Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

I’m just letting you know what some Christians think of you. I realize you couldn’t care less what anyone thinks of you, but I’m posting this for anyone else out there who wants to actually engage in what we used to call “soul winning” when I was a Christian.

So for anyone else, it’s probably best not to do what Gradyll does...



You seem to be projecting. There’s no reason for me to be bitter, since you’re leading people away from a religion that hold positions counter to what I think are “good”.

I don't see anthing I disagree with here. I wan't diciples of Jesus, not wishy washy christians who run away from God at the drop of a hat, whenever a trial happens, or the cares of the world, or temptation. And you dont want those christians either. So we are on the same team buddy. Now you can start liking me. Just kidding. I know you won't like me, because I am basically calling your baby ugly. And it is one ugly kid that atheism.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

they called Jesus a liar too. If Jesus was here, you would probably report Him too.

Sidestepping the issue instead of addressing it is often times something a guilty person does to try and feel better.

I’m sure you can get help for this issue, you just need to want to change.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sidestepping the issue instead of addressing it is often times something a guilty person does to try and feel better.

I’m sure you can get help for this issue, you just need to want to change.

sir it's your word against mine, and remember I believe that lying is a sin. You on the other hand don't believe in moral truth. So who is the christian who reads this thread going to believe?

just something to think about.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't see anthing I disagree with here. I wan't diciples of Jesus, not wishy washy christians who run away from God at the drop of a hat, whenever a trial happens, or the cares of the world, or temptation. And you dont want those christians either. So we are on the same team buddy. Now you can start liking me. Just kidding. I know you won't like me, because I am basically calling your baby ugly. And it is one ugly kid that atheism.

I don’t like or dislike you. But I’m appreciative that you think we’re on the same team.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

sir it's your word against mine, and remember I believe that lying is a sin. You on the other hand don't believe in moral truth. So who is the christian who reads this thread going to believe?

just something to think about.

Anyone who can read can see the multiple times you’ve put words in people’s mouths throughout your threads. I’m not the only one that’s commented on it.

After having multiple people say you’ve done something (and you denying it), the more well adjusted person stops to think “Hey, maybe it really is me”...

Just something to think about.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Still with the dishonesty.

It’s amazing, isn’t it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Anyone who can read can see the multiple times you’ve put words in people’s mouths throughout your threads. I’m not the only one that’s commented on it.

After having multiple people say you’ve done something (and you denying it), the more well adjusted person stops to think “Hey, maybe it really is me”...

Just something to think about.

I have not lied on this thread that I know of in years. I have been wrong, yes. I have been mistaken on someone's viewpoint, I agree. But so too many people put words in my mouth, and I am fine with it. I just correct the error. I don't get bitter and mad and point fingers. I think it makes you feel better about your own inequalities to call someone a liar. If I was to call you a liar, it just feels good inside, it justifies all of my ideologies as true in my mind, all because.....well you are the liar and not me. But I know you are not lying. At least I think you are not. I simply believe you don't know the truth and you are mistaken. See the difference in debate tactics of someone who believes in God and someone who doesn't? It should shame you. But it won't. And that is okay. I knew from day one what it entailed talking with you guys. I forgive you. But in all honesty I am humored that you feel I am the dishonest one and not yourselves.

 

[Moral Orel]

I just correct the error.

Never happened.

 

[createdtoworship]

Never happened.

how ya doing buddy? A few more weeks and well be talking again, hang in there.

 

[Moral Orel]

how ya doing buddy? A few more weeks and well be talking again, hang in there.

Oh, can't you see me shiver with antici...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Sir I have proven that the original word atheist(m), means a belief that there is no god. So again, if you can prove there is no god, then that word would be a good fit for you. But you cannot, and that is why I wonder why you call yourself by that term. Why not make up a different term? Using the same term, and redefining it is a fallacy of moving the goalposts. moving the goal posts is a tactic in debate used by the losing party to safe face. I have proven that atheists have moved the goal posts in the term that they attribute to themselves.

Your dictionary entries do not seem to make so convincing a case as you might think. Look at the first, from 1604: "Without God". Isn't that just what I said? And
The second one is much closer to your meaning, of course, but is it surprising that in a Christian society the word "atheist" would be given the meaning of "unbeliever" or "denier of God"? After all, another (now archaic) meaning of atheist is "immoral person" - but I'm sure you wouldn't be so uncharitable as to support its use today, would you?

Now take a look at what the dictionary says today:
the definition of atheism
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And Definition of ATHEISM
a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Also, regarding your proposal that we think of a new word, I wonder what word you would think of to describe "one who does not believe in gods" or "one who lacks a belief in gods".
Let's see...belief in gods is theism, and the prefix a (as in "a-political" or "a-moral") means "without" or "lacking" - so, if you were to coin a word to describe those who do not believe in God or gods, "atheism" would seem to be the correct one.

You are, I think, getting confused between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist. If you look at the bottom of any of @ToddNotTodd 's posts, you'll see a graphic which explains it for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your dictionary entries do not seem to make so convincing a case as you might think. Look at the first, from 1604: "Without God". Isn't that just what I said? And
The second one is much closer to your meaning, of course, but is it surprising that in a Christian society the word "atheist" would be given the meaning of "unbeliever" or "denier of God"? After all, another (now archaic) meaning of atheist is "immoral person" - but I'm sure you wouldn't be so uncharitable as to support its use today, would you?

Now take a look at what the dictionary says today:
the definition of atheism
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And Definition of ATHEISM
a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Also, regarding your proposal that we think of a new word, I wonder what word you would think of to describe "one who does not believe in gods" or "one who lacks a belief in gods".
Let's see...belief in gods is theism, and the prefix a (as in "a-political" or "a-moral") means "without" or "lacking" - so, if you were to coin a word to describe those who do not believe in God or gods, "atheism" would seem to be the correct one.

You are, I think, getting confused between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist. If you look at the bottom of any of @ToddNotTodd 's posts, you'll see a graphic which explains it for you.

but your dictionaries say the same thing.

"belief that there is no God"

and that is not any more verifiable than theism.

besides all dictionaries for english were written by christians and/or catholics.

before the government paid for education the primary source of education was the churches.

so if anything the term athiesm was coined by christians, and thus should still have the priority.

you can't have a group redefine what they are, after the fact.

that is the exact fallacy of moving the goal posts.

see, christians made the term, they coined it.

if you don't like what they did with it, don't use it.

don't redefine it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

but your dictionaries say the same thing.
"belief that there is no God"

And "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings", which sounds about right to me.
Also, "belief that there is no God" is correct too. Currently, I do not believe in God, because I have no evidence for Him. Since I do not believe in Him, I believe that He does not exist - that there is a universe, and that it does not contain a God.
Again, you're confusing theism with gnosticism here. The one is about belief, the other about knowledge.

besides all dictionaries for english were written by christians and/or catholics.
before the government paid for education the primary source of education was the churches.
so if anything the term athiesm was coined by christians, and thus should still have the priority.

You're quite right - the atheist, as it came into usage about five hundred years ago, was written by Christians. Should they be allowed to define the beliefs of another point of view on God? (I hesitate to say "religion"). How would you feel about a dictionary written by Muslims, for example, which defined a Christian as "a person who believes in the incomplete revelation of Jesus Christ, and who mistakenly refuses to convert to Islam"?

Do you see my point?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I am basically calling your baby ugly. And it is one ugly kid that atheism.

Please be more careful with your words, gradyll. The forum rules enjoin us to be respectful of Christianity. Should Christians not also be respectful of other belief systems?

 

[createdtoworship]

And "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings", which sounds about right to me.
Also, "belief that there is no God" is correct too. Currently, I do not believe in God, because I have no evidence for Him. Since I do not believe in Him, I believe that He does not exist - that there is a universe, and that it does not contain a God.
Again, you're confusing theism with gnosticism here. The one is about belief, the other about knowledge.

You're quite right - the atheist, as it came into usage about five hundred years ago, was written by Christians. Should they be allowed to define the beliefs of another point of view on God? (I hesitate to say "religion"). How would you feel about a dictionary written by Muslims, for example, which defined a Christian as "a person who believes in the incomplete revelation of Jesus Christ, and who mistakenly refuses to convert to Islam"?

Do you see my point?

you owe the presence of the term atheism to christians, so at least respect them enough not to change their definition. If you were truly respectful you would coin your own term, not move the goal posts by taking a term that is not yours, and redefining it in arrogance.

 

[RichardY]

Do you? I liken atheism to saying "I have seen no evidence that fairies exists, and therefore I am unable to believe that they do."

So...God is everywhere...and we haven't found Him anywhere...
How does this logic work?

But you could say the same about any exotic creature. As a fictitious entity; I would equate a fairy to a miniature nymphomaniac with wings. Where does social construction stop and reality begin? A horse would just be a horse, although, sometimes a symbol for the unconscious.

God as Ultimate reality, of which souls have their being. The self observing universe. Sometimes negatively equivalent to that meme, with a man sitting on a branch sawing it off. There are so many dimensions that we can be aware of, why not more theorised to exist. If it matches a sequence why not extrapolate.

I don't know. I think it would be like meeting whatever limits that are created by man and God. And then exceeding them. Like a self generating map.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

you owe the presence of the term atheism to christians, so at least respect them enough not to change their definition. If you were truly respectful you would coin your own term, not move the goal posts by taking a term that is not yours, and redefining it in arrogance.

But it is not me who is "taking the term" and "redefining it in arrogance". Nor is it atheists as a whole. It is society which has, it seems, correctly recognised that the definition of atheism needs to be redefined. Not that the definition was that wrong to begin with. So why aren't you happy to accept the dictionary definition of a word? And also, just out of interest, what word would you propose instead of it?

Really, gradyll, I'm not sure what you're bothering to argue about this for. An atheist is a person who lacks belief in God. That's what a-theism means, as a constructed word - the joining of "lack" with "belief in gods"; even in the sixteenth century, to be a-theistic still would have meant this, even if the dictionaries defined it (somewhat) differently.
And, as I've pointed out, the word also used to be used in a pejorative sense, as being synonymous with immoral; and I'm sure you wouldn't do that today.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

But you could say the same about any exotic creature. As a fictitious entity; I would equate a fairy to a miniature nymphomaniac with wings. Where does social construction stop and reality begin? A horse would just be a horse, although, sometimes a symbol for the unconscious.

God as Ultimate reality, of which souls have their being. The self observing universe. Sometimes negatively equivalent to that meme, with a man sitting on a branch sawing it off. There are so many dimensions that we can be aware of, why not more theorised to exist. If it matches a sequence why not extrapolate.

I don't know. I think it would be like meeting whatever limits that are created by man and God. And then exceeding them. Like a self generating map.

Yes, we could say the same about any supernatural creature, since nobody has ever observed the supernatural or proved that it exists. therefore, if someone says "Fairies/God/unicorns are real," the natural and sensible reaction is to say, "Really? How do you know?" And then, if they can't, you will say, "Then I am an a-theist/a-fairyist/a-unicornist". And if they then said, "Have you searched the whole universe for a fairy/unicorn/God? No? Then you have to believe in it!" you would, again perfectly sensibly, point out the error of their thinking, just as the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell did.

 

[createdtoworship]

But it is not me who is "taking the term" and "redefining it in arrogance". Nor is it atheists as a whole. It is society which has, it seems, correctly recognised that the definition of atheism needs to be redefined. Not that the definition was that wrong to begin with. So why aren't you happy to accept the dictionary definition of a word? And also, just out of interest, what word would you propose instead of it?

Really, gradyll, I'm not sure what you're bothering to argue about this for. An atheist is a person who lacks belief in God. That's what a-theism means, as a constructed word - the joining of "lack" with "belief in gods"; even in the sixteenth century, to be a-theistic still would have meant this, even if the dictionaries defined it (somewhat) differently.
And, as I've pointed out, the word also used to be used in a pejorative sense, as being synonymous with immoral; and I'm sure you wouldn't do that today.

no not all words are defined by the transliteration of their original language. That would be errorsome to do that. Sometimes you can, but many times you cannot transliterate that way. That is why dictionaries were made. So you follow the original dictionaries. Athiesm means a belief that no God exists. Which is not verifiable.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

no not all words are defined by the transliteration of their original language. That would be errorsome to do that. Sometimes you can, but many times you cannot transliterate that way. That is why dictionaries were made. So you follow the original dictionaries. Athiesm means a belief that no God exists. Which is not verifiable.

Follow the original dictionaries instead of the modern ones? What a strange idea.
Look up the history of the word itself, and you will find it has a considerably older and richer history than a dictionary entry in sixteenth-century France. As yu can see here, "atheos" - godless, or ungodly".

Also - are you not planning to reply to me about what word you would suggest for a person who lacks a belief in God or gods?