Theology Question

Doc Dutch said:
The word “God” is a place holder for whatever power created the Universe. Agreed such a power would be unlikely to be limited by the Natural Universe. Likewise putting a gender on such a power is equally silly. It’s anthropomorphism to assign human traits to something capable of creating the entire universe.
Click to expand...

When you anthropomorphize God into an old guy in a robe sitting on a throne, it's easier to point and laugh.

When God, Brahman, the Tao, Krishna, Li, are just avatars for some ultimate truth, some higher organization principle underlying reality, then you can start having a real discussion.


I do think the evangelicals who feel they have a personal relationship with god, even talk to him are off their rockers.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Wow...talk about not understanding how English words are constructed!

How do you explain the fact that the word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years before "theist?"

The "a" in atheist does indeed come from the Greek...and means without. The word atheist came into English from the French using the Greek...and etymologically meant, "a" meaning "without" + "theos" meaning "a god" = WITHOUT A GOD...not without a "belief" in a god.





Okay...so you are saying that you do not have a "belief" that there are no gods...and you do not have a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...but that even though you see that as "push" you use atheist because...

...well...because what?

Sounds to me like bullshit, but I have been wrong before...so...



I do not wish to tell you what you do or do not "believe."

I am just wondering why you choose to use "atheist" since you do not "believe" there are no gods...and you also do not "believe" that the likelihood of there being at least one god is either equal to or more than the likelihood of there being at least one.

Seems "agnostic" or even "theistic" makes a lot more sense.

But I am willing to hear you out.
Click to expand...

I have adequately explained my position. It is in keeping with standard definitions of words and scientific inference. It will stand as it is.
 
Quincunx said:
I have adequately explained my position. It is in keeping with standard definitions of words and scientific inference. It will stand as it is.
Click to expand...

Fine. You are explaining that the word "atheist" came from affixing a prefix of "a" (without) to the word "theist" (a belief in god or gods) in order to get the word atheist to mean "without a belief in any gods."

But there is no way that possibly could have happened, because the word "atheist" entered the English language almost 100 years BEFORE theist.

And you suppose that to be both scientific and logical.

Hummm!
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
Fine. You are explaining that the word "atheist" came from affixing a prefix of "a" (without) to the word "theist" (a belief in god or gods) in order to get the word atheist to mean "without a belief in any gods."

But there is no way that possibly could have happened, because the word "atheist" entered the English language almost 100 years BEFORE theist.

And you suppose that to be both scientific and logical.

Hummm!
Click to expand...

So far I'm the only one talking about how inference works and supporting my position with facts about it.
 
Quincunx said:
So far I'm the only one talking about how inference works and supporting my position with facts about it.
Click to expand...

I've given you facts to show that atheism could not possibly have happened the way you suppose. That protocol is a contrivance of atheists.

Go to Google and ask when "atheism" came into the English language...and when "theism" did...and then go to an etymological dictionary and see how it was derived.

You will see that I hit every fact perfectly.

When I am wrong (and I often am)...I acknowledge being wrong and offer an apology. I am not wrong on this.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I've given you facts to show that atheism could not possibly have happened the way you suppose. That protocol is a contrivance of atheists.

Go to Google and ask when "atheism" came into the English language...and when "theism" did...and then go to an etymological dictionary and see how it was derived.

You will see that I hit every fact perfectly.

When I am wrong (and I often am)...I acknowledge being wrong and offer an apology. I am not wrong on this.
Click to expand...

When a word shows up is no interest to me. I am going based on the logic. It clearly bothers you quite a bit. I cannot understand why.
 
Quincunx said:
When a word shows up is no interest to me. I am going based on the logic. It clearly bothers you quite a bit. I cannot understand why.
Click to expand...

Okay, you are unable to be adult enough to acknowledge being wrong.

That happens. It often changes as one matures.

Let's hope.
 
America said:
Atheism is not a belief. By claiming this, you're suggesting a false equivalence between theism and atheism. There is no observable phenomenon to justify theism as a respectable stance.
Click to expand...

Atheism is a belief, a certainty of something where the information given does not "prove" what they are certain of... That's not just a belief, it is faith.

Personally I believe that it doesn't matter if there is/are a god/s or not. What you say or do would not matter. This idea that this tiny place is the focus of all these beings, or a singular being, is absurd when you consider the size and depth of the universe.

When asked if God exists I would answer: I don't think it matters if I believe that God exists, it would not change whether or not this being or beings existed.
 
BidenPresident said:
Then so is typing on a keyboard a belief.
Click to expand...

No. One is a fact, the other a belief.

We see the result of the action we take, this is a fact. A belief, on the other hand, is predicated and taken with faulty information. You do not have proof that a supernatural being doesn't exist, nor do they that he does. It takes an equal amount of faith to believe in one or the other.
 
Damocles said:
No. One is a fact, the other a belief.

We see the result of the action we take, this is a fact. A belief, on the other hand, is predicated and taken with faulty information. You do not have proof that a supernatural being doesn't exist, nor do they that he does. It takes an equal amount of faith to believe in one or the other.
Click to expand...

We learn to think about God based on the teaching of a church. Then we learn what ancient jews believed about God and are told to practice this. There is a history of theology explaining the nature of God and how to think about God.

Then the church says God exists and you can believe it or reject it. Or reject the whole notion that God is what jews 2000 years ago believed.
 
BidenPresident said:
We learn to think about God based on the teaching of a church. Then we learn what ancient jews believed about God and are told to practice this. There is a history of theology explaining the nature of God and how to think about God.

Then the church says God exists and you can believe it or reject it. Or reject the whole notion that God is what jews 2000 years ago believed.
Click to expand...

Yes, faulty information. And again you fail to see any possibility of a different belief system.

Anyway, no "proof" of the existence or the absence of a god or gods exists. Therefore a certainty in either state is simply faith, or what I like to call "wishful".

I don't know if a god exists. I don't think one does, but I have no certainty of either state. Because proof actually matters to me.
 
BidenPresident said:
Exactly the opposite--if you understood what I wrote.
Click to expand...

What you wrote only says that you believe that the only possibility is either the Christian Faith or the Atheist Faith. This is the false dichotomy fallacy in full color. It isn't the "opposite" it is just another logical fallacy.

What I said withstands scrutiny, your fallacious argument notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top