• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

what atheism teaches us

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Theism as distinguished from deism and atheism:

the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ). Origin of theism.
Theist | Define Theist at Dictionary.com

LOL! Dude! A dictionary isn't an authority on what must be done. It's just a collection of common usage.

And you are in the minority. Theism, colloquially, means "god-ism".

Deists come under the umbrella of "Theism", therefore.

Atheism means "without god", and does not include "deism", therefore.

You can whine and protest all you like, but you are a theist.

To continue to claim otherwise, while being a deist? Only has the effect of destroying your credibility.

Unfortunately, now that you have lied in an obvious way, I can no longer trust anything you have to say.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
The legal definition does not apply to God because God is not a man who goes to court. Moreover, God is not accountable to anyone but God. :rolleyes:

Absolutely and without conditions: WRONG.

A god MUST be AT LEAST as moral as mere mortals!

To be OTHERWISE? Is to be EVIL-- and since gods are OmniMax? THEY WOULD BE INFINITELY EVIL.

That does describe pretty much 99.999999% of all book-gods, everywhere.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, strictly 100% hope, that which is not offered by Prop 2. It isn't irrational to hope in the absence of any evidence.

i disagree. False hopes often cause wasted effort. I can dream that I will win the powerball, and the cost of one ticket is negligible. But if I buy a ticket and waste the day mooning over what I will do with the money that I will win I might could easily lose time that could have been put to a useful purpose.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
The fact that there are many religions to pick from does not mean that you cannot find one that is right for you. That would be like saying that because there are many different makes and models of cars you cannot find one that is right for you. Having many to choose from makes it more difficult to find the right one, but it is not impossible.

Strawman. The choice of car has zero effect on someone's "life after death"*.

Your analogy is 100% strawman, and doesn't even come close to the issue.

Sorry about that, but your "argument" is without merit.

*Notebook: I do not believe in "life after death" (hence the quotes), but every god-claim ever presented includes some form or other of post-death existence. If they don't? It absolutely and 100% does not matter in the slightest --- the god in question absolutely becomes 100% irrelevant, and may be safely ignored.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
You argument from sarcasm is refuted by about a half-dozen logical fallacies. So, what do we have:

Exhibit A: The Universe.
Question: How did the universe come to be?
Proposition 1: It was designed and initiated by a super-sentient intelligence.
Proposition 2: It wasn't designed, just came to be spontaneously.
Facts, evidence or reasoned theories supporting either proposition: None.
Distractions: Massive quantities of unsubstantiated religious and nihilistic hearsay and feelings.
Conclusion: Agnostic doubt is the only rational position

Point 1: you listed only two possible outcomes. You absolutely failed to show that only those two comprise all possible outcomes.

For example, the Universe (or greater universes) Always Was. That neatly destroys your "argument" in one go.

Conclusion: Agnostic doubt is the only rational position

Ooops! That does not describe YOU*



*Notebook: I am only going by the sum of your posts on this thread alone.....

You are inconsistent.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
i disagree. False hopes often cause wasted effort. I can dream that I will win the powerball, and the cost of one ticket is negligible. But if I buy a ticket and waste the day mooning over what I will do with the money that I will win I might could easily lose time that could have been put to a useful purpose.

Horrible analogy. Two possibilities both lacking evidence vs. two possibilities, one with 1/1,000,000,000 odds against it, and the other with 0/0 odds.

Point 1: you listed only two possible outcomes. You absolutely failed to show that only those two comprise all possible outcomes.

Absolutely not. The difference is the two propositions (two different causes), with an identical outcome, the natural rational universe which we all know and love.

For example, the Universe (or greater universes) Always Was. That neatly destroys your "argument" in one go.

There's only one Big Bang, with absolutely no information available about what preceded it. It was also the most distressing fact for religious scientists at the time the Big Bang was proposed and discovered because it shows that the universe had a beginning. Any multi-verses (a retreating theory) would be post-Big Bang.

BTW, "always was" is probably the most incomprehensible idea for humans to grasp, but you can make sense of it. In non-local quantumland "from" which the universe sprang "into", there is no time, thus no "always", and no distance, and thus no location, or to be more precise, a universal or everywhere location.



Ooops! That does not describe YOU*

Even if I'd been wrong
ScentedDeadGuppy-max-1mb.gif
, the only one with a red face is you looking in he mirror.

*Notebook: I am only going by the sum of your posts on this thread alone.....

You are inconsistent.
I believe your problem is your understanding of what an outcome is and how to differentiate it from a cause. And even though I'm sure you'll never admit it, sometime down the road you may well do so. I speak from personal experience.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Horrible analogy. Two possibilities both lacking evidence vs. two possibilities, one with 1/1,000,000,000 odds against it, and the other with 0/0 odds.

Once again you demonstrate an inability to reason logically. There was nothing wrong with the analogy. You made the false claim that a false hope does no harm. It indicates how your concept is wrong.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Absolutely not. The difference is the two propositions (two different causes), with an identical outcome, the natural rational universe which we all know and love.

Ooops! You made your case even worse than before! You assume the universe was ... caused.

You have failed to prove that it is caused, or that any cause is needed.

And there are far more than your two simpleton choices-- I gave a third. There are likely an infinite number of possibilities-- that in your Hubris, you ignore without comment.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
LOL! Dude! A dictionary isn't an authority on what must be done. It's just a collection of common usage.

And you are in the minority. Theism, colloquially, means "god-ism".

Deists come under the umbrella of "Theism", therefore.

Atheism means "without god", and does not include "deism", therefore.

You can whine and protest all you like, but you are a theist.

To continue to claim otherwise, while being a deist? Only has the effect of destroying your credibility.

Unfortunately, now that you have lied in an obvious way, I can no longer trust anything you have to say.
I just grabbed a definition off the web. I guess you can just as easily divide people up into two categories, theists and atheists, for purposes of simplification.

I never said i was a deist. I have a religion, the Baha'i Faith, so I am a theist. :D
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Absolutely and without conditions: WRONG.

A god MUST be AT LEAST as moral as mere mortals!

To be OTHERWISE? Is to be EVIL-- and since gods are OmniMax? THEY WOULD BE INFINITELY EVIL.

That does describe pretty much 99.999999% of all book-gods, everywhere.
God is not subject to morality.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Google

God sets the standards for human morality. God is not subject to those standards because God is above humans, above anything that can ever be recounted or perceived.

You can choose to believe whatever you want because you have free will.
 
Top