Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (myth, atheist, agnostic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reality has always been the definitive God..then & now. If you don't believe that...look it up...you'll see.
Your view (No God for anyone to perceive, in any way)...of negligible merit & even less acceptance (and currently losing ground in this world)...is what's "homespun".
Though it is very effective at getting its Adherents to be considered the Most Hated and Least Trusted (on par with rapists)...it's great at that.
You like what's "True" so much...get hip to THAT truth.
Funny...
I did look it up my Gldn friend. I even posted what quickly came up when I looked it up! Just as I have many times now. You going "deaf, dumb and blind" on me again?
My view is based solely on what facts, evidence, reason and logic that has us all pretty well agreed upon what are the truths of these matters and what are not. As I have also explained many times before. No one disputes the sort of facts and truths we all know to be facts and truths. Again like the earth being round for example. Those are the truths and the only truths far as I'm concerned. Argue all day long as you otherwise will of course. I get it. I got it a long time ago.
Here too you provide another great example of how all these terms can mean something to someone like you very different compared to what these terms mean to me. Two very different dictionaries it would seem. Where does that leave us?
Leaves me signing off for now, with perhaps a little less time wasted here today than usual. You and yours by all means go on with the truth far as you are concerned, and I'll try to remember not to waste time trying to reconcile any of this with your circular pretzel logic again tomorrow. Cheers!
A truncated definition of some gods that he repeats over and over because he can not address the logic of my post.
As one attribute of some gods that is also true of atheism, it is insufficient.
That he needs to play his word games is just evidence he has nothing.
I'm really not sure about the "because" other than to recognize an ongoing bias that knows no bounds...
Clearly what seems logical and reasonable to one person can be the exact opposite to another, and there simply is no reconciling these sorts of differences at our age. You say he has nothing while he claims to have everything and that everything is God. Obviously there is no way to consider these differences in any intelligent manner. Nevertheless, we all seem to keep trying, but no more for me today!
Time is a terrible thing to waste when keeping in mind that "life is too short!"
I did look it up my Gldn friend. I even posted what quickly came up when I looked it up! Just as I have many times now. You going "deaf, dumb and blind" on me again?
My view is based solely on what facts, evidence, reason and logic that has us all pretty well agreed upon what are the truths of these matters and what are not. As I have also explained many times before. No one disputes the sort of facts and truths we all know to be facts and truths. Again like the earth being round for example. Those are the truths and the only truths far as I'm concerned. Argue all day long as you otherwise will of course. I get it. I got it a long time ago.
Here too you provide another great example of how all these terms can mean something to someone like you very different compared to what these terms mean to me. Two very different dictionaries it would seem. Where does that leave us?
Leaves me signing off for now, with perhaps a little less time wasted here today than usual. You and yours by all means go on with the truth far as you are concerned, and I'll try to remember not to waste time trying to reconcile any of this with your circular pretzel logic again tomorrow. Cheers!
Really? You looked it up and found out that GOD is definitively (among other meanings & definitions) "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality" (Reality is still Reality, like it's always been) and you think it's "deaf, dumb, and blind" to be cognizant of that info?
Hmmmmmmm!? Very strange.
The Truth about what God is definitively, is not "pretzel logic"...that's basic reason and how it is.
But that you would think it's "pretzel logic" that needs to be "reconciled" is very telling.
Words/terms have meanings & definitions...to consider knowing what those words/terms represent based upon those meanings/definitions, to be "pretzel logic", can only be chalked up to ultra-bias and/or ignorance...and few are that ignorant. So....
I'm really not sure about the "because" other than to recognize an ongoing bias that knows no bounds...
Clearly what seems logical and reasonable to one person can be the exact opposite to another, and there simply is no reconciling these sorts of differences at our age. You say he has nothing while he claims to have everything and that everything is God. Obviously there is no way to consider these differences in any intelligent manner. Nevertheless, we all seem to keep trying, but no more for me today!
This too is just one definition, and of course you use it because it fits your narrative and/or perception. Also of course this is not the only definition or even the most common definition. That goes more like this...
God
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
A truncated definition of some gods that he repeats over and over because he can not address the logic of my post.
As one attribute of some gods that is also true of atheism, it is insufficient.
That he needs to play his word games is just evidence he has nothing.
I accept ALL the formal definitions/meanings available.
We can then determine if any comport with observations as to aligning with anything known to objectively exist.
It is you all that wants to limit "God" to just the representative Deities and characters in ancient metaphorical and allegorical works of literary art.
I know it bothers you (to the utmost, obviously) that "God" is defined more broadly than that, and not limited to only what you can claim does not objectively exist. But that is just indicative of bias, not actual knowledge of all the ways the word/term is defined.
I accept ALL the formal definitions/meanings available.
We can then determine if any comport with observations as to aligning with anything known to objectively exist.
It is you all that wants to limit "God" to just the representative Deities and characters in ancient metaphorical and allegorical works of literary art.
I know it bothers you (to the utmost, obviously) that "God" is defined more broadly than that, and not limited to only what you can claim does not objectively exist. But that is just indicative of bias, not actual knowledge of all the ways the word/term is defined.
exactly. We except what people are saying. We compare the belief to what we see around us. They limit what we are talking about to only a deity and tell us we are wrong ... lmao.
The issue is if we are determining the reliability of a belief based on the baggage of the god or are we determining the reliability of the claim based on what the person is calling god. You are calling the universe god based on one of the "lesser" definitions used. Ok, so once you clarify it we are done.
What's funny is that one of them thinks they have shown us flaws in what we are saying.
So much so that he had to run away and get it outlawed that I not address him directly. In fact there are two now that had to run and hide from direct questioning of beliefs.
What would they say when a theist does that ... oh my no god ... would they be all bunched up.
They sure did show us. Like fundy think types think they do ...
I did look it up my Gldn friend. I even posted what quickly came up when I looked it up! Just as I have many times now. You going "deaf, dumb and blind" on me again?
My view is based solely on what facts, evidence, reason and logic that has us all pretty well agreed upon what are the truths of these matters and what are not. As I have also explained many times before. No one disputes the sort of facts and truths we all know to be facts and truths. Again like the earth being round for example. Those are the truths and the only truths far as I'm concerned. Argue all day long as you otherwise will of course. I get it. I got it a long time ago.
nipped
if your view is solely based on facts and evidence, then its simple. Believing in some thing more is, by far, more reliable than not.
If you only based your view on "facts and evidence" you would see all he is doing is calling the universe god.
every attribute of his belief is the attributes we are assigning to the universe to date. He calls it god and we don't.
if we only use facts and evidence then we connect the dots. If we are here for something else then we need to avoid connecting the dots.
so exactly what is your superior understanding that we don't have? You know, your evidence and facts.
What, then, do you call someone who argues that there is no god?
A gnostic atheist. Not all atheists are claiming that God does not exist. The terms atheism and gnostic and agnostic are provided in a sticky in Atheism and Agnostic sub forum.
I accept ALL the formal definitions/meanings available.
We can then determine if any comport with observations as to aligning with anything known to objectively exist.
It is you all that wants to limit "God" to just the representative Deities and characters in ancient metaphorical and allegorical works of literary art.
I know it bothers you (to the utmost, obviously) that "God" is defined more broadly than that, and not limited to only what you can claim does not objectively exist. But that is just indicative of bias, not actual knowledge of all the ways the word/term is defined.
None of the above is true. Simply repeating your false and refuted cut and paste claims does not refute anything, and you need to get hip to that. We have.
Instead of simply repeating your (plural) false ad hominems, you need to show where our logic fails. The fact that you (plural) consistently evade doing that is evidence you can not.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 06-05-2022 at 12:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
