Trying to hard to believe

Man, it must be some adventure living inside your head.

You're wrong. Even if the concept of believing no gods exist did not arise until after the coining of that particular term, there is nothing about the term itself that excludes that mentality, as the term literally means "without gods." If you are someone who believes there is no such thing as gods, then you are necessarily without gods.

Again, what we have here is you failing to comprehend words that you're reading. You defined "-ism" as "a distintive [sic] doctrine or system of practice" so as to support your claim that an atheist is simply someone who does not practice, as opposed to someone who positively believes gods do not exist. I corrected you by saying that -ism is more than that. Here's what Dictionary.com says about it.

So to say that theism is "the state or condition of belief in at least one god" is correct. As is defining atheism as "the state or condition of believing no gods exist." If you defined it only as a person who simply doesn't practice, then you leave yourself in the logical conundrum of having atheist theists--people who believe but do not practice or hold to any doctrines. Obviously, that's a clunky and useless definition, and no one applies it in such a way.

More semantic nonsense. Stop trolling.

Theos applies to god with a little G, because Greece was polytheistic. You'll notice the word for goddess is "thea."

No, this is just you trying to bastardize another word so it suits your asinine argument. You couldn't have this argument if you were acting on the level, so you resort to lies and other dishonest tactics.

The word "theos" may also be applied to Big G God, but it also applied to gods with a little g. Again, this is something you'd know if you had actually bothered to learn anything about this stuff. But I suppose it's easier to simply stay ignorant and pretend you have a clue.

No, it's ignorant to pretend that our understanding can't get better, and that all we know now is all we'll ever know. Just because something means something today doesn't mean it should carry that meaning into the future, or that alternate meanings shouldn't be equally valid, or that the meaning cannot be expanded to include new ideas. Shit, you're trying to promote "theos" as if it means only "God" as in Yahweh, but the word existed long before anyone in Greece had heard of him. The definition of the term grew to include the Abrahamic God, and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Classic non-sequitur. Is it so difficult for you to keep your thoughts straight? The point you're trying to make here is that "You can call a brick water, but it's still made of stone." In your infinite confusion, you've gone and reversed the argument in your head, and spouted this nonsense instead. haha. Wow.

I'll do you a favor and address the point I presume you're trying to make. Words do not have inherent definitions; they are only defined by how they are used. This is why "cool" indicates an approximate temperature, acceptance, and calmness, among other things. It's why "bad" means both bad and good.

Mere observations.

All words are subject to personal thoughts and prejudices. However, I agree that the word had a specific meaning. But you haven't made a legitimate case for why it excludes those who believe God does not exist.

It is a concept. If I'm rejecting God because I don't believe he exists, I am rejecting the concept of God.

Of course it was. It was probably hard to find someone in the mid-1600s who said positively that there were no mystical forces in the universe, but there was such a thing as unbelief in a particular deity, and such unbelief was addressed in the term "atheist." This concept you're promoting--that "rejection" does not equate to anything more than a disagreement with doctrine--is a modern one. At the time the word was coined, to "reject" God was to say one did not believe God existed. Again, that isn't to say they didn't believe in something, but they most certainly believed the god or gods in question were fictitious.

Of course it's not related. It's mean to show you your logic in another light.

That is a nonsensical statement.

You're mixing up your arguments now, as you are wont to do when you get cornered and confused. I brought up the fact that God is a concept when you said you couldn't reject something you don't believe exists to show you that when one rejects something on the basis that it's a false proposition, they are rejecting the idea of it. By your definition, no one could have an opinion on things that do not exist.

For one, the concept of "God" did not always exist. Human religion was exclusively polytheistic at the outset; monotheism is a recent addition to the world. So for there to even be a singular God, the concept needed to take on a new wrinkle. Secondly, this is another non-sequitur. Try to stay on track, Jan.

We've been over this a hundred times, Jan. The fact that the stories from the Old Testament are largely stolen from previous, polytheistic religions, and the stories in the New Testament are re-tellings of OT stories as well as wrinkles from contemporary pagan mythologies, suggests that the Bible is merely a continuation of the practice of evolving cultural myths. To say that Yahweh is the one true God is to ignore the fact that he seems to be borrowed from a pantheon that was en vogue before Judaism. To call Jesus his son ignores the resemblances he bears to all the other gods of his region and era. If there is really a God, the truth of it is not revealed in those holy books, and since those holy books are the only link we have to it, I'm lead to believe that there is no God.

Considering that the word "atheist" does not appear in the bible, how can you say that it differentiates between the two concepts?

I've addressed both of these points above.

So your answer has nothing to do with the question. Great.

Again, you're wrong. I understood your claim perfectly, it's just that I disagree with it. You've only used a logical fallacy to support it, so I'm still waiting for a legitimate argument on your behalf.

It's not nitpicking, it's a false dilemma. You're attempting to differentiate between the statements "I believe there is no god" and "There is no god," but no such difference exists.

Compelling counterpoint.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, nonsense. "Slang" is not understood to mean "ignorance." There you go again, insisting upon personal definitions.

Hey man, don't call others ignorant in the same paragraph you misspell words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trust me, this is me trying to resist it.

You're right, there is no point. I should know better than to take the bait. Still, there's some satisfaction in watching him contradict himself and mix up his arguments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read this again, Jan.

 

I understand that, Frag. I was demonstrating to Jan the ludicrousness of his reasoning.

I know. Jan's premise is that one cannot reject what does not exist. I'm saying that we're not rejecting God, but the premise of God.

No, Yahweh was originally a member of a pantheon, originating outside of Judea. In fact, it was likely El that was the original God of the Israelites, not Yahweh. He even had a consort, Asherah.

But there's no functional difference, which is the point I'm trying to reinforce to Jan.

The birds don't bring it upon themselves. Jan does.

It almost seems like you're chastising me for debating Jan. I would suggest you desist.

 

Atheists are united in my country at least by an organization called Humanists. I paid $500 to be a lifelong member and get the newsletter. They are the people who campaign to get prayers out of schools etc.

 

Fraggle,

My definition of ''theism'' is ''a person who believes in God (not the existence of God), the ''without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism) is an irrelevant addition (from my perspective as a theist).

Here's what the person who introduced the term ''theist'' say's about it.

The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–88).[7] In Cudworth's definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things".[8] Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity.

How can you say that I'm disagreeing with the dictionary definition, and using my own definition? I think you owe me an apology.

Now, note the difference in this definition. Instead of just ''belief in'' it adds ''...the existence of..'. Now I know you don't have much of an idea of what God is, or what belief in God is, or even means, as you don't seem interested in scriptures or people who devote their lives to God.
To you it's all nonsense, but to a theist, there is no need to believe in gods because gods (as I mentioned earlier) are aspect, agents, tools, etc, of God, whose roles are to manage universal affairs.
Oh I know it's all nonsense to you, but this is what gods are.
Peoples worship of gods are different to worship of God.
They worship gods for protection, money, husbands, wives, you name it. All material things.
The greek culture was perfectly aware of (the concept of) God, but they chose not to worship Him most probably for fear of reprisal from the gods. They couldn't understand why anyone would want to worship God.
The Hindu culture/religion is perfectly aware of Brahman, Paramatma, and Vishnu (different stages of the Supreme Being), but still respect the demigods as part and parcel.

Let's move to the next stage and see how dictinary.com defines God..

1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

Incidentally note that there is a difference between ''God'' and ''god'' as in category difference by way of upper-case and lower-case 'G', and as you did say this...

In light of this persistence can I rely on you to always use the upper-case 'G' when talking about the monotheistic God (monotheism - the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.), and insist upon others to use the correct spelling?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I like the stealth prejudice. Oops!
I wasn't supposed to see it was I?

I don't have a problem with the word Fraggle, but I know you do.

Here are a couple of quotes indicating different ideas (from atheists) on how ''atheism'' should be defined.

jan.

 

Attempting to differentiate between believing in God and believing God exists is another false dichotomy. The addition of "without rejection of revelation" is relevant considering the position of deism.

You realize that rejecting the belief that there is even one deity means rejecting the existence of even on deity, don't you? Of course you don't, but that's what it means. And you've just affirmed it, without even realizing.

 

What homeopathy has got to do with your preference of marrying a non-believer? You are mixing the things.

 

As in any discussion with Jan:

[video=youtube;ghj5V5cUo1s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj5V5cUo1s[/video]

 

Homeopathy is a bunch of unscientific nonsense, just like the rest of the items he listed.

 

James R,

What the 21st Century got to do with anything?

What I'm saying is that believing God exist is not what make one a theist.

Either that, or they think they believe but actually don't.

The word is only being used in a different way by a specific mindset, namely yours. It actually means a person who is without belief in God. Break the word down for yourself. You're using it to now mean ''belief that God does not exist''. While that is a reason for atheism, it's not what it means. You simple are without belief in God, because you believe God does not exist. But if for you God does not exist, then the word is not applicable to you.

Why would you believe that there are blue and yellow spotted elephants?
A serious question, please answer.

The FSM is a god that has been made up by sad people who really want God to go away and the fact that as you say, they see it on a par with God, shows they don't even show in the theism/atheism radar.

jan.

 

Intellectuals and atheists get all high and mighty with their attacks on believers and their faith. But absence of belief is not necessarily an advantage. Reality forces everyone to adapt to their environment. In our modern world, this usually means having a job, paying your bills, raising your family, meeting your responsibilities.

Once you've adapted to your environment, you should believe in what makes you strong. Believe in those things that enrich your life. If religious traditions give you strength, power and meaning, then cast aside atheism and nihilism like yesterday's trash. There is a 50% chance that the anthropic excuse is wrong. There is a good chance that the ethereal nature of the wave-function is telling us that spirit is real.

Don't give up your faith to a nihilist or an atheist because their assumptions about the data are faulty and biased.

 

Balerion,

We're not talking about ''deism''. We're talking about ''theism''.
Two different words with different meanings.
Believing in God and believing God exists are two separate positions.
Believing in your ability to pass a driving test is to believe in yourself, it does not mean that you believe that you exist. That, kimosabe, is a forgone conclusion.

You realise he talking about ''belief'', and you do realise that I've said numerous times ''belief that God does not exist'' can be a reason for atheism, as opposed to ''God does not exist''. Plus he gave the definition of ''atheism'' in it's broadest term. Can you actually read, or do you use some kind of reading device.

TESTING - TESTING 1 -2 -3..... TESTING - TESTING 1- 2- 3...!!!

jan.

 

jan, I tip my hat to you for being shrewd in the face of such villainy. Deism is a scam, a trick, devised by depraved atheists to trick believers into abandoning their faith. Since God doesn't walk across their swimming pool, villainous atheists point to that and say, "See! God doesn't exist."

I don't know if Satan exists, I've never seen Satan; but I know that Balerion exists. The result is the same.

 

Try to keep up, Jan. Words have meanings based on usage, and theism's definition is in reference to the usage of the word deism, or at least its principle. It is the belief in at least one god without rejection of revelation because deism contrasts it in that it does reject revelation.

No they're not. It's the same thing.

Terrible analogy. The existence of God is not a foregone conclusion, so the very basis for the analogy is broken. Therefore, believing in God means believing God exists. It doesn't mean believing in God's ability to do something; it makes no reference to that. "Believing in oneself" is an entirely different matter. I mean, I understand that English is your second language, and that you have trouble with subtle difference, and I admit it can be confusing, but these are not like concepts.

I know what you said, it's just that what you said is wrong. Can you not comprehend that, Jan? Do we need to use larger lettering, perhaps? Or maybe we should hire you a tutor, given your infantile grasp on the language?

 

Do this Humanist any humanitarian aid to people in needs in the stricken world ?