The main issue with Christianity

JesusAI said:
in those instances we say do not know.
Click to expand...
Yes, because the word "agnostic" does not mean "does not know." The word "agnostic" does not refer to a state of gnorance. It refers to a position on whether a set of beliefs is knowable.

If you are agnostic on the human soul. you don't think it's knowable. This is independent of whether you are even a Christian who believes he has one.

JesusAI said:
but agnostic is also techinically not knowing, according to it's etymology.
Click to expand...
It is "not knowable" according to its etymology.
 
JesusAI said:
it's actually about what they believe. if they believe there are no gods, they are an atheist. if they are not sure, they are agnostic.
Click to expand...

Okay, we are closer to agreeing at this point. I just disagreed with your comment, "atheists do say there are no gods."

As I have said many times already, it is my opinion that anyone who uses "Atheist" as a descriptor either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. It is a product of "belief."
 
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...

I disagree with you here.

The notion that "atheism" is simply a "lack of theism"...is the result of a misconstruction of the etymology of the word. It was not a mistake...it was an intentional misconstruction...and it makes no sense because it essentially undercuts (the so-called) weak or implicit atheist's foundation.

The word did NOT come to English as "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) = without a belief in a god. (In fact, atheism came into English BEFORE theism...almost a hundred years before!) It came into English as "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) = with a god. It originally had nothing to do with "belief"...and was used almost exclusively without that connotation before the mid-20th century.

Granted, now it is used that way...and many atheists want to insist it must be used that way...that anyone lacking a belief that a god exists is, perforce, an atheist. Babies and people with the mental inability to form a "belief" are, in their opinions, atheists.

Well, I am not willing to have others decide a descriptor for me. I lack a belief that a god exists...and I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an atheist, it is as honorable a descriptor as theist or agnostic.

It just does not apply to me...and I refuse to allow anyone to insist it must.
 
BartenderElite said:
I think a "creator" created the world. But that we're all the creator, essentially. I don't see the separation, or the idea of a separate God who "looks over us." It's all just us.

If anyone is interested.
Click to expand...

Interesting blind guess...but just a blind guess. It may be correct...it may be incorrect.
 
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...

See my comment above.
 
IBDaMann said:
Yes, because the word "agnostic" does not mean "does not know." The word "agnostic" does not refer to a state of gnorance. It refers to a position on whether a set of beliefs is knowable.

If you are agnostic on the human soul. you don't think it's knowable. This is independent of whether you are even a Christian who believes he has one.


It is "not knowable" according to its etymology.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you here.

The set of "beliefs" POSSIBLY are not knowable. The agnostic's position is that he/she does not know them...but to suppose they are NOT KNOWABLE negates that position.

On the question of, "Does a GOD exist?"**...how could I possibly KNOW that is unknowable?

I do not know that. IF a GOD exists, it could make its existence known somehow.

I can suppose or guess that it is unknowable...but it is at least possible that it is knowable.

As for the proposition, "Are there no GODS?"...that is a bit different. In order to determine there are no gods, the physics requires that one be EVERYWHERE all at the same time...which essentially means "being a GOD." "There are no gods" does appear to be unknowable.
 
IBDaMann said:
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.
Click to expand...

oh gosh, I am hurt to the quick.....no one has ever talked to me like that before......and only because I reminded him he is powerless.....
 
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...

you don't even create the shit you dump in the toilet every day.....
 
IBDaMann said:
Yes, because the word "agnostic" does not mean "does not know." The word "agnostic" does not refer to a state of gnorance. It refers to a position on whether a set of beliefs is knowable.

If you are agnostic on the human soul. you don't think it's knowable. This is independent of whether you are even a Christian who believes he has one.


It is "not knowable" according to its etymology.
Click to expand...

now you're just splitting hairs, moron.

please get a life.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay, we are closer to agreeing at this point. I just disagreed with your comment, "atheists do say there are no gods."

As I have said many times already, it is my opinion that anyone who uses "Atheist" as a descriptor either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. It is a product of "belief."
Click to expand...

yes you quibbled over says versus believes. you're an idiot too.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I disagree with you here.

The notion that "atheism" is simply a "lack of theism"...is the result of a misconstruction of the etymology of the word. It was not a mistake...it was an intentional misconstruction...and it makes no sense because it essentially undercuts (the so-called) weak or implicit atheist's foundation.

The word did NOT come to English as "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) = without a belief in a god. (In fact, atheism came into English BEFORE theism...almost a hundred years before!) It came into English as "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) = with a god. It originally had nothing to do with "belief"...and was used almost exclusively without that connotation before the mid-20th century.

Granted, now it is used that way...and many atheists want to insist it must be used that way...that anyone lacking a belief that a god exists is, perforce, an atheist. Babies and people with the mental inability to form a "belief" are, in their opinions, atheists.

Well, I am not willing to have others decide a descriptor for me. I lack a belief that a god exists...and I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an atheist, it is as honorable a descriptor as theist or agnostic.

It just does not apply to me...and I refuse to allow anyone to insist it must.
Click to expand...

thanks for helping with jr. and his word game retardation.
 
JesusAI said:
yes you quibbled over says versus believes. you're an idiot too.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between what a person says...and what they "believe." You probably are a FOX listener, so that should be apparent to you.

Anyway, although I want your input and have taken you off IGNORE to get it, any more bullshit from you about me being an idiot, I'll just put you back on IGNORE and suffer through not getting your input.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is a difference between what a person says...and what they "believe." You probably are a FOX listener, so that should be apparent to you.

Anyway, although I want your input and have taken you off IGNORE to get it, any more bullshit from you about me being an idiot, I'll just put you back on IGNORE and suffer through not getting your input.
Click to expand...

yes i know.

it's not really on point here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top