to the atheists on the board

[slammajamma]

Aphexcoil is wrong. Agnostic does not connote ignorance or confusion, it indicates a mind not yet made up on the issue of the existence of God.

atheist can mean a belief that God does not exist, but it can also mean simply not holding the belief that God exists.

As difficult as that may be for some, especially believers, there are those for whom God is not an issue whatsoever. Disbelief is active denial. Atheism can be disbelief, but it can also be neutrality.

ARogueTrader wants to use boolean logic, so here goes:

+1 = God is.
-1 = God is not.
0 = god?

 

[ARogueTrader]

My point is this:

Without the ability to form a concept, there can be no belief. All beliefs have their basis in concept first. First you conceive, then, and only then can you choose to accept or reject that concept as true.

Once a concept is understood clearly, the mind will automatically accept or reject that concept based on previously accepted and rejected concepts.

Once someone has a concept of God in their mind, they necessarily must choose to reject or accept that concept as true. That is the logical response.

If they say, "I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion" they are in effect saying that they would know what information would be necessary to reach a conclusion!

They are saying they have a criteria to meet in order to accept the concept as true, which in essence is a rejection of the truth of that concept as they don't accept that concept as true.

If someone has no idea what they would need to reach a conclusion, they are in fact just a confused zero...and certainly not God.

Quote from slammajamma:

Aphexcoil is wrong. Agnostic does not connote ignorance or confusion, it indicates a mind not yet made up on the issue of the existence of God.

atheist can mean a belief that God does not exist, but it can also mean simply not holding the belief that God exists.

As difficult as that may be for some, especially believers, there are those for whom God is not an issue whatsoever. Disbelief is active denial. Atheism can be disbelief, but it can also be neutrality.

ARogueTrader wants to use boolean logic, so here goes:

+1 = God is.
-1 = God is not.
0 = god?

 

[axeman]

Amazing... I point out the obvious flaw in your analogy,
and you just use the same one again.


One more time...since your obviously SLOOOW:

Unlike your stupid analogy, atheists are not mentally
incompetent to form a definition.
Not only that... but I did not soley rely on atheists for the definition
but college professors and experts in the field of atheism.


So here is a question for you:

The real expert in defining THEISM would be:

1) Theist philosophers, theists and theistic organizations
2) Atheistic authors of dictionaries


Well ART? Which is it gonna be.
Answer this question instead of running away.

peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

The real expert in defining a manic depressive schizophrenic episode would be:

A. The manic depressive schizophrenic.
B. The Clinical psychologist.

 

[stu]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

It depends on what person you met on the street. Some might tell you that a plant is an atheist.

..or that God is for real.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Yes, some will tell you that they believe in God, quite right.

Some will tell you they believe in the theory of evolution.

Some will tell you they believe in love.

Quote from stu:

..or that God is for real.

 

[axeman]

Actually, to quote him he said:

Yet many atheists do not,

He said MANY atheist, not some as you claimed.

... and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots.

Here he points out that the root meaning does not support the layman version.

... In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist

And here is the final blow. An atheist would simply be someone
without a belief in god.
He is clearly arguing for this definition and uses the fact that
many atheists support this version and that the language
itself even supports this definition.

This is perfectly in line with philosophy profs Ive discussed this
with and atheist organizations such as American Atheists,
and authors on atheism.


peace

axeman

Quote from jem:

O.K. that guy might qualify as an expert if there were a true issue as to philosophy.

But as a good academic he is not arguing that atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in God" only that some atheists prefer that definition and that it makes sense if you examine the greek.

 

[stu]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Yes, some will tell you that they believe in God, quite right.

Some will tell you they believe in the theory of evolution.

Some will tell you they believe in love.

No. Please try to read what I wrote....

that God IS for real...

I didn't merntion they might tell you ....they BELIEVE God is for real.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Yes, and some BELIEVE the theory of evolution is for real as an explanation of the truth of the origin of man.

Quote from stu:

No. Please try to read what I wrote....

that God IS for real...

I didnn't merntion they might tell you ....they BELIEVE God is for real.

 

[axeman]

So here is a question for you:

The real expert in defining THEISM would be:

1) Theist philosophers, theists and theistic organizations
2) Atheistic authors of dictionaries


peace

axeman

 

[stu]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Yes, and some BELIEVE the theory of evolution is for real as an explanation of the truth of the origin of man.

No Again...please try again...nothing to do with BELIEF...I said some would say God IS for real.

I am not talking of theory of evolution, or who or why evolution would be so, I did not mention evolution, evolution has nothing to do with what I said.

It's not hard really.