God Salts Reality With Miracles

[Nathan Poe]

I say stick to the Biblical definition and there won't be any ... er ... nevermind.

I wish you would stick to the Biblical definition -- as opposed to your own mangling of it.

 

[Jazer]

No, we're not. Atheist means "not a theist", just like achromatic means not coloured, and atypical means not typical.

One can be "not a theist" for a few reasons, agnosticism is one, as is evidence to the contrary.

It means anti theist. To be against theism.
Otherwise they would be called ntheism. N as in nill or none or not.
People that come here are against theism and they fight against theism. .

 

[hasone]

It means anti theist. To be against theism.
Otherwise they would be called ntheism. N as in nill or none or not.
People that come here are against theism and they fight against theism. .

That's twice I've noticed you making a sweeping , generalized, and vague statement. Since you never responded to my last reply to one of those, I won't bother going into detail with this one.

As I'm sure somebody will explain, your post is wrong. I can't find a single sentence in it that's true. Perhaps the fourth, but I have my doubts.

 

[Jazer]

No, we're not. Atheist means "not a theist", just like achromatic means not coloured, and atypical means not typical.

One can be "not a theist" for a few reasons, agnosticism is one, as is evidence to the contrary.

I see no evidence to back up what you say. The people that come here are Anti God, Anti Christianity and Anti Religion. Usually they come here looking for a fight. As if they are angry about something.

With God there is no middle ground. He will not accept lukewarm.

(Rev 3:16 NKJV) "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

If as you say they did not reject God, then maybe God rejected them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I see no evidence to back up what you say. The people that come here are Anti God, Anti Christianity and Anti Religion.

You sure you're not confusing that with anti-you?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

It means anti theist. To be against theism.
Otherwise they would be called ntheism. N as in nill or none or not.
People that come here are against theism and they fight against theism. .

Just for petes sake start using words the same way everybody else is or atleast accept that your usage is an extreme minority and dont equivocate it with the usage of everybody else.

How about whenever somebody calls themselfs an atheist you think to yourself "Oh he means what I personally would call an non theist." and be done with it? (I do that generally with agnostics really, if a lil scornfully )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
This here is what the world uses, feel free to ignore it.

 

[Nostromo]

It means anti theist. To be against theism.
Otherwise they would be called ntheism. N as in nill or none or not.
People that come here are against theism and they fight against theism. .

If that's true then why do you use agnostic according to my definition rather than yours?

 

[Tiberius]

It doesn't matter to the point of this thread.

Let me repeat:

At some point in time, a miracle HAS to be invoked along the chain, or science will win hands down.

So until we get evidence of a miracle having occured, we'll assume that science is winning, yes?

 

[Skavau]

It means anti theist. To be against theism.
Otherwise they would be called ntheism. N as in nill or none or not.
People that come here are against theism and they fight against theism. .

As an anti-theist, I object to your mangling of terms.

 

[AV1611VET]

As an anti-theist, I object to your mangling of terms.

Do you object to atheists being called what Jesus called them? (lost)

Or what Paul called them? (dead)

Or what David called them? (fools)

 

[Skavau]

Do you object to being called what Jesus called them? (lost)

Or what Paul called them? (dead)

That's just hyperbole. Jazer's trying to change definitions.

 

[Tiberius]

AV, do you think atheists are fools?

 

[Jade Margery]

You don't know me very well, do you?

No, I don't -- qv my profile.

I don't mess with evidence whatsoever.

But I'm sure you'll be glad to say I'm still wrong, won't you?

So either way: trying to back it up with evidence, or not messing with evidence; I'm wrong, aren't I?

I find it telling (and a bit annoying) that you only ever respond to one sentence or one point in a person's post, and I'm wondering if your attention span is capable of handling multiple ideas in the same message. To test this, I shall repost part of my earlier message, bolding areas I would like to see you respond to specifically.

Earlier post:

I would like to know of you, why is the alternative worse? Why is living in a godless world such a terrible prospect to you? What would it change in your life?

Or for that matter, why is the alternative that the bible is a collection of stories and metaphors and not exact historical accounts such a terrible thing? Jesus taught in metaphors--why couldn't the OT have been god's teaching metaphors? Would knowing the bible isn't literal really change your faith or your life?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, do you think atheists are fools?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it telling (and a bit annoying) that you only ever respond to one sentence or one point in a person's post, and I'm wondering if your attention span is capable of handling multiple ideas in the same message. To test this, I shall repost part of my earlier message, bolding areas I would like to see you respond to specifically.

Earlier post:

I would like to know of you, why is the alternative worse? Why is living in a godless world such a terrible prospect to you? What would it change in your life?

Or for that matter, why is the alternative that the bible is a collection of stories and metaphors and not exact historical accounts such a terrible thing? Jesus taught in metaphors--why couldn't the OT have been god's teaching metaphors? Would knowing the bible isn't literal really change your faith or your life?

I'm not going to subject myself to an inquisition.

It usually starts out with an innocent question that is easy to answer; then, before you know it, you're caught-up in 20 or 30 questions, most of which are couched in terms of ridicule and venting.

 

[Split Rock]

AV, do you think atheists are fools?

Yes.

It usually starts out with an innocent question that is easy to answer; then, before you know it, you're caught-up in 20 or 30 questions, most of which are couched in terms of ridicule and venting.

There goes my irony meter!

 

[Split Rock]

That's easy to answer: the alternative is much worse.

To agree with you guys, for even a moment, would eventually snowball into the whole of Scripture being dismissed.

Jonah couldn't have lived in the whale's belly w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

The Flood could not have occurred w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

You get my point, I'm sure.

But to allow science -- even just one little teensie-weensie equation to slip in and pwn even a jot or tittle of the Bible, and it's over.

But it isn't about pwning the bible... its about pwning your fallible interpretation of the bible. If your interpretation of scripture is wrong, should it be pwned or not? Yes or no?

 

[AV1611VET]

There goes my irony meter!

Your irony meter aside, we call it basic doctrine.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it isn't about pwning the bible... its about pwning your fallible interpretation of the bible. If your interpretation of scripture is wrong, should it be pwned or not? Yes or no?

I think I made my point clearly enough that it doesn't need Arab phoned.

 

[Jade Margery]

I'm not going to subject myself to an inquisition.

It usually starts out with an innocent question that is easy to answer; then, before you know it, you're caught-up in 20 or 30 questions, most of which are couched in terms of ridicule and venting.

You are the one who made the initial statement that 'the alternative is worse'.

I think 'why?' is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question to that. If you didn't want people to ask you questions, why would you start a thread in the first place? Why are you happy to answer everyone else's posts, but mine is 'an inquisition'?

Why are you afraid of answering a question directly?

Or perhaps more pertinently, why should I make an effort to understand your point of view when my attempts to do so are blatantly ignored or refused based on some future 'ridicule and venting' that I have not participated in?

Perhaps the moral of the story is that refusing to answer a reasonable 'easy' question just spawns more of them.