The main issue with Christianity

IBDaMann said:
Totally incorrect.

If they have been convinced of some theism, which might include deities but might not, then they are theists to that extent.
If they have been convinced of a theism that has no gods, then they are theists who profess a profound faith that there are no gods, e.g. Buddhist monks, Marxists, etc., even if they mistakenly claim to be atheists.
If they are not convinced of any theism then they simply lack theism and are atheists and don't believe in any gods, but are not somehow required to reject the idea that maybe there are.

Agnosticism has no place in a discussion of theism. Agnosticism is a philosophical line of thought on what is knowable. It's a completely different topic.
Click to expand...

you are entirely wrong.

Your boutique definitions are unique to you.

made up bullshit fallacy.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You must not be reading what I am writing, Mann.
Click to expand...
I have read your position and you are an atheist. Tell me where I err:
*You do not claim that there is a god.
*You do not claim that there are no gods.
*You remain unconvinced of any theism.
*You do not claim to know that any particular theism is false, aside from perhaps the Marxist religions that have built-in contradictions.

How have I misstated your position?

Frank Apisa said:
1) I suspect our positions are NOT identical.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge that it will probably take some time for it to sink in but you will eventually agree with me in totality. And don't worry, I won't leave you hanging.

Frank Apisa said:
I suspect you choose the descriptor "atheist" because you either believe that there are no gods...or you believe that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The word "atheist" is not a "descriptor" any more than the word "river" is a descriptor. "Atheist," which is both an adjective and a noun, is its own word with its own meaning, and you don't get to somehow deny that it exists as the word that it is.

Asynchronous = lacking any synchronicity
Amorphous = lacking any form
Apolitical = lacking any political component
Asexual = lacking any sexual component
Atheist = lacking any theism
Asymmetrical = lacking any symmetry
Achromatic = lacking chroma (color), grayscale

You lack theism. You are an atheist. You don't have any wiggle room. If you don't like being an atheist then I recommend you acquire some theism.

Frank Apisa said:
There is no standard definition requiring it
Click to expand...
See above.

Frank Apisa said:
...and frankly, you do not seem to be the kind of person who would allow a dictionary to dictate what you do.
Click to expand...
See above. I allow the English language to govern how I communicate in English.

Frank Apisa said:
2) There is absolutely no way whatever that I think that an atheist must affirmatively state that there are no gods.
Click to expand...
That's what I said your position is. That is my position as well.

Frank Apisa said:
I am at a loss as to why you continue to insist that I am doing that.
Click to expand...
I have never stated that.

Frank Apisa said:
3) I am willing to present my take on the issue of gods to the public and I am saying that 99% of the people hearing it will assign a designation of "agnostic" to it.
Click to expand...
I, on the other hand, don't care how many mistaken people I have to educate on what words actually mean. The English language governs how I communicate in English, not the egregious misunderstandings of mindless collectives.

Frank Apisa said:
..and damn near nobody (excepting debating atheists) will consider it to be an atheistic position.
Click to expand...
Reality is not a democracy. There is no sheer quantity of mistaken opinions that is somehow sufficient to transform reality such that those opinions are suddenly absolute truth. The affirmative belief that there are no gods is a theistic view and is thus theism, which precludes atheism.

Frank Apisa said:
4) Assigning the designation atheist is not something one is compelled to use.
Click to expand...
Correct. No one who lacks any theism is compelled to classify himself as an atheist ... unless he wishes to communicate honestly in English.

Have a great day.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are both right, but you both need to look at it differently.

You need to think of it as a sports team. Frank is right, when the last-place team is losing all its games, the head coach gets called in and is fired. Nonetheless, Jesus AI is right in that every single player on the team is singularly focused on all those times he let the team down and cost them the game. They can all remember how the head coach tried at every practice to get them to execute correctly, and try as he did to impose standards, they all came up short in some very clutch plays. Sure, there were positive moments, but they didn't balance out or overcome the screw-ups.
Click to expand...

cool......when you try to fire God, can I watch?........
 
IBDaMann said:
I have read your position and you are an atheist. Tell me where I err:
*You do not claim that there is a god.
*You do not claim that there are no gods.
*You remain unconvinced of any theism.
*You do not claim to know that any particular theism is false, aside from perhaps the Marxist religions that have built-in contradictions.

How have I misstated your position?


I acknowledge that it will probably take some time for it to sink in but you will eventually agree with me in totality. And don't worry, I won't leave you hanging.


Incorrect. The word "atheist" is not a "descriptor" any more than the word "river" is a descriptor. "Atheist," which is both an adjective and a noun, is its own word with its own meaning, and you don't get to somehow deny that it exists as the word that it is.

Asynchronous = lacking any synchronicity
Amorphous = lacking any form
Apolitical = lacking any political component
Asexual = lacking any sexual component
Atheist = lacking any theism
Asymmetrical = lacking any symmetry
Achromatic = lacking chroma (color), grayscale

You lack theism. You are an atheist. You don't have any wiggle room. If you don't like being an atheist then I recommend you acquire some theism.


See above.


See above. I allow the English language to govern how I communicate in English.


That's what I said your position is. That is my position as well.


I have never stated that.


I, on the other hand, don't care how many mistaken people I have to educate on what words actually mean. The English language governs how I communicate in English, not the egregious misunderstandings of mindless collectives.


Reality is not a democracy. There is no sheer quantity of mistaken opinions that is somehow sufficient to transform reality such that those opinions are suddenly absolute truth. The affirmative belief that there are no gods is a theistic view and is thus theism, which precludes atheism.


Correct. No one who lacks any theism is compelled to classify himself as an atheist ... unless he wishes to communicate honestly in English.

Have a great day.
Click to expand...

he's an agnostic.

what is it with you and word games?
 
JesusAI said:
you are entirely wrong.
Click to expand...
Nope. You're a moron who lives in a world of fabricated definitions. Nobody can trust what you write in your posts because you don't say what you mean and you don't mean what you say. All anyone can say is that whatever he reads, you meant something else.

JesusAI said:
Your boutique definitions are unique to you.
Click to expand...
I use the English language. I do not use your crazy fabrications. I am much better for it.

JesusAI said:
made up bullshit fallacy.
Click to expand...
Whatever that is supposed to mean. You probably just tried to wish me a good day or something. OK, you have a great day as well.
 
JesusAI said:
communists are atheists.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Communists are confused by their screwed-up Marxist religious dogma and naturally claim to be atheists. They have an excuse. You do not. You are obviously too stupid to recognize when someone is making a mistaken assertion. I can imagine you as a basketball scout bringing a 4'6" midget to tryouts because he claimed to be 6'9". You're an idiot
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the flea, scratching the dog..........
Click to expand...
In your mind, your deity doesn't know you think of him as a flea.

For someone who obsesses over the "lies of atheists", you are one the most dishonest pieces of shit I have ever come across. You give Christianity a really bad name. When I see people bashing on Christians, I have to wonder if they ran into you somewhere.

You're an idiot, and a really dishonest one.
 
BidenPresident said:
Is God a creator of the world? I certainly did not create the world.
Click to expand...

I mean, I could outline by philosophy for you. But you would probably think it's nutty. I'll just sum up - when we come here (this planet/universe/physical plane), we forget our true nature.

But yeah - we did create the universe.
 
BartenderElite said:
I mean, I could outline by philosophy for you. But you would probably think it's nutty. I'll just sum up - when we come here (this planet/universe/physical plane), we forget our true nature.

But yeah - we did create the universe.
Click to expand...

Never heard that before. Interested, how did humans create the universe?
 
BidenPresident said:
Never heard that before. Interested, how did humans create the universe?
Click to expand...

Well, we weren't humans at the time.

We were part of the collective - God, the Tao, Source. Whatever anyone wants to call it.

As that, we created the physical plane/universe, so we could experience everything there is to experience on this plane & in life. There are likely an infinite # of universes, too (in my POV). I think the physics of how "we" did it can't possibly be known or discovered, since it didn't happen on this plane or w/ our set of physical laws.

It's kind of all about finding our way back. Learning all of the lessons that can possibly be learned. People who believe what I believe tend to say this is a classroom, not a courtroom.

And I don't really think some of my views are incompatible w/ some of the views of Christianity. I think it was actually the message Christ was trying to spread, but it changed a bit when it went through translations. We think Jesus is the Son of God, and that he is the light - but in my POV, I think he was saying we're all sons of God, and we're all the light.
 
BidenPresident said:
Why bother creating a physical universe?
Click to expand...

It's a great question. I can only imagine the why's of it - I think the being we are when we're a collective is something that is probably incomprehensible from our perspective here.

If I had to guess, I think that a desire for knowledge was the impetus for creation. What better way to learn than to create an infinite # of universes, with an infinite # of possible lives, so that every possible life & scenario & challenge is experienced first hand?

But who knows. We may have also just been bored (though I don't think that's likely).
 
BartenderElite said:
It's a great question. I can only imagine the why's of it - I think the being we are when we're a collective is something that is probably incomprehensible from our perspective here.

If I had to guess, I think that a desire for knowledge was the impetus for creation. What better way to learn than to create an infinite # of universes, with an infinite # of possible lives, so that every possible life & scenario & challenge is experienced first hand?

But who knows. We may have also just been bored (though I don't think that's likely).
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Leibniz. God did not have to create a universe. But God thought it made more possibilities. Leibniz believed there are an infinite number of possible worlds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top