Atheism

Author: RaymondSheen
Atheism

Posts

Total: 302
Topic's author
#271
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
buddhists do not believe in immortal beings

and they seem nice enough
Yeah, sure. Weird, huh? But careful, boy! Behind closed doors they must be evil baby eating book learnin' folk. Unwashed heathens and godless canibal space aliens or something. 

#272
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Abstinence is a form of sex
exactly
#273
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 92
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Atheism is a form of theism
This is amazing
Abstinence is a form of sex
Ignorance is a form of knowledge and silence is a form of noise

Topic's author
#274
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@baggins
That may be what atheism is to you, and most of the militant atheists I've encountered online, but it doesn't make sense to me and it isn't what atheism has always been. Basically what you're saying is that only Christians, Jews and Muslims are theists and that isn't at all true. BK said somewhere, jokingly I assume, that he/she/it was theist because he believed in Thor. People who believe in gods are theists. It doesn't have to be anything but a god and a god can is anything or anyone that is venerated. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Bible doesn't understand that. It seems just the thinking of an ideologue.  
#275
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
That may be what atheism is to you, and most of the militant atheists I've encountered online, but it doesn't make sense to me and it isn't what atheism has always been. Basically what you're saying is that only Christians, Jews and Muslims are theists and that isn't at all true. BK said somewhere, jokingly I assume, that he/she/it was theist because he believed in Thor. People who believe in gods are theists. It doesn't have to be anything but a god and a god can is anything or anyone that is venerated. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Bible doesn't understand that. It seems just the thinking of an ideologue.  

by this measure

you are a polytheist
Topic's author
#276
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Double_R
@baggins
Abstinence is a form of sex
Ignorance is a form of knowledge and silence is a form of noise
Correct. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, silence is a lack of noise, atheism is a lack of gods, apolitical is a lack of politics. 

I'm apolitical. I lack politics. I know it exists, but I don't get involved. I don't trust (believe in) politics. I'm asexual, I like - sorry lack - sex, I'm asocial I lack social interaction, I'm irreligious, I lack organized religion, I'm theist I have gods. Everyone has gods, though, in some sense, everyone is theistic, but militant atheists have no part of it, don't trust specifically in the God of their culture. So much so, apparently, that they know little about it. Which is fine. BUT the word literally means the theory, doctrine and/or practice of no gods. Atheist. The prefix a, in this context, means without. Theos means god and ism means theory, doctrine, practice. Atheism is the theory, doctrine and practice of lacking gods. All gods. God means, literally, mighty/venerated. My silly illustration of the man on the planes with the bovine dung as a god wasn't a joke. The shit literally saved his life when he was powerless to do so on his own. Fertility gods, probably the most common gods, are about sex and crops. Procreation and agriculture. Noting to do with creator of the universe the Bible. 

Theism is the theory, doctrine, practice of gods, a is without it, but in some sense that is a theory, doctrine or practice of gods as well as theism is. Just the alternative. Consider atypical. If you are atypical, you are typically not typical in a general sense. All atypical things have a lack of being typical in some sense in common. 

Topic's author
#277
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. Specifically henotheism, like the Bible writers. Henotheism is the believe in one God above all, but other gods as well. Theist often make the mistake of thinking God is true and all other gods are false, but that isn't Biblical thinking. Jehovah made Moses God to Aaron and Pharaoh. Said the judges (of Israel) were gods. The angels he called gods. Jesus was a mighty god. 

Scripture: 

Exodus 7:1: Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

Exodus 4:14-16: Then Jehovah’s anger grew hot against Moses and he said: “Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I do know that he can really speak. And, besides, here he is on his way out to meet you. When he does see you, he will certainly rejoice in his heart. And you must speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I myself shall prove to be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach YOU men what YOU are to do. And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.


Psalm 82:1, 6: God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;  In the middle of the gods he judges: “I myself have said, ‘You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High."

Which Jesus quoted at John 10:33-34: The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?  

Jesus himself prophetically called mighty god at Isaiah 9:6.

The angels at Psalm 8:5. 

The Bible mentiones many gods. Some real, some not, some supernatural, some not, some creators, some not, some just idols - wood and stone. 




#278
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
The Bible mentiones many gods. Some real, some not, some supernatural, some not, some creators, some not, some just idols - wood and stone. 
how can you tell if a god is "false" ?
#279
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheism is what it is.

A term generally used to define the non adherence to popular deistic/theistic ideologies..

Though as ever, if one deconstructs the idea and expands upon definition, then the loose adherence to any social idea could be regarded as being theistic.

So in terms of the Biblical magician, I am atheistic.

But in terms of a GOD principle, I am open minded.

It all depends upon how one arranges words.

bingo
#280
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@cristo71
What about good, quick, poor, irrational, illogical thinking?

That's at least four more types.
Topic's author
#281
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
how can you tell if a god is "false" ?
It's subjective. They (the uninformed theists), like the same atheists, think God only means one God specifically, and in a sense it does. The uppercase G in God only signifies that within the context of a specific culture that god with the uppercase G is above, before, more significant than any other. So, in Christian culture is probably Jesus, in Jewish culture, Yahweh, in Muslim culture Allah, in Hindu culture Brahma etc. So, Christians and occidental atheists have that narrow unscriptural thinking which also effects translation.  

#282
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RaymondSheen
Everyone has gods, though, in some sense, everyone is theistic
This just comes down to whether we are speaking the same language. I know of not a single atheist who defines a god as anything other than a powerful supernatural being (at minimum). If you are calling anything else a god and using that redefinition of the word in your definition of atheism then you may be typing words into your browser but you are not communicating with anyone here.

BUT the word literally means the theory, doctrine and/or practice of no gods. Atheist. The prefix a, in this context, means without. Theos means god and ism means theory, doctrine, practice. Atheism is the theory, doctrine and practice of lacking gods.
If as you acknowledge that the "a" in atheism means without, then it literally means without the theory, practice, or doctrine. Therefore calling that a theory, practice, or doctrine is every bit as logically absurd as calling ignorance a form of knowledge.

Beyond that, I really don't understand why you insist on wasting time with this. Atheism is really simple; I do not hold the belief that a god exists. That's it, why the need to bootstrap all of this other garbage onto it? If you want to know what any individual thinks or believes why not just ask them? Why create a label that in the end won't apply to the millions of people who identify as atheists?

A much more worthwhile conversation I think is what should the term atheist should be thought to mean. Theists love to insists it means "the belief that no gods exist" which I would argue is logically untenable and an entirely useless definition. That would be much more interesting than diving through suffixes or claiming a lack of something really means the presence of that very thing.
#283
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
context of a specific culture that god
that's generally the implication when some random person asks, "do you beeleev inn god ?"
#284
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
then it literally means without the theory, practice, or doctrine
seems obvious
#285
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Mall
What about good, quick, poor, irrational, illogical thinking?

That's at least four more types.
Now, that is precious. What type of thinking is limited to a true/false dichotomy?
#286
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
A much more worthwhile conversation I think is what should the term atheist should be thought to mean.
what this boils down to

is the concept of "self identification"

some people think each person should be able to tell you what they want to call themself and why

some people think each person should adopt some sort of universal label regardless of what they might individually believe
#287
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R

"Here, let’s try another example. Tell me whether the following sentence is True or False:

“This sentence is false” "

False.

"Do you see the problem here?"

No no problem for me at least, I'm direct I said.
Even when you try to make a false equivocation I can demonstrate an example of being direct as possible.

No problem. Just being direct. If your answer was "neither", I didn't see you say that. If you didn't say it was because you weren't being direct. Directly saying something is saying the exact words to express want you were conveying indirectly because obviously the words " neither yes or no " I would of read. 

If you said those exact words , let me know where I missed them, thanks.

Topic's author
#288
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
that's generally the implication when some random person asks, "do you beeleev inn god ?"
Yes. God specific to that culture or whatever. Paul said: "There are many gods and many lords, but to us only one God and one Lord. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 The link I give is the Bible Hub, a good source for comparing scripture, and you can see how they've tried to make it look like the other gods are so-called gods, like they aren't real, but all Paul is saying is that their, the Christian God is Jehovah (almighty God) and their Lord (given authority) is Jesus Christ (mighty god). That's how the Bible presents it and it's universal. 

#289
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
That's how the Bible presents it and it's universal. 
depending on which christian you ask
#290
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@cristo71
None. When you think about what the truth is, you either think it to say what is true or false or you don't.
#291
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes and no ok.
#292
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mall
None. When you think about what the truth is, you either think it to say what is true or false or you don't.
very few statements have any detectable truth value
#293
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL

"very few statements have any detectable truth value"

Whatever that means.
Topic's author
#294
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
depending on which christian you ask
Depending on what the Bible says. Christianity is apostate. But in a sense you're right because I said it's universal. Earlier - somewhere - I said the God of modern day Christianity is Christ, but that isn't what the Bible presents, it isn't what Christ taught. To Christ, God was Jehovah. Jesus was Lord. Jehovah God almighty and Jesus a mighty god. Both Jehovah and Jesus were Lords. Meaning having authority. Jesus' authority was granted by his father, Jehovah. 
#295
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
"Here, let’s try another example. Tell me whether the following sentence is True or False:

“This sentence is false” "

False.

"Do you see the problem here?"

No no problem for me at least, I'm direct I said.

Even when you try to make a false equivocation I can demonstrate an example of being direct as possible.
Being direct is not something to be proud of when your answers are objectively wrong.

False is not the correct answer. If the sentence is false then that makes the sentence true. And in order for the sentence to be true it would have to be false. It's a logical contradiction whichever way you answer it, so the answer is neither true nor false.

The fact that I along with everyone else here is trying to educate you as to why you you do not seem to understand any of this does not mean we're not being direct. You are deeply confused.

If your answer was "neither", I didn't see you say that.
The whole point of this back and forth was to correct you on your claim that the answer was either a yes or a no. My answer was not the point, your inability to understand anything other than a yes or a no was.
Topic's author
#296
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Double_R
This just comes down to whether we are speaking the same language.
In every language ever known to mankind it's the same. 

I know of not a single atheist who defines a god as anything other than a powerful supernatural being (at minimum). If you are calling anything else a god and using that redefinition of the word in your definition of atheism then you may be typing words into your browser but you are not communicating with anyone here.
Then they're wrong. 

If as you acknowledge that the "a" in atheism means without, then it literally means without the theory, practice, or doctrine.
Early on in the thread I pointed out that the majority of atheists were apathetic. Not interested in theology, gods, the Bible, prayer in school, 10 commandments at the courthouse, evolution vs. creation, in God we trust on the money, abortion, gay marriage, bumper stickers, parades, billboards and forums like this. The a in theory, practice and doctrine applies to them but not to the militant atheist wo do, to a greater or lesser extent do care about many of those things. Often the militant atheist will point out, and rightly so, that they know more about the Bible and Christianity than the Christian. In the militant case tthe a is silent. 

Like the Rush song says, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. 

Therefore calling that a theory, practice, or doctrine is every bit as logically absurd as calling ignorance a form of knowledge.
A logical absurdity? Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. A lack of knowledge has nothing to do with knowledge? 

#297
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
what this boils down to

is the concept of "self identification"
Not really. I could call myself an atheist all day long, if I believe in a god I'm just being dishonest and if I do all of this while being open about my beliefs then I'm just butchering language and confusing everyone in the process.

You can call yourself whatever you want, I'm still going to categorize you in whatever way I think represents my conception of the label I apply to you. That's why it is important to understand what various labels really mean, which is why I always advocate for theists to engage in the conversation of what atheism should mean, rather than whatever they think it does. I think any theist who doesn't accept the "lack of belief" definition would learn a lot from it - if they are being honest.
#298
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Not really. I could call myself an atheist all day long, if I believe in a god I'm just being dishonest
sincerity is not quantifiable

take for example the question

"do you REALLY love me ?"
#299
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
This is another yes or no question but I couldn't help it.

I was direct with my answer wasn't I?
#300
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Mall
I guess I need to be more blunt:  your issue is that you are a binary thinker. That, and you’re a puppet. Not to say that being a puppet is easy— far from it: