-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right.
May I make is absolutely flipping clear to everyone that
"IN REGARDS TO GOD"
Means "in regards to the judeo-christian concept of GOD"
OKK!!!!
I am not talking in terms of silly creations!
I mean, someone that doesn't believe in Harry Potter isn't
Athharrypotteresit are they?
Upvote
0
Maybe, just maybe- I should point out that
"theo" means GOD>
hence theology- the study of God.
Theism- a belief in god/gods or a parthenon.
Monotheism- belief in One God.
Polytheism- Belief in multiple Gods.
Atheism- Belief in LACK of God.
Agnosticism- view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
so people who are agnostics belief that there is NOTHING to believe- as all belief IN REGARDS TO GOD- is pointless, as above definition shows why.
"theo" means GOD>
hence theology- the study of God.
Theism- a belief in god/gods or a parthenon.
Monotheism- belief in One God.
Polytheism- Belief in multiple Gods.
Atheism- Belief in LACK of God.
Agnosticism- view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
so people who are agnostics belief that there is NOTHING to believe- as all belief IN REGARDS TO GOD- is pointless, as above definition shows why.
Upvote
0
According to your previous argumentation he would be. Except that it would be Aharrypotterist (the th being part of "theos" in "atheist").
Upvote
0
Well, it seems quatona, that being an Atheist requires faith in the lack of a flyingspaghettimonster.
No it doesn't. Because "atheist" means belief in No-god."
Not, "lack of belief of all things"
That would be an extreme nihilist.
No it doesn't. Because "atheist" means belief in No-god."
Not, "lack of belief of all things"
That would be an extreme nihilist.
Upvote
0
Besides pulling my chain, is there any point in this remark?
As far as I can see, you have been trying to establish the idea that not believing in something is as much a belief as believing in it. The subject of this belief doesn´t seem to matter for this idea, does it?
"Atheist" means what the person speaking means.
There are several different common terminologies, as is documented in dictionaries.
Also, if going by the roots of this word, you can interprete it as "believer in the absence of a god" as well as "someone who is not a theist".
Since nobody here seems to use "atheist" for describing people who "lack belief of all things" (except maybe this one entertaining new christian poster), I have no idea what to do with this remark.
Upvote
0
Maybe you could use it as a lump of sugar when we go have a nice cup of tea together?
I think these rants at each other aren't constructive, as I always seem to come back at you aggressively, and you are forever finding some fault in my argument.
I think these rants at each other aren't constructive, as I always seem to come back at you aggressively, and you are forever finding some fault in my argument.
Upvote
0
No, not me, because to me"atheist" doesn´t mean a lump of sugar and I use this term in one of the common definitions - the one I have told you about.
"Forever" is a big word.
But, yes, I often find flaws in your argumentation, and I express my opinion. I thought that´s what we are here for.
In other instances I feel you might be onto something, but I don´t really understand what you are trying to establish and why. Then I ask cricical question in the hope the answer might help me spot your idea.
Anyways, if you feel uncomfortable with me and the way I respond, and if you´d like me to abstain from responding to your post and posting in your threads, just say it. It´s really no problem: I won´t impose myself on you anymore in this case. No hard feelings whatsoever.
Upvote
0
No, not me, because to me"atheist" doesn´t mean a lump of sugar and I use this term in one of the common definitions - the one I have told you about.
"Forever" is a big word.
But, yes, I often find flaws in your argumentation, and I express my opinion. I thought that´s what we are here for.
In other instances I feel you might be onto something, but I don´t really understand what you are trying to establish and why. Then I ask cricical question in the hope the answer might help me spot your idea.
Anyways, if you feel uncomfortable with me and the way I respond, and if you´d like me to abstain from responding to your post and posting in your threads, just say it. It´s really no problem: I won´t impose myself on you anymore in this case. No hard feelings whatsoever.
no, no...I'm alright......maybe we just need to discuss things in a more liberal situation, rather than in a two-way kind of head-on fashion.
Upvote
0
I would press the button.
As to the questions of "If you're dead, you can't care whether your family is alive." I can reasonably assume that my family members don't want to die, so, as my outcome would be the same regardless, I would do them the favor of saving their lives.
As to the questions of "If you're dead, you can't care whether your family is alive." I can reasonably assume that my family members don't want to die, so, as my outcome would be the same regardless, I would do them the favor of saving their lives.
Upvote
0
tiredimmigrant
Active Member
Yes, because they are dear to me. In fact, even if I did not have a short time to die, I would definitely press a button that could save my wife's life or the life of my child at the cost of mine. There is no others for whom I would do this.
The title says "question for atheists", so I assume a presumption tat an atheist may be less likely to press the button than a theist. This may be statistically so or it may not be statistically so; I have no idea. Importantly, it is not logically so.
It's important to understand that being an atheist simply says what you are *not*, it does not say what you are. If one does not believe in values as commands from God, then there are various other alternatives. One might be nihilistic, thinking there are no values. One might be utilitarian. One might be communist. One might be hedonist. Or, like me, one might be an Objectivist.
The type of answer would be different, depending on what philosophy the atheist holds, not based on what he does not hold (i.e., religion).
Upvote
0
CinNaMin46
Junior Member
This thread has survived 10 pages before someone finally asked this question. Amazing.
Upvote
0
Norseman
EAC Representative
- Apr 29, 2004
- 4,706
- 256
- 22
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Not true. Provided everyone doesn't commit suicide all at once, selflessness will work. Someone will do it before anyone else can, and the problem will be solved before the others can do anything about it. If they say they've got it, then everyone else can back off.
For example, let's say you have a squad of soldiers. They're all prepared to jump on a grenade if it lands in their trench. The first soldier to see a grenade can yell "I've got it!" and everyone else can take cover. You end up with only one guy dying instead of potentially half the squad. It's a working group survival strategy.
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
Still true.
"Selflessness can only be of value when there is someone selfish enough to accept it."
The other soldiers in the squad still have to be selfish enough to accept the selflessness of the first soldier.
And again, this would be a specialized case, where reaction speed and order of events play a role. Have every soldier singled out and presented with a situation where he alone could save everyone else.... and you would have a selfless stalemate.
Upvote
0
Well, no, actually, the "selfishness of the others soldiers", is not something which exists here.
If one person offers to do something, and you, being a selfless person wish to make life easy for them, then you would allow them to do it.
If they did not offer, however, you would do it yourself.
Why? Because arguing about who can take the rubbish out actually causes more agro and stress than nobody taking it out at all.
So, if one soldier gives himself for the cause, although all the other soldiers would give themselves to the cause - they have to be selfless enough to ALLOW the one soldier to do his job.
"It is not aggression which holds back the punch,
and it is not selfishness which holds back the tongue."
This means that by giving somebody else the "glorious death", they are infact being quite selfless in their attitude.
It would only be selfishness if none of the soldiers offered to sacrifice themselves, and pushed one of them forwards.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
