I can believe GOD exist in general and you can believe GOD exists in the form of a unicorn. We do not have to agree on the physical form of GOD to both believe in the existence.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does God Suffer From Vanity?
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
I can believe GOD exist in general and you can believe GOD exists in the form of a unicorn. We do not have to agree on the physical form of GOD to both believe in the existence.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Most atheists do not take anything in faith without proof. This is a concept very hard to understand for people who live their entire life within a religious environment. They cannot imagine how to think without the guidance of a religion. So they invent such twisted logic as believing in "non belief." They don't even realize how laughable this is.
Without proof ? Atheist do not believe in the existence of GOD without proof of non existence. The backbone of the religion is an argument from ignorance.
"The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
Atheists demonstrate "their faith" that there is no god by displaying nothing. Consequently, when judges remove all other religious symbols from public property, the space is filled with nothing the symbol of only one faith ... Atheism.
I have been chosen to deliver "us" the message?
Oy vey...
I really don't understand what your problem is TK9...
All I can figure is that you, like so many others around here, live in past threads...or past chat rooms, as the case may be.
Try the present for a change...
You appear so badly beaten and bruised that you simply can't stay in present time and present topics...
Oy vey...
I really don't understand what your problem is TK9...
All I can figure is that you, like so many others around here, live in past threads...or past chat rooms, as the case may be.
Try the present for a change...
You appear so badly beaten and bruised that you simply can't stay in present time and present topics...
Quote from Thunderdog:
I keep forgetting that you have been chosen to deliver us "the message." How forgetful of me. If I may suggest, in order that this fine message of yours may endure and stand the test of time, perhaps you should store it in a place of safekeeping where it will be clear of all the sun's harmful rays. No doubt, as the chosen one, you have already surmised that ideal location where it will always be within your reach for ready reference.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You appear so badly beaten and bruised that you simply can't stay in present time and present topics...
Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in Z's world? All his assertions here have been shown for what they are. It has been made clear by T-Dog and others that his arguments are simply opinion and have no basis in fact at all.
And the result? All he has to do is post that he wins. That's it. Or maybe repeat the 'I know you are but what am I' line.
Chalk another one up for Z - he wins by losing.
Right, they are not born with religion or theism. Without religion - non religion. Without theism - atheism.Quote from ddunbar:
I never thought or said a human is born with a religion/theism. But what is plain is that humans are born with the propensity or predisposition to either conjure up a theism or readily accept one. .
They are born with an innate propensity. Agreed. There onwards you have argued by truism . They are not born with THE ____ (fill in the blank) innate propensity. Those items in the blank are secondary and somewhat academic to what is innate at birth. Theism is not therefore atheism is, in its most basic uncluttered definition , but it is so because we know theism exists in the world.
With respect ddunbar you are the one playing with semantics. Giving limited meaning to suit your argument. Restricting atheism to something other than its original construct form and meaning is a semantic ploy.Quote from ddunbar:
It is a semantic ploy used with the intention of gaining acceptance for the worldview.
...
Atheism is a worldview. (Hence the suffix "ism.") And an atheist is someone who subscribes to that worldview. Plain and simple. Why? Because atheism must invariably address the ultimate questions.
You want to put a prefix on a word already prefixed because you will not accept the word in its original form?Quote from ddunbar:
On the other hand: If a prefix or qualifying word were added before the word "atheist," perhaps it would then be fitting.
Quote from ddunbar:
For instance: If I say, "She's an American." Given the common use of the word, you would automatically assume I'm talking about a citizen of the United States. What if I used that term to describe an citizen of Panama? Or Brazil? That would be wrong on my part. SO then I'd have to add a qualifier. "She's a Central American" or "she's a South American."
Introducing a separate unconnected example as a means to prove a point is frought with complication.
We were discussing what is actually innate at birth. I am arguing atheism is. Adding a qualifier to a description which already has one (an 'a') is sort of missing the point.
But anyway please note how your propensity argument above is doing, in its actual form as per your illustration...
- We have innate propensity. (the premise)
We have a propensity to citizenship. ( following your argument top of page)
Citizenship is not innate. (agreed ?)
therefore we do not have an innate propenisty to citizenship
Before weak /strong, all atheists were unthinkable 'Godless evil heathen fiends'. A reflection on how a general labeling in that way imbedded one main overall description of atheist, miles away from its original. It is that inference which I see you pereptuating, although to a lesser degree.Quote from ddunbar:
That's why qualifiers such as "strong" or "weak" have been added to atheist. Weak would be the more inclusive term to include agnostics and in some cases those of the Eastern philosophies.
Pesky semantics again. You only need go back to the original etymology and meaning. Simply with God - without God. No necessity for all the other clutter and add-ons. No further inference need apply. Atheist is not a nasty word.Quote from ddunbar:
Perhaps "non-cognitive atheist" would be somewhat appropriate for babies. But I'd still suggest a qualifier word between "non-cog" and "atheist" so as not to confuse it with subjectivism or emotivism - something which would more aptly apply to the stage of a human's development post infant.
Leaves the clearest position possible. Do we see any newborn baby innately with God/theist or without God/atheist? It is, they all are, the latter.
Children are not born with a functioning intellect beyond a very primitive state, unable to crawl, yada, yada, yada.
Next stop from stuey: "A aborted fetus is an atheist."
Yawn...
Please, tell me that you have something better than this to rationalize your infantile atheistic condition with this ridiculous argument you are propping up with so much rubbish*.
*I use the word rubbish now in posts to you as much as possible, as I have discovered rubbish appears to be in your mind a lot...
Next stop from stuey: "A aborted fetus is an atheist."
Yawn...
Please, tell me that you have something better than this to rationalize your infantile atheistic condition with this ridiculous argument you are propping up with so much rubbish*.
*I use the word rubbish now in posts to you as much as possible, as I have discovered rubbish appears to be in your mind a lot...
Quote from stu:
Right, they are not born with religion or theism. Without religion - non religion. Without theism - atheism.
They are born with an innate propensity. Agreed. There onwards you have argued by truism . They are not born with THE ____ (fill in the blank) innate propensity. Those items in the blank are secondary and somewhat academic to what is innate at birth. Theism is not therefore atheism is, in its most basic uncluttered definition , but it is so because we know theism exists in the world.
With respect ddunbar you are the one playing with semantics. Giving limited meaning to suit your argument. Restricting atheism to something other than its original construct form and meaning is a semantic ploy.
You want to put a prefix on a word already prefixed because you will not accept the word in its original form?
Introducing a separate unconnected example as a means to prove a point is frought with complication.
We were discussing what is actually innate at birth. I am arguing atheism is. Adding a qualifier to a description which already has one (an 'a') is sort of missing the point.
But anyway please note how your propensity argument above is doing, in its actual form as per your illustration...
Before weak /strong, all atheists were unthinkable 'Godless evil heathen fiends'. A reflection on how a general labeling in that way imbedded one main overall description of atheist, miles away from its original. It is that inference which I see you pereptuating, although to a lesser degree.
- We have innate propensity. (the premise)
We have a propensity to citizenship. ( following your argument top of page)
Citizenship is not innate. (agreed ?)
therefore we do not have an innate propenisty to citizenship
Pesky semantics again. You only need go back to the original etymology and meaning. Simply with God - without God. No necessity for all the other clutter and add-ons. No further inference need apply. Atheist is not a nasty word.
Leaves the clearest position possible. Do we see any newborn baby innately with God/theist or without God/atheist? It is, they all are, the latter.
Man creates Gods because:
A) We don't wanna die. God=Afterlife. Therefore, we never really become "nothingness", we live on and on. And we feel the same way about the ones we love. A parent loses a child, for most the only way they can even begin to deal w/something so horrible is to know that their child is w/God, in "a better place". And who can blame them for that? But it doesn't make it the truth. It's just human psychology.
B) We have to believe Morality is real, that it does not just exist in the mind of man. How could Hitler possibly be in the same place after death as my poor Sainted Mother? Morality is handed down from God, and he judges our deeds accordingly.
C) We use God to explain that which we don't understand, like the whole nature of life.
D) We have someone to thank when our team scores the winning run/touchdown/basket/goal.
As someone once said: "If God didn't exist, we would create him."
H
A) We don't wanna die. God=Afterlife. Therefore, we never really become "nothingness", we live on and on. And we feel the same way about the ones we love. A parent loses a child, for most the only way they can even begin to deal w/something so horrible is to know that their child is w/God, in "a better place". And who can blame them for that? But it doesn't make it the truth. It's just human psychology.
B) We have to believe Morality is real, that it does not just exist in the mind of man. How could Hitler possibly be in the same place after death as my poor Sainted Mother? Morality is handed down from God, and he judges our deeds accordingly.
C) We use God to explain that which we don't understand, like the whole nature of life.
D) We have someone to thank when our team scores the winning run/touchdown/basket/goal.
As someone once said: "If God didn't exist, we would create him."
H
Quote from volente_00:
Without proof ? Atheist do not believe in the existence of GOD without proof of non existence. The backbone of the religion is an argument from ignorance.
"The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
Atheists demonstrate "their faith" that there is no god by displaying nothing. Consequently, when judges remove all other religious symbols from public property, the space is filled with nothing the symbol of only one faith ... Atheism.
You do not believe in the existence of three-headed monsters without proof of non existence. Why do you hold such a blind faith in the non existence of three-headed monsters?
Can you answer me why comparisons to God are made utilizing concepts that are not the same as the concept of God?
Apart form TK9 who thinks that flying unicorns are the origin of all biological life, the examples you provide are not on par with the concept of God.
Apart form TK9 who thinks that flying unicorns are the origin of all biological life, the examples you provide are not on par with the concept of God.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
You do not believe in the existence of three-headed monsters without proof of non existence. Why do you hold such a blind faith in the non existence of three-headed monsters?
You may think that we are on the same track, but we are not. You see, unless you specifically believe in the Almightly Flying Unicorn as your Lord and Savior, then you are destined to burn in hellfire for eternity. It seems that several religions worship a lesser God that is thusly vain. Unfortunately for you, the Almighty Fliying Unicorn is no different in this regard. Except for the fact that he is the One True God. I will pray for your salvation, but don't get your hopes up.Quote from volente_00:
I can believe GOD exist in general and you can believe GOD exists in the form of a unicorn. We do not have to agree on the physical form of GOD to both believe in the existence.