In my experience, if you check closely you get a slap in the face and a restraining order (OOF 🤷)
I expect you to dress in a baseball uniform if you are going to play baseball. If you want to discuss a definition of atheism don’t hide it in the pretext of another argument. Start a thread, give your definition, and see how it holds up /. As long as you are using the term incorrectly, you are the one not having a conversation. You have created a straw man. No one needs to take that idiocy seriously.
FACT: You are wrong.
Can you demonstrate that? Ritual behavior has been observed in Apes, Elephants, Dolophins, Orca, Crows and other corvids. I know some religions that assert ‘humans are born with the knowledge of God.’ How did you debunk these claims? If a dog believed in God, or did not believe, how would you know? The question to a dog would be ‘What does god smell like,’ not whether it exists. What reference are you using to make the assertion, dogs don’t believe in gods? What kind of gods, and how would you know?
RE: Christianity: Don’t be stupid… a quick google search on any of this shit reveals the truth. How about arguing for (No True Christian now?)
Catholics believe in original sin, (Protestants do as well but many create exceptions) this is forgiven by being baptized in many Christian faiths. A RECENT VICTIM OF THE CHURCH: "I had them call for a Priest immediately upon my arrival and begged him to baptize my child. He said it wasn’t possible. I asked if he was going to hell and was told. That “God does many things thet we will never understand”
One of us is woefully lacking in information about Christianity. .What does the Catholic Church say about infant baptism?
Infant Baptism has been practiced since apostolic times. Infants need to be baptized because through this Sacrament, they are freed from Original Sin and are welcomed into the community of the Church, where they have access to the fullness of the means of salvation.
“The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth (CCC, no. 1250; cf. Code of Canon Law [Codex Iuris Canonici ; CIC], can. 867). However, the Church also teaches that the Baptism of an infant may be postponed if there is not a “founded hope” that the child will be brought up in the Catholic Faith (CIC, can. 868 §2). There are the children—born and unborn—who die without Baptism. The Church entrusts them to the mercy of God, who wills that all people be saved. We recall Christ’s tender welcome of children saying, “Let the children come to me and do not hinder them” (Mk 10:14). Because of this the Church confidently hopes for the salvation of children who die without Baptism.
I didn’t create anything. I asked for evidence of your claim.
And I directly negated that with “I disbelieve in most gods or God the very same way I disbelieve in Santa Clause, Spiderman, or your ability to think intelligently.” There is no argument or evidence for the existence of god that leads any critical thinker to accept the proposition. My disbelief is based on a lack of evidence in the same way Spiderman and Santa lack evidence. If you think you have a theory of god better that all theories I have heard thus far, I would love to hear it. Perhaps I will believe in your god. But talking about 'Spirituality" and ill-defined 5th dimensions, is not going to get you there.
This is an equivocation error. No one said atheists lack belief. I believe all sorts of stuff. I lack belief in a deity, a spirit, a God of any kind that I have thus far been introduced to. Do you have a new one? Let’s hear about it. But, if you think you are going to get there with ill-defined terms like higher dimensions and spirituality, you are mistaken.
I visited a beautiful Catholic cemetery in Poland where my wife’s abusive Grandfather was buried. It was her first time back to Poland since the old man had died of intestinal cancer. She paid him her respects by not spitting on his grave. Lol.
Uhh … oh … my point. The Catholics have a nice little “section” of the cemetery for unbaptized infants (ie. they’re not technically in the same cemetery with the “saved” Catholics). Fucking STOOPID!
Their God will only allow a stillborn into heaven if it has somehow been dunked in water by a professional pedophile first. 🤷
How does that cryptic name I don’t recognise evidence your obviously erroneous claim here:
I don’t have a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension, and I lack belief in any deity or deities making me an atheist, ipos facto your claim is absurdly wrong. I also don’t think lack or absence of belief means what you think it does.
They’re not mutually exclusive, stop repeating yourself and read more carefully, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, even if one chooses not to hold such belief.
Irrelevant, since either way it would still be a lack of belief.
A very clumsy no true Scotsman fallacy there, do you think we won’t notice the words “self proclaimed” in your fallacious representation? FYI they would still lack belief in any deity or deities. No one has claimed a lack or absence of belief never involves choices or reasoning, only that it need not do so, and that even when it does atheism is still the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. This is the common usage of the word. It also describes my atheism, which is the lack or absence of any belief in any deity or deities. The distinction is important as it has epistemological implications.
I note without any real surprise that you make no attempt to answer my question, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
Belief and disbelief are mutually exclusive, you really are making a right mess here, to what end one wonders?
The only thing being tested thus far is my patience.
Please explain how you think the rejection of a claim, negates me then lacking belief in that claim?
So your lack of belief in mermaids is because you’re intellectually weak? I’d find that more compelling if I thought you understood fully what a lack of belief is, but I am dubious that you do, in fact one might say I lack the belief that you do, as you are arguing that one cannot arrive at a lack of belief through reason and choice, which is frankly absurd. It is also a little early for you to be throwing ad hominem fallacies around don’t you think?
I’ve noticed that all you do is mock and scorn without providing anything worth of substance. Being emotional doesn’t help you out one bit. I asked you a basic question:
Which is more appropriate to describe you?
Do you believe Corithaze is an African Professor of Engineering?
Do you Lack a belief that Corithaze is an African Professor of Engineering?
Please provide an answer and we can move on
This is starting to get tedious.
It doesn’t dawn on you that there are two ways to make a proof.
- The claimant can make a proof
- The disclaimer can also make his own proof.
There is not one single Christian who says that God is a physical being and there exists no physical proof of God because He is not subject to the natural/physical laws. Since there exist no physical proof, then the ball is in your court:
I didn’t create anything, therefore I ask you for evidence of your claim that NOTHING created everything?
Now, since you aren’t willing to process this, let me help you out.
A. We cannot BELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
E.g We know that the addition of TWO Oranges with THREE Oranges will give us a total of FIVE Oranges. Since we know this we can’t believe the answer is 5.
B. We cannot DISBELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
E.g We know that the addition of TWO Oranges with THREE Oranges will give us a total of FIVE Oranges. Since we know this we can’t disbelieve the answer is 5.
One of the definition by Webster Dictionary of the word Belief is conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
//belief in the validity of scientific statements
We choose/take/hold a position of BELIEF when whenever have a REASONABLE but INCOMPLETE knowledge of a position or thing to hold a position of HIGH or LOW probability
E.g. I do believe it will rain heavily tonight! Is a statement I made because I looked at the sky, saw the thick cloud during the rainy season and thought that it is reasonable based on available evidence that rain should fall.
That is a HIGH probability of it raining
E.g. I do NOT believe it will rain heavily tonight! Is a statement I made because I looked at the sky, saw the no cloud during the dry season and thought that it is reasonable based on available evidence that rain shouldn’t fall.
That is a LOW probability of it raining
Unless you wish to claim that belief and disbelief are NOT opposite in meaning.
By the definition of Belief:
It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.
And I will repeat:
What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.
Even Animals can form a Belief!
It must be a mistake:
Time is not a Spatial Dimension!
The emphasis was on spatial dimensions
@X0B35, it seems you have very strong opinions about how certain words should/not be used. Okay. Have at it.
Any expectation, however, that I (or others) will go along with your opinions on those usages is not binding.
You’re certainly welcome to be as adamant about it as you like. That just doesn’t seem to be working though.
Out of curiosity, how much longer do you plan to keep it up?
He said mockingly, without addressing my point with anything of substance.
As I have asked you, if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for the deity, angles or demons you have claimed exist? Until you do me the courtesy of even acknowledging my question, I am disinclined to answer cryptic and irrelevant straw man questions you are firing at me, especially since it is in response to my question, but without providing any answer.
I asked you a question, you ignored it, and asked one of me, that has no relevance. That is not debating in good faith.
On this at least we can agree, you seem to have the religious apologist’s penchant for reeling off unevidenced claims and then ignoring questions that examine those claims.
What a spectacularly stupid claim. You have claimed a deity exists, also angels and demons, so the burden of proof for your claims is entirely yours.
I have made no such claim, another rather clumsy straw man fallacy.
Another straw man, I have never claimed to lack belief in anything, only to lack belief in any deity or deities.
Once more then, they are not mutually exclusive.
Oh dear…it’s not going very well is it.
It was an obvious contradiction you made, and not your first.
Now lets recap using bullet points since you like them:
- Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it’s in any dictionary.
- Lacking theistic belief can involve choices, but it also need not.
- What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that deities, demons and angels exist?
NB No 3 is a question, and I asked this after you made your initial claim, and before you asked me any questions, so if you refuse to answer this honestly then you can expect me to reciprocate.
Strong arbitrary opinions that contradict the dictionary definitions at that.
You talk too much without thinking
You are back from work your car to your house through your driver
Can your beloved dog assume that you are in the vehicle and start wagging it’s tail and jumping up and down in anticipation? If the answer is yes, then your dog has a belief
Does your beloved dog have ANY notion of the existence of any kind of deity? Do you even think this is a possibility?
“Oh dear… it’s not going very well, is it?”.
Let’s put your definition to test:
Animals lack or have absence of belief in ANY Deity! Does this make animals Atheists?
It takes cognitive abilities required for abstract thinking for one to have a belief system such as atheism or theism.
There is no objective evidence that will satisfy you for Christians never defined their God as physical but a spirit.
For your Comprehension perhaps you should answer the question below
You are a 2D observer in your 2D space, what evidence do you think your senses can objectively fathom 3D objects in their 3D space?
Your question has been answered.
If as a 2D observer in your 2D space which is inside a 3D space you cannot objectively fathom things in 3D space, would that be a conclusive proof that both 3D objects and 3D space do not exist?
When a dictionary defines a word in deliberate error to please a group such as the LGBTQ and Atheists, I usually refuse to follow such unless it agrees with common sense.
What/Who is a Woman?
Me: An adult Biological Female
Well look at some dictionary definitions: 'an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. ’
Even though I’ve answered you several times: the question is silly. It’s like asking repeatedly: show me a square circle? There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force the spiritual into the physical. Every evidence of the spiritual is SUBJECTIVE to the individual persons Experience!
There are always two ways to prove any point:
+The claimant can make a proof
+The disclaimer can also make his own proof.
Since I can’t get you a physical proof, perhaps you can.
The ball is in your court: Give me your objective proof that the spiritual realm and deities do NOT exist?
My bad I said:
I didn’t create anything, therefore I ask you for evidence of your claim that NOTHING created everything? Can you please articulate and present your exact claim with respect to the above subject?
What exactly did I say?
By the definition of Belief:
It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.
You should know that this is a generic definition; just replace anything with deities in my claim lol
Let me ask you some basic questions (even though I’ve answered them for you previously)
Are these statements below true or false?
a. We cannot BELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
b. We cannot DISBELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
If they are both true, is BELIEF and DISBELIEF functions of taking a position from Incomplete Knowledge?
That’s a pretty ironic use of an ad hominem fallacy, since you are the one making contradictory statements, and again don’t have the integrity to even acknowledge your error, or what it means for your rationale. This is not the first time your arguments have violated the law of non-contradiction either. Physician heal thyself…etc etc. Is it sinking in yet that your arguments are relentlessly irrational?
Your desperate straw man questions about dogs are irrelevant of course, address your own contradiction. Atheism is simply a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, whether it is arrived at by reason and choice or not, it is simply a word that described the lack or absence of theistic belief.
No it really isn’t, the question is can you see why?
It’s not MY definition, it is the dictionary definition, dictionaries are compiled based on common usage, so this is another lie.
By definition it would make them atheistic.
the state of being without or not having enough of something.
the non-existence or lack of.
Now you seem to be claiming that dogs both can and cannot believe in a deity, so lets clarify. I don’t believe that a dog has the ability to comprehend the concept of deity, if this is the case then it follows they lack such a belief, and thus are atheistic, and they need not have reasoned or made any choice in order to lack such a belief.
I on the other hand am also an atheist, as I lack belief in any deity or deities, and I have made choices and used reason to arrive at that lack of theistic belief.
Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief, I suggest you get over it. Since you have ignored my multiple requests to explain how you think choices and reason negate me simply lacking belief in any deity or deities?
We are not talking about a belief system, we are talking about the lack or absence of one particular belief. Atheism is not a belief system, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
You could have stopped at the first 5 words, as it is clear if you had any you’d present it, instead of this pitiful straw man fallacy.
No it hasn’t you refused to to even try and present any objective evidence, whilst implying it exists, that is not an answer and it is dishonest. You yet again tried to insert a cryptic appeal to mystery in the form of another question in response. You either think objective evidence exists or you do not, if you do then present it, if not then have the integrity to say so, and possibly present the most compelling reason you think evidences a deity.
Another lie, that is not how dictionaries are complied, though this ludicrous conspiracy theory of yours does rather explain a lot. The dictionary definition of atheism is what most people understand the word to mean, that is how dictionaries are compiled, and my own atheism is the lack of absence of belief in any deity or deities. Leaving that aside, you have yet to explain how arriving at atheism through choice and reason negates it being a lack or absence of belief in any deity, the definition of the word disbelief supports this as well, and is synonymous with atheism, you know what a synonym is right?
Words can and do change their meaning over time, dictionaries are compiled based on what most people consider a word to mean. They are not influenced by people who sulk that those words don’t reflect their own subjective personal beliefs.
You have not answer me candidly at all, you have evaded the question with a dishonest straw man, implying that objective evidence exists but that I would not accept it, and without presenting anything.
Rubbish, we know objective evidence is possible, it exists for all manner of facts, you have simply used a false equivalence fallacy. Though ironically no objective evidence would be possible for something that did not exist outside of the imagination of humans who believed it to be real, which is food for thought.
That is always true for non-existent or imaginary things of course. lets test your rationale: "There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force unicorns or mermaids into the physical.
Hmm, are you seeing the own goal yet? Your desire to keep the deity you imagine is real away from objective or critical scrutiny, has just placed in the category of non-existent things.
- the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Well that wasn’t hard was it, why not just say no you have no objective evidence for any deity? Of course I cannot base belief on the unevidenced subjective opinion of others that they have experienced something, this would be irrational, as I should have to soon acknowledge contradictory claims. What’s interesting is your obvious bias here, since neither would you accept the identical claim from other people, if for example someone claimed they saw a mermaid or a unicorn? Or of course all the innumerable claims like yours that people make to have experienced other deities.
This is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I also have never made any such claim, nor is it an accident that my own rationale, unlike yours, stops short of making unevidenced claims. You sought the atheists here out to make your claim a deity demons and angels exist, the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you have admitted you have no objective evidence at all. only your own subjective opinion to have experienced something.
I made no claim that nothing created everything, your question is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy popular among religious apologists, in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. I don’t know how the universe originated beyond the big bang, no one does. If you want learn the latest thinking on that I suggest you read what the best theoretical physicists have to say. However I do not believe any deity using explicable magic did it, as this is wholly unevidenced, and of course the claim has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
Why am I so strongly reminded of this little gem?
"When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, [Through the Looking Glass]
Uh….isn’t their god being a physical creature precisely what makes them Xtian?
100% incorrect and spoken exactly as a Christian who has not read his own bible. Jesus was completely human and completely god. If not, there is no Christianity. God himself manifests multiple times in physical form in your own religious text. (Independent of his manifestation as Jesus.) All you have shown is that you are an ignorant representation of the faith you profess to believe in.
Can’t you address issues without name calling and slanderous remarks?
Here was what I said:
Check carefully, you haven’t addressed the question at all!
Address the issue please. Repeating a claim doesn’t make it true!
If you had answered the questions you would have seen why I said you are emotional
Let me point you to the beginning.
I said: Even Animals can form a Belief!
Then I said: a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.
You quoted these two posts of mine and
You said: Oh dear… it’s not going very well for you, is it?
I thus then helped you with a little plot to show you that
- Animals can form a belief
Except you think animals can form a belief about a deity (which I don’t think is true of you)
Unfortunately since you didn’t know that there is a difference between animals having a belief and animals NOT having a belief in Deities, you screamed “That’s a pretty ironic use of an ad hominem fallacy”. Is it a pretty ironic use of an ad hominem fallacy that there is a difference between animals having a belief and animals NOT having a belief in Deities, ?
Well, a dictionary doesn’t do that. It Cannot deliberately take any action to please anyone. It’s an inanimate object. Dictionary compilers however, collect words and write definitions of them according to common usages.
As societies ineluctably drift and shift, the way words are used does as well.
You refuse to follow the drift and shift of the society in which you live? I doubt that. I suspect you only dig your heals in about that which you find demonstrates inclusiveness of folks you find objectionable.
Unless…”it agrees with common sense.” Whose sense is that? Just yours? How do you determine that your notion is common? How do you determine that your ideas are sensible? How many people does it take to be common?
And just what’s wrong with “pleasing” folks who are identified as lgbtq+ or atheist? The example you site is really about inclusion. Do you find inclusion of such folks somehow distasteful? Why must someone who considers their gender to be different than their birth sex be prevented from identifying as any gender they want? To please you? Hmmmm……