprehend them from an atheist perspective. That you believe your perspective is all there is, is not my problem.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You are not without unicorns you say? Can you lend me one?... I am not without unicorns, unless they exist. As they don't, I am not.
I am without purple bug-eyed tentacle-horns.
You are without laser-shooting eyeballs.
Demonstrably false. You have no basis for such an assertion except your own insistence.
Whether you like then or not, I have given examples.
Nice try. Your "beliefs as a whole" are not on the table. You can't hide behind that in a public discussion
I simply need comprehend nothing more about you than that which you espouse publicly. As can anyone who reads this, regardless of their personal views on the matter. Which means they too can make the same logical deductions - i.e. based on what you say, not on what might or might not be in your mind. It is not an issue than depends on a personal preference, only on logic.
Which is why ad homs are not a valid counter-argument. It's about the issue, not about the issuer (or what you think about the issuer).
Since your primary argument is a known logical fallacy, it stands refuted in perpetuity. Repeating it shows you're stumped. You'll have to try a different tactic.
Finally, note: by continually bringing up the issue of the arguer, not the argument, you are making this a personal issue.
And I agree. This is a personal issue for you. Not an objective one.
Existence is not a requirement for being without
Easy
You are without everything which does not exist
True
Something which exist you are capable of being without
You can add those items to the non existent stuff you are without
I don't know if you a hypocritical or not
I would say there is a strong possibility of you
(or anybody who believes in a god who you say exist but offer no proof)
were subjected to a trial where you were convicted of an offence without any evidence just because the judge believed you guilty
If you shrugged your shoulders and said OK you would be fine
You would turn into a hypocrite if demanded to see the evidence
The judge would be very clever if he said
You show me your proof of god I'll show you my proof of your guilt
By the by you still have not provided
the very evidence which you say does exist from a thesist perspective
Please provide
I will take it to the judge who I am sure would then release the evidence of your guilt
We can all see both sets of
evidence prove
- god exists
- your innocent
Then what was he referring to as "irreligion", and can you cite references?
The worship which is due to this God we are to give to no other nor to ascribe anything absurd or contradictious to his nature or actions lest we be found to blaspheme him or to deny him or to make a step towards atheism or irreligion. - Isaac Newton, Irenicum, 35
Lack...
the state of being without or not having enough of something.
be without or deficient in.
You can't lack belief in something that does not exist. You can lack belief in the claims, arguments, evidences, etc, that anyone, or any scripture, or religion may espouse. But you can't lack belief in God, because you are without God, and you conclude that God does not exist. Your need for evidence, in the hope of being shown that God exists, is evidence that you are atheist in the original sense.
Theists believe in God. That God exists, is elementary. One does not need to believe in the existence of their child, to believe in their child. You only regard existence as important with regards to God, because God does not exist for you, and by definition, you cannot lack belief in something that doesn't exist.
You currently cannot comprehend God.
The modern sense is, as I stated before, a symptom of the real meaning of atheist.
You are without God, and you cannot deny it. I understand you a whole lot better via the original meaning. I hope other theists will begin to see it this way, if they don't already.
Does God currently exist for you? No?
Then it is obvious that God does not exist for you. If you you are open-minded, and accept that it is not impossible for God to exist, and are prepared to regard God as unknown. You are still without God, but you are not as dismissive of God's existence, as other atheists.
To summarise, you are without God, until you realise God.
That is an oxymoron.
Claiming to believe in God is not the same as believing in God. Do you agree with that?
That is the explanation you keep avoiding.
Oh right, he was an old man.
Here is a perfect example of your underlying attitude. This is the part of you that is prepared to suppress anything that is positive toward God. Which is why I accuse you of not wanting to believe in God.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I see we're moving the goalposts to a new word.
That also is a logical fallacy.
OK. I lack purple tentacle-horns.
Do you disagree?
I see we're moving the goalposts again.
You were talking about lacking God. Now you're talking about lacking a belief in God.
OK. I lack a belief in purple tentacle-horns.
A tautology.
You are without astrology until you realize astrology.
This is the kind of circular thinking that is characteristic of many forms of zealotry.
Last edited:
???
If such things exist, then you can lack them. If such thing don't exist, there is nothing to lack. Just check what it means to lack something.
Things that don't exist can not be made up with things that exist. There cannot be a possibility for things that don't exist, it to exist. If something become non existent, the same rules apply.
Describe something that doesn't exist, without using things that do exist to construct it?
God isn't a subject.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You weren't making any headway with 'without', so you're shifting to 'lack' to see if that sounds better.
I doesn't.
You keep insisting this without anything to back it up, except that you want it to be true.
And I can show you examples that it is not true.
I already did. I lack purple tentacle-horns.
And when did this become a requirement? Oh right, Just now.
You see now, Sagan's analogy in action. Every time I show you your argument has exceptions, you add conditionals to rule it out. That - right there - is the very core of Sagan's dragon. So, are there any other attributes you'd like to ascribe to your invisible, floating, fire-breathing, non-excreting, non-radar-reflecting dragon? No, not until I show more exceptions. Then you'll invent some new criteria.
But sure, let's roll with it for fun.
So, by your logic, the only things that can't exist are things that can't be described?
A star made of fusing cotton candy can't be said to not exist, because I've used words you're familiar with? By your logic, simply using common words means it is literally impossible to describe any non-existent concept?
You're equivocating.
You are without Cthulhu until you realize Cthulhu.
It's a tautology no matter what you insert.
Last edited:
You do know your playing
Ping Pong
or
Yabut
or
WhatIf
don't you?
They are the main characters in the book titled
I Don't Really Have a Case but if I Keep Not Answering Questions and Throw Questions Back it will Look Like a Discussion
My limit has been set at about 3 of which ever is being used
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yep. I've pretty much reached my limit.
Once one's opponent just repeats the same defenseless fallacies over and over, there's not much left to say.
Just thought I would
Ping you but
YaBut you seem to understand but
WhatIf the
Ping YaBut WhatIfer come back with a very tempting Ping?????
If it does not exist then you are, by definition, without it. You can not be with something that does not exist, therefore you must be without it. The definition you put forward confirms this, so thank you.
Subsequent efforts by you to backtrack or assert otherwise in this matter will henceforth be ignored.
I do not conclude that God does not exist. That is a mistake in understanding on your part that you persist with despite explanations to the contrary.
I lack belief in God, I lack belief in the existence of God (I.e. I lack belief that God exists), I certainly operate, in the main, as though God does not exist, but I do not have the belief that God does not exist. It is not a conclusion I have reached.
Given that all atheists in the modern sense fall under the label of "atheist" in the original sense, for being "without god(s)", this is hardly surprising. We are without God because we lack belief that God exists (which is often written as lacking belief in the existence of God).
Theists believe that God exists. If you restrict theism to monotheistic religions then you could perhaps argue that theism is the belief that God exists and is the Creator, the One, the Cause of All, etc. But acknowledging or believing that the god(s) exist is the base requirement.
It is a prerequisite. Have you tried believing in something you don't believe exists? First you must acknowledge / believe the thing to exist, then you can believe in it.
By your own definition, if you lack something you are without that something. If something does not exist then you can not be with that thing, thus you are without, thus you lack. QED.
It gets depressing to debate with someone who can't even comprehend the definitions that they themselves put forward.
I can comprehend the concept of God as being the cause of all, the creator, etc. It's not too difficult to do. I can't comprehend why people take those assumptions as true, though. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me?
Ignored as you're still trying to push the original meaning. Please don't. If it helps you understand people better, great, but try to find some other way of wording it so as to avoid confusion. When we use the term "atheist" it is simply to describe those people who lack belief that god(s) exists. If you want to include other people within the term it will get confusing, as already demonstrated.
Well whodathunkit! If God doesn't currently exist for me then it is obvious that God doesn't exist for me! I'd never have picked up on that if it wasn't for your incredible insight, Jan. Thanks so much for opening my eyes.
Of course, but the majority of atheists are similar to me, and are not closed off to the possibility that God exists. Most atheists are atheist because they are agnostic: they lack belief that God exists precisely because they consider the question of Gods existence unknowable. A few agnostics do become theists, though.
And equally you are with God until you realise otherwise.
Let me clarify: when I use the phrase "believe in God" I mean "believe that God exists. I have explained this numerous times before but appreciate that it can confuse.
Taken as intended with this clarification there is no contradiction. (NB: it was not an oxymoron as that is merely a figure of speech with elements that appear to be contradictory but hide a concealed point. What I wrote would appear to you to have simply been a contradiction).
First I am talking about belief that God exists, not "believing in God" as you understand the phrase.
Second, I will take people at their word as to whether and what they believe unless there are logical reasons to do otherwise, as I have no intention of wandering down the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Oh, utter bollocks, Jan. You expect me to take seriously a single case of an atheist who committed an obvious logical fallacy (argument from personal incredulity) simply because you give his name? Am I supposed to go "oh, Jan, you're so right, Flew was an atheist who saw the light, and if he did then surely he must be correct!"
Maybe if you actually looked at why he altered his stance, at the arguments he put forward, you'll realise that he argued from personal incredulity. Or maybe you'll wash over that in an attempt to salvage him as a witness for your case.
Furthermore, I do not suppress anything that is positive toward God, I simply look at the arguments put forward and assess with what I consider to be logical and rational thought. If something appears irrational or illogical then it is not surpressed but merely understood for what it is.
You, on the other hand, seem to want me to put aside all my reason, my efforts to be logical in thought, and start accepting things simply because of an authority. Maybe that is what you did, Jan. It is not how I work.
If you have an issue with an attitude that tries to seek logic and reason in alternative views before accepting them, then I guess you'll have an issues its me for a long time to come.
I have
I have not done much to try to believe or contact
I have noticed many people who have tried to do one or both
The results are random at best and easily covered by coincidence
How many of the 4,200 estimated religions in the world fall under the group of monotheistic religions ?
Got to go and do the washing up
I did ask god but it seems he's busy
Without what? The thing that has been suggested?
Atheist means 'without God', not 'without the suggestion of God'. Of course it registers as a suggestion to you because you are without God.
Complete nonsense for reasons shown.
It is your default position. Why deny it?
Yes you lack belief in claims, evidences, etc. But you cannot lack belief in God, because for you, God doesn't exist. The comclusions reach you regarding God, are based on the concept of God which you derive from outside sources. This explains why you keep asking people to convince you. Because you currently have no other way of deciding. I'm sorry if it sounds as though I am insulting, or trying to insult you, but I assure you I am not.
Same as above.
Obviously.
From your perspective, I agree. But not from my perspective. I don't have to think about God's existence anymore than I think about my own existence.
I haven't tried it. Just thinking about it is a waste of time.
Cannot be with what thing?
The idea?
Gee, it must be true because you said it.
Yes I can. Because you are without God, and need to be shown God in order to believe He exists.
Those ''people'' don't.
That's not how it works.
An atheist is a person without God.
A theist is a person who believes in God (not only in existence).
God is.
Of course you can claim there is no evidence for God's existence, but that's only to be expected.
Why don't you use the terms correctly then.
How is it possible to believe that God exists, and not believe in God.
You don't have to use that fallacy.
Why don't you take people at their word in all instances of theism.
Why don't you take vedic literature at it's word while you're at it.
You're completely missing the point. You automatically create reasons why Anthony Flew must be mistaken, hence we needn't talk about him.
Why not see it as an opportunity. If someone as ardent an atheist as him could come the that conclusion, then maybe you could.
Jan.
Last edited:
Still waiting on
Jan Ardena
There isn't a total lack of evidence for God from a theist perspective, only an atheist one
the very evidence which you say does exist from a thesist perspective
Still waiting on
Jan Ardena
There isn't a total lack of evidence for God from a theist perspective, only an atheist one
the very evidence which you say does exist from a thesist perspective
What exactly are you waiting for?
Jan.