Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion
Posted on: March 9, 2012 - 1:30am
Offline
Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion
Hello everyone,
I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.
To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.
- Login to post comments
Your signature here, the avatar you're using, and the graphics on your site. I like all of it.
You caught us!! We both drew on years of experience from the following sources: science, reason, and honesty. Using those three we were able to come to the the same conclusion without ever looking at what the other was saying. Awesome how that works.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Science is not a comprehensive worldview, but it's still a way of viewing reality, albeit through a certain kind of experimentation. The chemist views metal differently than the layman. It doesn't matter that the chemist has the accurate view of what metal is, he still views it accurately. Knowledge changes perception; you can actually see the changes in the neurons.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
No, you used a pocket dictionary and Wikipedia. Those do not constitute science, reason, and honesty.
You aren't qualified to determine what constitutes science, reason, and honesty. You use delusions and dishonesty to come to your conclusions.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Do you really think that?! Do you think that this is nothing more than an attack on your personal beliefs? Because I don't think of atheism in that way. I just think that atheists are ill informed. This due to their primary opposition being ill informed. You know the Bible only through these very limited sources. Traditional modern day apostate Christianity, in your (the Western atheistic) specific case.
I'm a fair and reasonable person. I loath apostate Christianity probably more than you because it has so distorted the truth for the consideration of any, including the atheist. I'm not going to sacrifice that for a petty definition to a world view. I'm trying to inform you. Pretty much of just that you need to take a closer, less emotionally based look - a rational look - at all of that.
I was okay in your eyes when I was telling Jean of the pagan influence in Christianity with hell, the immortal soul, trinity, cross, Easter, rapture, Christmas but not so cute when I told you the truth.
What "KIND" of a theist are you? are you liberal? Let me guess, are you a kind of break off from the Jehovah Witnesses? or perhaps a Wiccan?
The term Jehovah is an anglican word first used around the 13th century, Yahveh is most appropriate though we obviously do not know for sure.
Since Hell does not yet exist, then how could "Jehovah" be in hell? When I inform people of them going to hell i speak in a non technical sense. They will enter hades which is also torment and is where they are kept until they are actually thrown in the pit of hell.
As for Jesus going to hades after His death, this is perfectly find and is recited in the Apostles Creed though the creed does say hell but with a qualification of correction, we say hades.
So what theological means do you subscribe to my Jehovah Witness schismatic friend.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Yes.
I didn't think you were attacking me at all.
Some are, but in this case we're simply using the dictionary and admitting to how the words are commonly used. Your arguments boil down to accusing the dictionary of being misinformed.
I usually don't read conversations that Jean is engaged in. I didn't read any of your interaction with him. I have limited time in general and normally just look to see if there is a response to my specific interaction.
This isn't about you being okay, or not being okay. You might be a great person, maybe a good friend, but you're being dishonest with yourself and anyone you communicate with if you insist on redefining words to suit your need.
The question is... do you know why you need to do that? I think I have a good idea, and I also have a hunch that you have nowhere near the level of honesty (with yourself) as to admit why you want to redefine those words. It's ok, it's not entirely your fault... you're a theist and you want there to be a god, in order to argue it you are forced to be ignorant, dishonest, or both.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Correction: I don't need anything.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Theist,
yeah, that's 'what i said, you're a schismatic Jehovah Witness or a break off from the J.W. religion. How did I know that without you even telling me? I tell you what.
The Jehovah Witnesses have a lot of break offs. In fact, the JW's originally were a break off of the Seventh Day Advenstists. Charles T. Russel was a follower of White. And SDA was a break off of William Miller's gang of false prophesies.
So explain your break of the J.W. Cult. Do you still agree with Russell and Rutherford? Wha about studies of the Scriptures or the rainbow set?
And wait, J.W''s don't believe in hell, you do? ? ?
Do you still believe that Jesus came in 1914 spiritually? You do know Russel originally predicted physically. He also predicted that in 1874.
I have book cases of rare old Jehovah Witness material. But in the words of the cult members that no longer visit me since I cause to much doubt:
Logically speaking, how do you know today's "truth," is not tomorrow's lie.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Logically speaking, how do you know today's "truth," is not tomorrow's lie.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)