Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Look...... I've been called a lot worse than that. I've even been called a Christian on RF during this very month.
Oh my... that is much, much worse.
Not trying to be offensive, but you do believe in God. Just because your idea of God is substantially different than the God of Abraham doesn't mean you are an atheist.But I am not a theist, because I do not believe in an aware, involved or interested God.
Deism is an opposite of that. I'm only a step away from A-theism, of you like. That lot won't let me in their club, though. Anyway, I don't care....their beer is rubbish.
It's current definition for atheism is " Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." I acknowledged in my first post that atheists are changing the definition of atheism. It's not like I can personally stop of the evolution of the english language. But I do think it is stupid to lose the old meaning of atheism, which is the denial of the existencd of God. It was a handy word, and there are people who it describes. Now they have no label.
You can still come and drink with us of course. My latest favorite is an imported IPA. All the way from Colorado. Voodoo Ranger by New Belgium. And it has a kick. 9% alcohol by volume.
That's unfortunate for you, as it impedes learning new things. Particularly those things that tend to be paradigm-changing.
Well, that demand doomed you right from the start, anyway. You poisoned yourself with it.
Why would anyone admit to that when they could not possibly know it to be so? And why are you expecting it when YOU cannot possibly know it to be so? That poison seems to have really addled your mind!
I'm pretty sure you always knew this was an option. And yet here you are.
Whatever made you think you had to??? Why would you care what anyone else thinks or 'believes' God is? I mean, beyond idle curiosity. Did you actually think some people HAVE special knowledge???
Even if there were a "demonstrable thing" in front of you calling itself God, you still couldn't validate the claim. And that's why I won't take anyone else's presumed special knowledge at face value. Not even my own.
Of course you do. There's no avoiding it regardless of the claims being made. We all do. No one else can reach inside you head and make you accept something as true or false. You have to make tat determination yourself based on whatever evidence you think you have, and whatever you think it means.
YOU are determining whether or not the evidence someone else presents as evidence, is evidence. And YOU are determining at what point it becomes proof, for YOU.
You can't control what goes on in the minds of others. And rightly so. Nor can you control how they behave as a result. nor can they control your mind or behavior. How do you not understand this?
Well, it seems you just explained the human necessity of religion. God and ownership being similarly abstract concepts requiring consensus to function communally.
Functionality can only verify functionality. There are a lot of fools in the world making more of that than it is.
I don't own any of it. I don't control any of it. And I don't 'believe in' mine or anyone else's existential truth.
"God exists" is an incomplete proposition. I wouldn't give it the time of day, nor anyone that wasn't willing to clarify.
Oh boy. I bet you never learned about "Gerble-snipes" did you? Well? No... you haven't. Because I just made them up. You see... there is a lot of use (and time savings!) in figuring out which stuff actually comports with reality, and thereby which stuff actually has practical utility in the world we inhabit and share. I get that whatever nonsense you want to employ for your own personal benefit (whatever that ends up being) is fine for you. That's the key there though - FOR YOU. I remain solely interested in those things that are either specific to my own utility (the fact that I like dried figs, or black licorice when not everyone does, for example), or can be demonstrated to have utility for everyone. Everything else holds no utility for me. Doesn't that just make sense though? And, to be sure, I don't go around trying to convince everyone that they should like black licorice. Do you get me? I don't go around doing that. It would be super duper dumb.
Sure thing champ. I've had these questions and problems with all this theism crap since I was a child. Never not a time I didn't question all the ridiculous claims all sorts of people around me kept making. Couldn't make sense of any of it - and no one (not a single person - including YOU, bud) has ever provided me with any sort of compelling reason I should make my thoughts line up with this stuff. What you provide is just junk. You try and wrap it up nice, tie a little bow on it... but its junk. To anyone who really scrutinizes it honestly and looks for its outward-facing, demonstrable utility. And the ONLY way you can change that is if you provide incontestable evidence. I can show you some examples of things that have changed my mind on some things, if you care. Trust me though... you have nothing that even compares to the caliber of the things I would point you to. I'm pretty certain you have no hope of ever achieving such.
Please... please listen to yourself. You admit you "cannot possibly know it to be so" and yet here you are, blabbing about it profusely and desperately trying to get me to see how important it might be. You're not doing your side of the argument any favors with absurd behavior like this.
And would that have worked to get EVERYONE to shut their mouths about this stuff, do you reckon? Eh? I think we both know the answer to that one. Keep thinking you have all the bases covered PureX. You're actually standing out in left field, against the side-wall, and one of the advertisement boards has fallen and you're pinned under it... but your spinal cord snapped, and you can't even feel anything to know what's going on. Oh... and there's a spider starting to crawl up on your left shoulder - just FYI.
You specifically said this, genius: "Sorry, but you have to determine what the evidence for 'God" would be, for yourself." My answer was "No, I don't." You see that part where you said that I "have to?" Why'd you say it that way? Do you even think about things as you write them?
Uhh... you've been told this about 150 times, I am sure. I know I have told you myself, personally. So now this is just you either being dense or disingenuous. I am inclined to believe it is the latter. Seriously. Here it is again, bucko (try to freaking READ it this time, comprehend it, and stop asking into the future): People come to me with their beliefs. Or they react oddly when I tell them I don't believe. Some of them even get incensed, and start thinking weird things about me. Some of them even start reacting strangely to me, like trying to protect their kids from me when I haven't done a single thing of any note involving their kids. Like I even care that they have kids in the first place. People beat me about the head with their stupid, inane "beliefs" even without realizing it! A church marquee in July reads: "Be careful with fireworks, and your afterlife. Both can be very hot!" - like that crap is supposed to be hilarious! Some of you theistic doofuses can't keep your wieners in your pants TO SAVE YOUR LIVES. Got it now PureX? Is that clear enough and descriptive enough for you? Huh? Damn.
Another really good reason why no one should be believing any of this crap. So thanks for relating that nugget to us all. You're very helpful when you want to be PureX.
Not before ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS ACTUALLY PRESENTED, I don't. And that's what you theists ask all the time. "What would make you, as a nonbeliever, believe?" Why do I have to contemplate this? Why? Just bring your damn evidence and then I will tell you whether or not I believe you now. Why is this so hard? You had better have SOME good evidence - something you think would convince anyone, regardless their background or what they currently believe in any other avenue of thought. Let's say someone doesn't believe in electricity - you can produce an arc through a small space of air for them, or give them a small shock. You can reproduce this, and do so at any time. Let's say someone wants to deny that a rock exists that is sitting there, in front of you and your friends. You can pick up the rock and toss it at the denier's knee-cap. If he reacts, you out him. Those things are good evidence. Nice, hearty, realistic and compelling things. You don't have this, and there are good reasons you don't have this. And yet you expect people to believe. And if, truly, you only really expect people to leave you alone to go about your business believing to yourself, then shut the hell up about it. Seriously. Stop engaging anyone who scrutinizes your belief and uncovers the fact that you have crap-all for justification and evidence. Just keep it to yourself and your like-minded buddies! Why would that be so, so terrible? You're free to think and believe whatever the hell you want... just don't try and take it further than yourself. You're even free to take it out into the public sphere, obviously! But just remember... that's where I am.
Yes, exactly. And yet there are plenty of people (and you KNOW there are) who are absolutely flabbergasted that their presentation of evidence doesn't compel me to believe as they do. And when the evidence of something is as good as someone being able to throw a rock at my knee-cap? Well then I would have to admit that I am being completely irrational to continue to deny it at that point. But you DON'T HAVE THIS for your god claims. You don't! Just admit this and move on.
Obviously I understand this... this is precisely why I'm not going to allow your stupid thoughts about god to sway me in any way, shape or form. But obviously we should always try to get people to accept certain things as fact, truth, etc. that are important, and can be demonstrated to be important to all of us. For example... I bet you believe in climate change, right? Isn't it worthwhile, in your estimation, to attempt to sway people's minds from denial of climate change? To present THE EVIDENCE (the kind that exists in the real world, and can easily be shared between discussion participants) , and try to get them to change their minds on their stance that sees them continuing to harm the environs of Earth? Of course it is worthwhile. Don't be dense. This absolute talk of yours about "You can't control what goes on in the minds of others." Obviously we can't literally do that... but it is worthwhile in many, many instances to try and get people on board with various ideas, beliefs, realities, etc. I know you don't see what I do in the arena of "religious belief" as being that way, but that's what I am going for, nonetheless. Based on my understanding of the situation, this is the best course of action.
Uhh... except we can do just fine without a communal sense of God. If we couldn't then the human race would have been doomed long ago. Hell... you theists can't even decide on thinking the same way about almost anything WITHIN particular sects of religious beliefs. Hence the reason there are constant and unending splits. People starting "their own branch" etc.
Sounds like your bag is just about entirely empty. I have to wonder what makes you so defensive of it.
Ok champ, it's clear your ego is a barrier in this instance to you understanding the thread. I am relatively new so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume this is just an off colour day for you.
Not believing in unicorns is not a worldview, since when? BTW, never heard of invisible pink unicorn wiki ?
When I became skeptical of my religious beliefs I became an atheist through that process, but I still identify as a skeptic, rather than as an atheist.
Sounds delicious...
"The Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn often faces criticism from monotheistic religions for comparing their sacred beings with a fantastic invented character as well as trying to masquerade it as a religion while lacking the scripture, principles, ideologies, and broader social community necessary to be considered a legitimate religion. Many followers have responded to these critiques by improvising new literature, rituals, and customs, frequently written as farcical narrative that parodies not only scripture and rites itself but also the perceived importance or relevance of such scripture and customs.[13] Invisible Pink Unicorn scripture and customs seek to evoke the mysticism of the unicorn and to simultaneously lampoon similar literature in other faiths per the IPU's main tenet." Invisible Pink UnicornOh no, I've trodden on my own tail again haven't I, ah well I can always claim it was a typo, or I was taken out of context.
Is it a cocktail?
Something tells me they should watch out... lest some of their "flock" ends up starting to truly believe, practice and go about the business of trying to inform the world of the correctness of it all. I think we can all sincerely admit that we have heard of stranger things happening...
Individual definitions? The reason language works is by mutual agreement on the meanings of words.
I'm bowing out at this point... we have run the full gamete and now we are just rehearsing positions.