Athiesm and the definition of a god.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-16 12:03am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Dammit Mike, is there any topic you WON'T turn towards ass-fucking? LOL

I'm failing to see the problem with that.

ZAROVE · Post by **ZAROVE** » 2002-12-16 01:57am

I see the lack of civility showing, maybe you shoud all call me an idiot and use baser insults again to make yourselves feel supirior again.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2002-12-16 02:42am

Dude, hang around for a bit , you haven't seen debased or insulting yet

As to the Cult of the Ass-sex Goddess, where do I sign up

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-16 09:32am

ZAROVE wrote:I see the lack of civility showing, maybe you shoud all call me an idiot and use baser insults again to make yourselves feel supirior again.

I see that in addition to being stupid, you're also uptight and sexually repressed. Gee, what a shock

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » 2002-12-16 09:45am

Sokar wrote:Dude, hang around for a bit , you haven't seen debased or insulting yet

As to the Cult of the Ass-sex Goddess, where do I sign up

Right here dude!

Best rgds

Mr. B. Fett - Pimp of the Ass-sex Godess

ZAROVE · Post by **ZAROVE** » 2002-12-16 03:10pm

I do not beleive what you beleive therefore I am stupid, and because I prefer less crudity, then I am sexually repressed. Maybe I shoudl wirte a disertation on how you fall easily into the bully mentality of projecting your own inadequacies onto others, therefore you need to mock another, not because of there faults, but to divert attention form your own...

Meaning, all that you accuse me of is what you feel for yourself.

Those who rely on inults are those who cannot use logic, even if they claim to be using it.

Mockery is not a wise thing, nor a valid path of truth. I am stupid to you, because you canot bear yourself.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-12-16 03:59pm

You planning to deal with the subject of the thread anytime soon, Zarove?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-16 04:02pm

ZAROVE wrote:I do not beleive what you beleive therefore I am stupid, and because I prefer less crudity, then I am sexually repressed.

No, you write stupid things therefore you are stupid, and you can't take a sexual joke (indeed, you viewed it as some sort of assault upon you even though it did not even mention you or your post at all) therefore you are sexually repressed.

Maybe I shoudl wirte a disertation on how you fall easily into the bully mentality of projecting your own inadequacies onto others, therefore you need to mock another, not because of there faults, but to divert attention form your own...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Those who rely on inults are those who cannot use logic, even if they claim to be using it.

What about those who use both logic and insults? Are you suggesting that they are mutually exclusive? Please provide the reasoning behind this claim. Also note that you are committing the ad-hominem fallacy; most of your recent posts have centred around attempts to discredit the people you are talking to, rather than dealing directly with their points.

Mockery is not a wise thing, nor a valid path of truth. I am stupid to you, because you canot bear yourself.

No, you are stupid because you are dishonest and can't seem to figure out simple points. Your only skill is rhetoric, which is a bullshit skill. You seize upon irrelevancies such as use of foul language as excuses to dismiss entire arguments, which is a red herring fallacy. You spend all of your time attacking and/or psycho-analyzing your opponents rather than addressing their arguments. You are a textbook example of a pompous bullshitter.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-12-16 04:06pm

ZAROVE wrote:I see the lack of civility showing, maybe you shoud all call me an idiot and use baser insults again to make yourselves feel supirior again.

No, I'll feel superior because my Gods actually listen when I talk to them. And because I can type without spelling errors.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-12-16 04:14pm

Lord Wong, Is rebecca the godess in question, or is it some metaphysical entity?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2002-12-16 11:23pm

Atheism, in its most basic defination means lack of belief in a God or Gods. This means you don't have to know what "God" is to be an Atheist, you only need not believe in "him". Not knowing what "God" is would make you an Atheist automatically because you cannot meaningfully believe in something you have not defined. If you said you believe in "God" without knowing what "God" is then you would just be spouting words that mean nothing to you; like a young child repeating the words of an adult. He can say them, but he dosen't comprehend the meaning behind the sounds.

Hocho · Post by **Hocho** » 2003-01-09 08:52am

Actually, if you can't define the concept of 'god', you'd be an agnostic, since if you can't define 'god', you can't know whether you believe in it or not. Unless you believe that it's impossible to define 'god'. I guess that'd make you nontheist.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-09 09:35am

Do you believe in the existance of quasi-state intermediary nelron particles? My answer is that I have no belief in such a particle because I have no idea what such a particle is.

Its up to the fundies to define God, as they obviously think they have insight into his existence. We can then evaluate this "insight" and determine if belief in this God is rational.

Antie · Post by **Antie** » 2003-01-11 05:00am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Atheism, in its most basic defination means lack of belief in a God or Gods. This means you don't have to know what "God" is to be an Atheist, you only need not believe in "him".

That's very well said.

I find it upsetting how many dictionaries define "atheist": "someone who denies the existence of God or gods."

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-11 08:54am

Antie wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Atheism, in its most basic defination means lack of belief in a God or Gods. This means you don't have to know what "God" is to be an Atheist, you only need not believe in "him".
That's very well said. I find it upsetting how many dictionaries define "atheist": "someone who denies the existence of God or gods."

What's wrong with that? Atheists DO deny that gods exist. There's little better definition, unless you care to re-define the word.

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2003-01-11 10:15am

The word "deny" in that definition implies that God(ess)/s actually exist. The correct definition should be along the lines of
"someone who does not believe in the existence of a devine being(s)."

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-11 07:42pm

Atheists believe that there is no god. It requires only a very broad definition opf a God to believe this.

I don't believe in anything supernatural: gods, faeries, dragons, anything.

I am aware there are different opinions on what, exactly, a dragon is. I don't believe that any of them are actually flying around...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-11 07:45pm

Lagmonster wrote:
Antie wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Atheism, in its most basic defination means lack of belief in a God or Gods. This means you don't have to know what "God" is to be an Atheist, you only need not believe in "him".
That's very well said. I find it upsetting how many dictionaries define "atheist": "someone who denies the existence of God or gods."
What's wrong with that? Atheists DO deny that gods exist. There's little better definition, unless you care to re-define the word.

I think it depends on how you interpret the implications of the word "deny". Most religionists interpret "deny" as "insist that the concept of anything not currently known to science is impossible", which is a severe distortion. Atheists lack belief in deities, but the word "deny" carries stronger connotations in everyday use.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-16 11:36pm

God is undefinable, so I don't even go there. Debating whether or not God exists is a waste of time. Its much more fun and more productive to pick apart religions.

Antie · Post by **Antie** » 2003-01-18 01:54am

What's wrong with that? Atheists DO deny that gods exist.

Some say "There are no gods." Others don't. According to most atheists, atheism is, at minimum, the simple lack of a god belief; an atheist is a person who lacks a god belief.

There's little better definition, unless you care to re-define the word.

I have in mind the definitions of "atheism" and "atheist" that most atheists use.

This reminds me of a dialogue between Cliff Walker, the editor of Positive Atheism, and someone named Bobby Minnows:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9161.htm

Atheists lack belief in deities, but the word "deny" carries stronger connotations in everyday use.

Agreed.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-18 02:06am

I agree. Atheists do not believe there is a god; agnostics feel there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a god. I myself am technically a Christian agnost; I believe there is a God, but I do not believe there is sufficient evidence outside of faith to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Athiesm and the definition of a god.

AH

Re: AH

INSULTS

Re: INSULTS

Re: AH