Atheists do not deny a God exists.

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Right... if you got a hold of the elephant's tail... you sure have a great idea of the elephant is like, don'tcha? That tail is all that's worth thinking about...

So now you're saying that any one person's view of God is far too limited; that theists are all overstating their cases? I didn't get that impression from your previous comments on God.

But anyway, you didn't make a proper response: the elephant is reconcilable because one part is like a rope, another like a tree trunk, another like a snake and so on. But God is not reconcilable into part personal, part order out of chaos. It just doesn't work.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Do you want someone who says.. there is no absolute right or wrong, that justice and mercy are purely subjective, that we base our policy, ethics, morality and laws on whatever I feel is politically correct at the moment, that it all depends on what the definition of "is" is... do you want that person in a place of responsibility?

You appear to have confused atheism with amorality. Try again, with less prejudice.

Or, instead maybe who says, there is an ultimate authority to whom I am responsible, that I will be held accountable for my actions by a Supreme Being, that humanity, freedom and equality are sacred because of an ultimate immutable law of the universe... not because you or I or anyone thinks or says so... today.

I'd prefer to keep the deluded out of office, but if it doesn't impair their ability to rule, then it can hardly be fair to do so.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Sorry, anffyddwyr, but most atheists don't state categorically that a God does not exist, know in their bones a God does not exist, consider the very concept is ridiculous to them :). That is strong atheism, which is pretty much completely illogical as you can't prove that God doesn't exist, as I've explained before on several posts.

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE, KCDAD!

Yes, another woeful inconsistency from the atheists, with a poster who appears only to have read the first post coincidentally agreeing precisely with what all the other atheists have been saying all along!

(Thanks, Alchemist! :thumbsup:)
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Anffyddwyr... you are obviously NOT a true atheist


Bzzt, wrong. He is an atheist, he, if he still believes what he said in the first post, is a strong atheist. "Atheist" means anyone who lacks a belief in God. If they also disbelieve God, then they also clearly lack a belief in God.

You same to have a problem with words, KCDAD. You can't seem to accept that "atheist" can apply to more than one type of belief. You can't seem to fathom how theist could have a general meaning and specific meaning at the same time.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Ya --- I noticed that.

Have you noticed that when you take God off the throne, then anything you put in His place becomes your idol?

Whether it's the humanists' trinity (me, myself, and I), alcohol (spirits), or your job, it becomes your idol.

There's one word that sums all this up: nonsense. I'm sure it makes you very happy to think that all us atheists are filling up the vast space your God vacated, but in my experience, we do just fine without him. We don't need to worship ourselves, material objects or careers. We don't need to worship the earth or the sun, even.

But, to take it a step further, whenever you use that idol as evidence that god doesn't exist (as atheists do with nature), then it becomes more than just an idol; it becomes your god.

Pure, unadultered, nonsense. Perhaps you need to put down your Bible and pick up a dictionary, paying attention to the words "God," and "Worship."

The Bible says otherwise.

Oh puhleeze. You might have to do everything the Bible tells you to, I do not, and I am quite happy to worship absolutely nothing. I pay reverent homage to nothing, right now - although I suppose I could if I wanted to.

If you want to continue this discussion in a productive manner, stop quoting the Bible and start telling us how on earth anyone can be said to "pay reverent homage" to nature, simply by treating it as that which exists.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Jesus says otherwise:

[bible]Matthew 4:4[/bible]

Gawd dangit! I wonder why I'm not keeping the Sabbath holy, or why I occasionally take the Lord's name in vain. Or, according to you, hold other Gods before him...

Anyway, quote since you ignored it:

Me said:
If you want to continue this discussion in a productive manner, stop quoting the Bible and start telling us how on earth anyone can be said to "pay reverent homage" to nature, simply by treating it as that which exists.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's correct. Like others here, I see no way to logically or sensibly try to uphold a universal negative. There is no way to support the idea that there is no god. But just like our discussion earlier about the teapot orbiting Mars, I see no reason to believe in something without positive evidence.

Does that make me an atheist?
Not according to reason or tradition... it makes you agnostic... how appropriate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You've said this already, and I've looked in the dictionary, and in the encyclopedia, and they do not agree with you. I would rather go with my own experience and the word of the dictionary, which both coincide, than with your singular opinion.

Unless you have something new to add to the debate, this is the end of it. According to the dictionary, theism means, in general belief in God, especially but not necessarily in a personal one.
How can you just lie and not have little smilies and lols all over the post? I posted at least twice the Columbia University definition and others that are specific about the difference between theism, deism and other god beliefs. What definitions are you posting from? AtheistsRus.com?

Theism means belief in a personal interceding God. It is not deisim and is not pantheism... do you think they just make up words to make you happy? "We have a perfect word that means nothing so lets create other words that mean the same thing... er the same lack of something." That is probably why you are an atheist... because you think people are just ignorant superstitious morons if they use words you don't understand.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So now you're saying that any one person's view of God is far too limited; that theists are all overstating their cases? I didn't get that impression from your previous comments on God.

But anyway, you didn't make a proper response: the elephant is reconcilable because one part is like a rope, another like a tree trunk, another like a snake and so on. But God is not reconcilable into part personal, part order out of chaos. It just doesn't work.
Because you think everyone is as closed minded as you are... I never implied that theists are 100% right about anything... in fact, if you go back you will see that I don't consider myself much of a theist. I think God, whether you call Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Jupiter, Allah, YHWH, The Great Spirit or Bob, is the same God... we see God through our language constructs, culture, environment and traditions... so they are all gonna appear differently.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You appear to have confused atheism with amorality. Try again, with less prejudice.



I'd prefer to keep the deluded out of office, but if it doesn't impair their ability to rule, then it can hardly be fair to do so.
No confusion... no creation, no morality. If it is all survival of the fittest, if it all natural selection, morality has no place and is in fact counter productive to the well being of the species. (As we can see from the rapid decline in civilization in recent decades as Science and Government continues to artificially support "unfit" gene pools.

(Before you get all high and mighty about this ... realize that I just spoke for Herbert Spencer and all the other Social Biologists that tried to put Darwins theory to governmental policies 100 years ago. Those same theory that lead to the idea of superior races of man)
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
HERE'S ANOTHER ONE, KCDAD!

Yes, another woeful inconsistency from the atheists, with a poster who appears only to have read the first post coincidentally agreeing precisely with what all the other atheists have been saying all along!

(Thanks, Alchemist! :thumbsup:)

[/size][/font][/size][/color][/font]Bzzt, wrong. He is an atheist, he, if he still believes what he said in the first post, is a strong atheist. "Atheist" means anyone who lacks a belief in God. If they also disbelieve God, then they also clearly lack a belief in God.

You same to have a problem with words, KCDAD. You can't seem to accept that "atheist" can apply to more than one type of belief. You can't seem to fathom how theist could have a general meaning and specific meaning at the same time.

And I thought you were starting to be consistent.

No... I don't understand how to carry on a conversation when the words you use change their meaning. Is it like calling your girlfriend a "ho"? It can mean a nice thing or a mean thing... right?

So all atheists agree now? ALL ? Apparently not. How could they agree... you keep telling me and others keep telling me there is nothing to agree upon... a rock is an atheist, a baby is an atheist, Sam Harris is an atheist, Socrates was an atheist, Thomas Jefferson was an atheist, Mickey Mouse is an atheist... Voltaire, Hume, Kant, Spinoza, Marx, Einstein, Hawking... even me! Great! Everybody is an atheist ... wait a minute... you got me as both an atheist and a theist... how does that work?

I know.. I am a weak theist and strong atheist... right?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Come come now what is the little elephant with the caption US Republican doing on your profile?
I am a registered Republican... it has nothing to do with anything except politics. It only means I feel more confident in getting decent government from one side of the corrupt jerks than the other. I haven't heard a Democrat I could trust (now that Leiberman left the party) since Scoop.
 
Upvote 0

Mumbo

Eekum bokum
Apr 17, 2007
436
14
Seattle, WA
✟15,644.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No confusion... no creation, no morality. If it is all survival of the fittest, if it all natural selection, morality has no place and is in fact counter productive to the well being of the species. (As we can see from the rapid decline in civilization in recent decades as Science and Government continues to artificially support "unfit" gene pools.
I think I've mentioned this at least half a dozen times on this board, but the theory of evolution is not a philosophy. That said, morality isn't particularly a problem for the theory; if helping others aids in one's own survival, the tendency to do so will spread through a population.
(Before you get all high and mighty about this ... realize that I just spoke for Herbert Spencer and all the other Social Biologists that tried to put Darwins theory to governmental policies 100 years ago. Those same theory that lead to the idea of superior races of man)
This is neither here nor there. Just because scientific theories can be applied for immoral purposes, that doesn't make the theories themselves immoral. Besides, even if the the theory of evolution was evil incarnate, that wouldn't make it untrue.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 11, 2004
107
8
65
New Jersey
✟7,772.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No confusion... no creation, no morality.

Ridiculous! Morality clearly evolved. We see other animals posses their own set of morals.

If it is all survival of the fittest, if it all natural selection, morality has no place and is in fact counter productive to the well being of the species.

Totally incorrect. Many species live in communities, they survive because they rely on other members of their community. They survive because they live in communities. They have evolved to live in communities.
We all know that "survival of the fittest" was nothing more than a sound bite coined by Spencer and does little to convey the complexity of the theory of evolution. So you are demonstratably wrong with your statement, morality does have a place in evolution and is best explained by the theory of evolution.

As we can see from the rapid decline in civilization in recent decades as Science and Government continues to artificially support "unfit" gene pools.

Gee, I haven't seen civilization declining yet, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger......

Those same theory that lead to the idea of superior races of man

The theory of evolution certainly didn't lead to the idea of superior races of man......
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ridiculous! Morality clearly evolved. We see other animals posses their own set of morals.



Totally incorrect. Many species live in communities, they survive because they rely on other members of their community. They survive because they live in communities. They have evolved to live in communities.
We all know that "survival of the fittest" was nothing more than a sound bite coined by Spencer and does little to convey the complexity of the theory of evolution. So you are demonstratably wrong with your statement, morality does have a place in evolution and is best explained by the theory of evolution.



Gee, I haven't seen civilization declining yet, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger......



The theory of evolution certainly didn't lead to the idea of superior races of man......
Really? You studies the same history I did... what is the basis for a master race, then? What makes The Roma and Jews inferior?
 
Upvote 0