Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Nyarlathotep "god didn't tell you anything."
And you know this for a fact huh?
"@Nyarlathotep "god didn't tell you anything."
And you know this for a fact huh?"
That''s another appeal to ignorance fallacy. As usual you will ignore this fact of course, and roll on without bothering to look up argumentum as ignorantiam, or making any effort to understand what it means, and why it makes your claim irrational. What we all know for a fact is that you haven't even tried to evidence your claim,, thus it can dismissed in the same fashion, sadly you don't understand this, but nonetheless it is logically and epistemologically sound.
I'd bet everything I own, V.S. a penny that it is true; because that is just a free penny.
@Nyarlathotep
Oh so you do like wagers after all? Never would have guessed.
Well I've been known to gamble, but I'm not a big risk taker. I'm more of a hedger. But free money is free money.
Why on earth would I believe an unevidenced myth from a bronze age superstition? Even if I wanted to delude myself as you do, what exactly evidences your deity over all the other fictional deities humans have created, and whose adherents make precisely the same unevidenced claims that you do.
You have also ignored my question, what exactly can one not believe using the vapid smoke screen of faith?
"You guys say that your minds are not made up, yet you can't or won't even entertain it being possible because you want God's presence before faith? "
Nothing in that sentence is true, doesn't your religion have a moratorium on lying? My position is an atheistic one, which means I don't believe in any deity, and as in all things this is because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. I have never said it is impossible for a deity to exist, and what's more I have called you on this lie more than once, for shame. Without any objective evidence I have no idea whether the claim is possible or impossible, neither do you of course.
I gave up halfway through that verbiage as you're preaching again, with the usual vapid rhetoric, You can't demonstrate any evidence so stop making claims you can't support, if you are capable of debate, and I extremely dubious, then offer some cogent argument for your belief or for any deity.
"if God is there, like so many people have witnessed and experienced? "
No one has witnessed a deity, or experienced one until they can demonstrate some objective evidence to support the claim. You're hopeless GH, you just roll on and on preaching the same claims, but never even acknowledging any critical arguments people make in response.
Try answering my question honestly about faith for a start, and then try understanding what that means about faith. Show some sign you have any interest in examining the subject matter at all, rather your endless tedious proselytising. .
Sheldon: "Why on earth would I believe an unevidenced myth from a bronze age superstition?"
I am plagiarizing this question. Damn good one.
rmfr
The problem with many theists and atheists is that their definition of God is a false one to begin with, distorted by Religion and the atheists who assume the same fallacy. God is not a religion. People made it so. Your definition is false and presumptuous and anything you all say after that is nothing short of ignorance. Is it possible your definition is wrong? The question requires a response.
@ In Spirit
Then why cannot you provide a definition for "god"?
rmfr
@arakish
You are avoiding my question. Answer mine and I will then answer yours
@ In Spirit
Why is it every post you make you sound like whiney-ass kid? Answer mine I'll answer yours. Just like your deity as Robert A Heinlein said, "Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods men create have the manners and morals of a childish, spoiled brat."
My definitions are never wrong. It is theists that have the problem defining anything.
Question answered.
rmfr
"Is it possible your definition is wrong? The question requires a response."
Atheists don't define deities, that is axiomatic. It's for theists to accurately define what they mean by the term, and for theists to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support their beliefs.
Can you do any of that? To be honest most of what I've read from you is vapid waffle, and semantics. You expend energy attacking the beliefs of others, and telling atheists they are somehow missing some esoteric truth you have secretly acquired, and if I had a pound for every time a theist has made that claim, then failed to offer anything tangible to support it, then I'd be a rich man indeed by now.
Things are validated by objective evidence, not vague wishy washy sentimental semantics.
@Sheldon
English please without the semantics. Q & A
Which part didn't you understand? This seems pretty clear to me.
" It's for theists to accurately define what they mean by the term, and for theists to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support their beliefs.
Can you do any of that? "
@Sheldon
" It's for theists to accurately define what they mean by the term, and for theists to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support their beliefs."
Can't do that when atheists are setting the rule for what God and Religion is. That's my point. No matter what I say all I hear in return is the attack of the accepted definitions of God and Religion.
More lies and evasion and not one word to properly define your deity or evidence it. So I will ask again, and everyone can see I have not set any rules for how you define your beliefs, merely asked you to.
" It's for theists to accurately define what they mean by the term, and for theists to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support their beliefs.
Can you do any of that? "
There are no "Accepted Definitions." If there was an accepted definition there would not be 30,000 different Christian faiths, Hindu Faiths, Muslim Faiths, Buddhist Faiths, Shinto Faiths, and the rest. There would be an accepted definition and we could all begin from there. If you think you have a definition that even closely approaches an accepted definition. This is one of the biggest problems with theology. NO ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS OF ANYTHING.
Imagine if there was an accepted definition. It could be proved a fallacy one time and all religion would end. Wouldn't that be amazing. Problem is, theists keep inventing new things, moving the goal posts, using fake science, rekindling old apologetics with new twists, just to keep their lame and dying religions alive for one more day.
Cognostic
Thanks for pointing that out. I did not think that one through when I used the words "accepted definitions"
Mia culpa
It's past midnight here and my mind is shutting down therefore I will leave you and everyone on a good note and a good night.
@Sheldon
"Atheists don't define deities...,"
Surely when we speak of God or religion, your brain is giving you some form of idea, definition and more. When we speak of God or religion your brain isn't visualizing apples, is it? You're just playing semantics Sheldon.
"Surely when we speak of God or religion, your brain is giving you some form of idea, definition and more. When we speak of God or religion your brain isn't visualizing apples, is it? "
I'm not visualising anything obviously, because I'm an atheist. I'm waiting for you to define what you believe in and offer some objective evidence to support them. Though if this shameful display of evasive semantics is any indication you can offer nothing, else you'd do so and stop this pointless prevaricating.
"You're just playing semantics Sheldon."
So you're just going to parrot my accusation back at me? A fairly ironic accusation as well given that you have claimed both not to believe in a deity, and not to not believe in a deity in another post, laughably claiming to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
I am happy for others to read my posts, and judge for themselves if I ever indulge in such laughably dishonest semantics.
@ Sheldon
Take a seat Sheldon unless you want to engage in a real debate. You are attempting to evade my original question at all costs.
No one's mind is empty when any word is said, even the words God or Religion. Are you telling me your head is empty, without thought? Even you are rational enough to know that is not possible.
Furthermore you are attempting to enforce the stage, the rules and the trap once again. You keep insisting that I divulge my definition of deity when clearly I have opened no debate on my definition yet. I will do so at the proper time under a set of rules we can all agree on.
@ In Spirit
Original Question that began the whole exchange.
Which In Spirit avoided like the masters John Breezy, NOT Searcing for truth, and AJ777 by asking…
After quite a few more whiney-ass pleas, In Spirit ends with this whiney-ass plea.
Still playing the part of a whiney-ass childish spoiled brat like your deity?
Why cannot you answer Sheldon's question first?
Good, adult intellect is so hard to find...
rmfr
Arakish
That first question is directed at Great hope. He is responding to Gh
I can understand the confusion when there is no mention for whom it is intended.
Very funny from someone who has ignored my simple question with rank dishonest evasion three times.
" It's for theists to accurately define what they mean by the term, and for theists to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support their beliefs.
Can you do any of that? "
You can rant and sulk all you want, the question remains ignored by you, and we all know why.
"No one's mind is empty when any word is said, "
I think yours might be if this vapid rhetoric you've posted is any indicator.
"You keep insisting that I divulge my definition of deity when clearly I have opened no debate on my definition yet. I will do so at the proper time under a set of rules we can all agree on."
Ahahhahahahahha, that's as dishonest as it is cowardly, and again we can all see why. Not a surprise though, from someone who can make the unabashed claim they are neither a theists nor an atheist. If you can't see that for the idiotic semantics it is then debate is a lost cause. Or that you have tried repeatedly to claim objective truth doesn't exist. Debate indeed, don't make me laugh.
@In Spirit
"You keep insisting that I divulge my definition of deity when clearly I have opened no debate on my definition yet. I will do so at the proper time under a set of rules we can all agree on."
That is a load of crap. If you do not offer your personal definition of your supreme being, then we must fill in the blanks ourselves. Your strategy is patently obvious and dishonest. You will not reveal anything just in case you can later state something else just to look good, or suck up to your god, or whatever.
I am an atheist, Sheldon is an atheist, we are honest enough to state our positions long before we engage in debate.
In Spirit, until you state your position on your supreme being and offer a definition, then you are being dishonest, pure and simple.
In Spirit: Why do you do this? You get upset when people "call you out." and yet when someone very clearly tells you "ATHEISTS DO NOT DEFINE GODS." You want to argue. Do you not understand that you do not have a leg to stand on. Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR GODS. Not only do they not know which god you are talking about..... THEY DON'T CARE. Do you have any idea how many versions of the Christian god there are??? 30,000 Christan faiths and you assume they all worship the same God? NOT EVEN!
Does your God live on Golob?
Did you live in Heaven before your God sent you to Earth?
Are you a Pantheist? God created the world and then vanished?
Do you believe in a personal God who answers prayers?
Is your god part of a trinity?
Do you have a covenant with your god as one of His chosen people?
Was Jesus also a God, Just a spirit, or a man who was adopted by God?
Is your god a mind? Is it Love?
Is your god a higher power?
Are you a literalist who believes the volcano god of the Old Testament (Moses)
Are you an literalist who believes in one of the versions of God in the Bible?
Why do you insist on setting yourself up to look ignorant? It's not necessary.
@In Spirit,
"Is it possible your definition is wrong? The question requires a response."
I personally have no definition of god. I'm have heard any different definitions of god, but people can't seem to agree on one, so I don't accept any of them as the definitive definition.
That being said, when I have a discussion about gods, an agreement needs to be reached about the usage. Are we discussing the god of Abraham, a pagan god, a Norse god, a Hindu god?
I haven't discovered or invented the concept of gods, so i am not qualified to own a definition. If you want to discuss god with me, then we need to agree on the definition ahead of time.
Skeptical Kevin
Thank you for your comments.
Are you contradicting yourself when you say that you have no definition of god but you have heard many definitions of god or perhaps I might be misreading it? I mean this sincerely.
I would prefer not guessing and putting words in your mouth. Can you clarify that for me? I think I know what you mean but I prefer that you clarify it before we go on.
thanks again
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
"Are you contradicting yourself when you say that you have no definition of god but you have heard many definitions of god or perhaps I might be misreading it? I mean this sincerely."
Are you saying you can't make up your own mind, but are forced to conform to the ideas of others? How bizarre...So if someone defines a deity in a particular way you are compelled to define it that way yourself? Is that why you do a "brave Sir Robin" each time you're asked to define your deity?
Well well....
@In Spirit,
"Is it possible your definition is wrong? The question requires a response."
I understand where you are coming from, insisting that we all have the definition of god locked away somewhere and it seems like we are dodging your question by not providing our definition. Here's my $0.02 on the matter:
We can define what a plant is. I have a definition of a plant in my head. It was taught to me in school based on what criteria scientists use to qualify a plant as a plant.
I have no definition in my head about what a goblin is. I have never seen nor experienced a goblin. The best I can say is:
According to Dragonlance, a goblin is, in general, a short greeninsh humanoid, high in number, aligned with evil gods, and low on intellect.
According to Harry Potter, goblins are short humanoids with powerful innate magic and are famous for guarding Gringotts, the wizard bank in Diagonal Alley.
According to Warcraft lore, goblins are green, highly intelligent short humanoids who are aligned with the Horde and have a predilection for explosives.
With gods, it is the same. I can't tell you what a god is. I can say "According to Paganism, a god is this. According to Christianity, a god is this. According to Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Mormonism, etc..."
The difference between defining plants and gods is that all the people who devote their lives to studying plants agree on what a plant is. Theologists cannot agree on what a god is. Theologists from the same sect of theology can't even agree on what their particular god wants or cares about.
Under these circumstances, how can you challenge anyone's definition of god? How can you even have a definition when the experts can't agree on one?
Edit: Typo
Pages