Semantics of "I don't believe in God".

Which one is correct?

  • A

    Votes: 7 38.9%

  • B

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • C

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • Total voters
    18
yes i think that b is more open. open minds are better minds.

but what if some did not believe in god because they believe in something else. say another religon. say, i dont beleive in god because i believe in satan and satan says that god does not exist. or i dont believe in god because im an anamist.

It a hypothetical question so all you satanists dont need to come out and correct me as to what satan says or doesnt say.
 
buckybeam said:
yes i think that b is more open. open minds are better minds.

but what if some did not believe in god because they believe in something else. say another religon. say, i dont beleive in god because i believe in satan and satan says that god does not exist. or i dont believe in god because im an anamist.

It a hypothetical question so all you satanists dont need to come out and correct me as to what satan says or doesnt say.
Click to expand...

I think you mean animist.
Who are you referring to when you talk about satanists ?
 
haha

no. i just afraid that some ones going to say soje like but satan believes in god, god is his arch enemy or something to that extent.

satan experts? better?
 
buckybeam said:
haha

no. i just afraid that some ones going to say soje like but satan believes in god, god is his arch enemy or something to that extent.

satan experts? better?
Click to expand...

No, not better.. who are the satan experts ?

Edit: Never mind, I probably misunderstood.
 
buckybeam said:
you suggested that i thought that there where satanists here.


(not that it matters)
Click to expand...

No, I thought that you suggested that there were satanists here ;)
To be honest for a second there I thought you were one of those characters that equals atheists with satanists..
 
Enmos said:
No, I thought that you suggested that there were satanists here ;)
Click to expand...
well i did. there might be ;)

Enmos said:
To be honest for a second there I thought you were one of those characters that equals atheists with satanists..
Click to expand...

no very distinc groups. would be very hard to be an atheist and a satanist at the same time. atheists dont just not believe in a particular supreme being.

though the church lady would suggest that atheism is the devils work

no im not in that camp.

i have nothing against atheists or people of any other faith/religon/belief sytem. that is unless they start dumping on mine.

where were we?
 
buckybeam said:
well i did. there might be ;)



no very distinc groups. would be very hard to be an atheist and a satanist at the same time. atheists dont just not believe in a particular supreme being.

though the church lady would suggest that atheism is the devils work

no im not in that camp.

i have nothing against atheists or people of any other faith/religon/belief sytem. that is unless they start dumping on mine.

where were we?
Click to expand...

Ok, just out of interest. In which "camp" are you ?
 
007 said:
god evading reality , u see your parents all group together and buy you pre-positions in society , your education which is a sold piece of the slice of the (god) pie.



now your parents , goverment common folks share out this pie between there children, and in turn they take away the stress that god has caused them by making someone smart, on top. now there is no top , just slices.

no god,

so a son of god sees that his people needs work, the land holds riches and is a test of mans intelligence so he is given the ability from god to do the job and he does it well, the only thing is that your 110 IQ parents and children already have the pre-positions of mine finders, engineers, geologist, lawyers judges and police.

you are left with god being teased with immoral, be-littling offerings for life which he will not take so you see there is no god, not even an intelligent man for that matter. just criminals who own gods work.

maybe god will sing and do tricks for us , woulden't that be something.


by making the education system, police, -- goverment they just reap the rewards of the people. they buy the title so they get the credit, like an insurance scam which is a common way for goverment to steal, they play golf and relax in the capital untill someone steals there work(does the work), you see unlike some poeple the goverment knows all to well what god is, fortune.

money.

and mr. fraggle rock is as happy as a fraggle in shit, were all equal lol as equal as jesus and the guy who fell off of a cliff and died at 10 because a buterfly hit his arm. grow up and learn history, men are not created equal.
Click to expand...

What does this mean.. ?
 
lixluke said:
"I don't believe in God".
Click to expand...
Someone saying that might be saying they don't believe in the "God" of religions, like the Abrahamic ones, or the "Christian God", say.

If I was asked, if I believe in God (although I've presented this before) I would ask what they mean, do they mean the biblical one, or something else?

The thing about not believing in a pre-packaged kind, to me, is it cannot also preclude the existence of another kind.
Atheists claim that there is no evidence for such a thing; what they appear to be saying is: "you can only believe in a God that doesn't "exist" as those who claim there is a pre-packaged version exists".

A non-existent God, is still a "god" though; a god that atheists believe in the non-existence of. Their belief is based on just as much faith, in that sense. Or lack of as much faith, based on a lack of evidence, of the personal kind (the only kind that matters).

Besides, my "god" does exist - I know that because I exist, ipso facto my god must too. Quite straighforward really. But that doesn't require my belief in some book, or in fact in a single word anyone else has to say about my god's existence.

Try arguing with that lot.
 
Vkothii said:
Besides, my "god" does exist - I know that because I exist, ipso facto my god must too. Quite straighforward really.
Click to expand...
Straightforward? Where's the logic in that assertion? Your use of ipso facto is not warranted because there's nothing inherent in the definitions of the words you're using, or in the communal observations of those of us who are reading them, that makes your point obvious.

"She is a citizen of Iran who entered this country illegally and was convicted of espionage. Ipso facto she has no right to apply for a U.S. passport." That's the correct use of the phrase.

It's one thing to say you "believe" a god exists because beliefs can be based on hopes, hunches, logic errors, instinct or misinformation. But this is a place of science and you can't say here that you "know" something so controversial without providing evidence for it. If you're saying that your existence is evidence for the existence of a god you're going to have to present your reasoning and allow it to be tested and peer-reviewed.
 
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker said:
there's nothing inherent in the definitions of the words you're using
Click to expand...
I think you mean to say: "there's nothing inherent in my definitions of the words you're using".

If instead I said: "I do exist - I know this because I'm breathing, seeing and hearing, doing things that affirm my existence constantly - even dreaming. Quite straightforward really", can you see any difference? Bearing in mind that I am under no obligation whatever to believe, or even understand, what definition you apply to the concept of "god".
 
Last edited:
Vkothii said:
I think you mean to say: "there's nothing inherent in my definitions of the words you're using".
Click to expand...
No dude. You're the one who chose to throw in the grandiose phrase ipso facto without looking it up first. Ipso facto presumes that there is a standard, uncontroversial definition of all terms in use, and that there is an uncontroversial consensus regarding all observations and reasoning cited. In short, it's Latin for "duh." You used standard words that have standard definitions and your conclusion did not follow from your premise.

Your existence does not constitute unremarkable, universally acknowledged evidence for the existence of a god. If your assertion is that your existence does indeed constitute evidence for the existence of a god, then you're not allowed to toss it off as an ipso facto summary argument. This is not my ruling, this is simply how the convention of ipso facto works.

Since this website is a place of science, since the Linguistics subforum is one of our science boards even though linguistics is only a "soft" science, since the scientific method is therefore to be observed at all times, and since I am the Moderator here, let me make this clear:

If you present an assertion and anyone challenges it, that is a peer review, which is one of the steps in the scientific method. You are required to immediately present evidence to support your assertion, before you are permitted to pursue your argument any further or to post it a second time, on this thread or any other. Failure to abide by this convention constitutes trolling, which is a violation of the rules of SciForums.

Please present your evidence or desist.

Saying, "I was joking," is also good. I'm famous for my inability to grasp sarcasm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top