quote:


I can only speak of the people I've met and I've found people who deem themselves to be religious much more interesting, charitable and humble company. In the sense of how they interact as a matter of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The claim I advanced was a response to a dispute by another member of my earlier statements. They are unable as in none of them are capable of advancing their claims against the claim I asserted. Apparently they are also illiterate since they seem to have a need to be taken in hand and walked through the process like I one needs to do to teach handicapped children.

That said:

The whole grade school argument that atheists by negatively stating 'lack of belief in the existence of God' has some kind of distinction from positively stating 'atheists believe there is no God' somehow absolves them of any responsibility or obligation and is most often used to promote their fanciful premise that atheism is not a religion because they lack belief is patently absurd if not a clear demonstration of a retarded intellect.

In fact this can be demonstrated ridiculously easy at a grade school level of intellect by simply examining the words and resultant meaning atheists conclude from those words.

An atheist believes there is no God or gods:

atheist n
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods

an atheist believes God does not exist.

lack
noun: lack;

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.


First the word 'lack' operates on the word belief not the word God which rules out the ['or' not having enough of] part of the definition, (as will be detailed later) leaving us with: the state of being entirely without which is binary and conforms with the atheist position there is no God.

However the atheist statement using lack is purely false since they do not lack a 'belief'.

On the contrary they most certainly possess a belief.

That belief is that there is no God.

Hence they do not 'lack belief'.

The lacking belief theory is their incredulous personal lie.

In linguistics and grammar, affirmative and negative are terms of opposite meaning which may be applied to statements, verb phrases, clauses, and some other utterances. Essentially an affirmative (positive) form is used to express the validity or truth of a basic assertion, while a negative form expresses its falsity.

There is no functional material difference between 'I do not believe your story' compared to 'I believe your story is incorrect'.

It is purely irrational to make a claim of 'no belief' [lack] when some sort of 'belief [either positive or negative] had to exist' to make the claim in the first place.

It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that there is no functional or material difference between 'I do not believe God exists' compared to 'I believe God does not exist' which is why none of the self proclaimed intellectual atheists here can lay out so much as one rational reasoned argument in support of their position. The only line of defense is the constant onslaught of 'strawman arguments' to distract attention away from that fact.


Now should one of these atheists who claim to 'lack' [belief] wish to claim part 2 of the definition applies, that they in fact really believe in just a little bit of God but lack 'full' belief then a completely different word now must apply, that word being agnostic.

ag·nos·tic
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Their argument is purely binary.

No philosophy needed to destroy the atheists childish intellectually illiterate level of thought that is so prevalently nonsensically used by atheists as a get out of jail free card.

You can say that another five hundred times, put it in bolds, in capital letters and underline it - and all in a really, really big font, RO, but it will still be balls. As for your superior philosophical intellect and the rest of us being in grade school - oh please. You didn't even recognise the Socratic method when I gave you an example of it, and that's philosophy at little-league level. In all, what you've given us so far is just one great big dollop of smugness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Well, that's very strange. You see, I *am* quite intellectually developed, yet I don't believe that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists. I also don't believe that this has the slightest thing to do with 'making a distinction where no difference exists.'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

If you wanna step up to the plate and have a serious discussion I'm green.

So make your case

Fine. Just answer this question: Do you believe in Flargledorpf?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Of course, it stands to reason that the higher one climbs the intellectual ladder the less company they will have.

Laws claiming to be nonreligious leveled against religious practice are laws based in atheist belief system despite the plethora of logical fallacies they apply to pretend its not a belief system. [aka-religion]

yeh toddlers grow up someday and and some are able to figure out the logical fallacies that atheists are forcing upon them because atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists.

Here is the atheist fallacy spelled out:

quote:


Distinction Without a Difference

Description: The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

Logical Form: A is not the same as the first letter in the alphabet.

Coach: I don’t want you to try to get the ball; I want you to GET the ball!

In practical usage, this means the same thing, but the effect could be motivating, especially in a non-argumentative context.

Tip: Replace the phrase, “I’ll try” in your vocabulary with, “I’ll do my best”. While the same idea in practice, perceptually it means so much more.

Ok I wont edit this if it will make you happy!

I stated a case, and proposed the question (position) just like a real debate in post 17.

You came in in post 40 arguing the same proposition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

yeh toddlers grow up someday and and some are able to figure out the logical fallacies that atheists are forcing upon them because atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists.

Well, that's very strange. You see, I *am* quite intellectually developed, yet I don't believe that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists. I also don't believe that this has the slightest thing to do with 'making a distinction where no difference exists.'.

Now you want to duck out of it so have it your way so go for it, enjoy the ride.




Of course I believe in Flargledorpf.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I think you must be confused, R0. Flonglesquink is what you've believed in all your life. I know that because it's what you've often told me. Flargledorpf and Flonglesquink are not the same *at all*.

For me, what you're saying really does go to the kernel of it all, though. I've long thought that religionists project onto atheists this assumption that because they, religionists, have built some huge thing, over many years, and involving so many people doing so much thinking, that it must take something of equivalent size and power to knock it down.

It really doesn't take that, though. You only think, 'Hey, come on. This is just silly' ... and that's it. All those things that don't make sense ... they don't need to make sense any more. You don't solve the calculation that's chalked all over the blackboard ... you just wipe it all off, and go home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Religion serves a human need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Let's simplify this. This is America and I am a orthodox capitalist, so I worship the dollar and kneel at the alter of profits. I mean really, is there anything more socially, economically, psychologically and ecumenically satisfying...then a profit ? NO !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The claim I advanced was a response to a dispute by another member of my earlier statements. They are unable as in none of them are capable of advancing their claims against the claim I asserted. Apparently they are also illiterate since they seem to have a need to be taken in hand and walked through the process like I one needs to do to teach handicapped children.

That said:

The whole grade school argument that atheists by negatively stating 'lack of belief in the existence of God' has some kind of distinction from positively stating 'atheists believe there is no God' somehow absolves them of any responsibility or obligation and is most often used to promote their fanciful premise that atheism is not a religion because they lack belief is patently absurd if not a clear demonstration of a retarded intellect.

In fact this can be demonstrated ridiculously easy at a grade school level of intellect by simply examining the words and resultant meaning atheists conclude from those words.

An atheist believes there is no God or gods:

atheist n
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods

an atheist believes God does not exist.

lack
noun: lack;

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.


First the word 'lack' operates on the word belief not the word God which rules out the ['or' not having enough of] part of the definition, (as will be detailed later) leaving us with: the state of being entirely without which is binary and conforms with the atheist position there is no God.

However the atheist statement using lack is purely false since they do not lack a 'belief'.

On the contrary they most certainly possess a belief.

That belief is that there is no God.

Hence they do not 'lack belief'.

The lacking belief theory is their incredulous personal lie.

In linguistics and grammar, affirmative and negative are terms of opposite meaning which may be applied to statements, verb phrases, clauses, and some other utterances. Essentially an affirmative (positive) form is used to express the validity or truth of a basic assertion, while a negative form expresses its falsity.

There is no functional material difference between 'I do not believe your story' compared to 'I believe your story is incorrect'.

It is purely irrational to make a claim of 'no belief' [lack] when some sort of 'belief [either positive or negative] had to exist' to make the claim in the first place.

It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that there is no functional or material difference between 'I do not believe God exists' compared to 'I believe God does not exist' which is why none of the self proclaimed intellectual atheists here can lay out so much as one rational reasoned argument in support of their position. The only line of defense is the constant onslaught of 'strawman arguments' to distract attention away from that fact.


Now should one of these atheists who claim to 'lack' [belief] wish to claim part 2 of the definition applies, that they in fact really believe in just a little bit of God but lack 'full' belief then a completely different word now must apply, that word being agnostic.

ag·nos·tic
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Their argument is purely binary.

No philosophy needed to destroy the atheists childish intellectually illiterate level of thought that is so prevalently nonsensically used by atheists as a get out of jail free card.

You can say that another five hundred times, put it in bolds, in capital letters and underline it - and all in a really, really big font, RO, but it will still be balls. As for your superior philosophical intellect and the rest of us being in grade school - oh please. You didn't even recognise the Socratic method when I gave you an example of it, and that's philosophy at little-league level. In all, what you've given us so far is just one great big dollop of smugness.

You violated basic rules of debate when you quickly discovered you were depants'd where you dodged giving any support of your 'BELIEFS'


HERE:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Well, that's very strange. You see, I *am* quite intellectually developed, yet I don't believe that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists. I also don't believe that this has the slightest thing to do with 'making a distinction where no difference exists.'.

I demanded that you state your claim when you are ready to have a serious debate which carried the meaning of a claim that would support your theory and you went into absurdo land with:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

If you wanna step up to the plate and have a serious discussion I'm green.

So make your case

Fine. Just answer this question: Do you believe in Flargledorpf?

and you responded with utter non sequitor bullshit that I put to waste with: [see red]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Of course, it stands to reason that the higher one climbs the intellectual ladder the less company they will have.

Laws claiming to be nonreligious leveled against religious practice are laws based in atheist belief system despite the plethora of logical fallacies they apply to pretend its not a belief system. [aka-religion]

yeh toddlers grow up someday and and some are able to figure out the logical fallacies that atheists are forcing upon them because atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists.

Here is the atheist fallacy spelled out:

quote:


Distinction Without a Difference

Description: The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

Logical Form: A is not the same as the first letter in the alphabet.

Coach: I don’t want you to try to get the ball; I want you to GET the ball!

In practical usage, this means the same thing, but the effect could be motivating, especially in a non-argumentative context.

Tip: Replace the phrase, “I’ll try” in your vocabulary with, “I’ll do my best”. While the same idea in practice, perceptually it means so much more.

Ok I wont edit this if it will make you happy!

I stated a case, and proposed the question (position) just like a real debate in post 17.

You came in in post 40 arguing the same proposition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

yeh toddlers grow up someday and and some are able to figure out the logical fallacies that atheists are forcing upon them because atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists.

Well, that's very strange. You see, I *am* quite intellectually developed, yet I don't believe that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists. I also don't believe that this has the slightest thing to do with 'making a distinction where no difference exists.'.

Now you want to duck out of it so have it your way so go for it, enjoy the ride.




Of course I believe in Flargledorpf.

BUT not before explaining it to you in living color detail like I would teach an adolescent.

wherein you upped the bullshit anti even further!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I think you must be confused, R0. Flonglesquink is what you've believed in all your life. I know that because it's what you've often told me. Flargledorpf and Flonglesquink are not the same *at all*.

For me, what you're saying really does go to the kernel of it all, though. I've long thought that religionists project onto atheists this assumption that because they, religionists, have built some huge thing, over many years, and involving so many people doing so much thinking, that it must take something of equivalent size and power to knock it down.

It really doesn't take that, though. You only think, 'Hey, come on. This is just silly' ... and that's it. All those things that don't make sense ... they don't need to make sense any more. You don't solve the calculation that's chalked all over the blackboard ... you just wipe it all off, and go home.

at which time I simply bowed out since I have never spoken to you in my life.

My statement stands, how the hell can we be free from atheists who project and use the gubblemint to enforce their ungodliness on religious people in violation of the right of religious people to practice their religion?

You arent very good at this my friend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

You know RO, I read your stuff as I believe I've opined before, some of it is good research and informs, while some gives me a chuckle but this 'projection' and 'using govt.' and 'enforcing' all resulting in some sort of 'violation ?'

Where do you get such unmitigated bullshit ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Lucy, I'm lost. What does any of these insane ramblings have to do with scientific evidence proving/disproving the Bible?

I have no idea what insanity you are rambling on about.

However the challenge I put on the table on the first page was for someone to demonstrate how or what genetics has to do with religion.

Do you have the answer because I have a really hard time stretching my imagination that far?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Religion exists only in the abstract. (beliefs) Genetics exists in biology.

RO, try as people might, one cannot change the meaning of words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Of course I believe in Flargledorpf.

Really? I don't, and I invented him. I don't, however, have a monumental edifice of reasoning behind my not believing him; I haven't thought about the matter for many years, I've read nothing at all about the matter - I just don't believe in him because it's a manifestly silly idea to believe in him.

I've come to notice that the one thing that religionists cannot tolerate is atheists finding their beliefs silly - their most central belief of all, that is: that there's this big thing in the sky, a controller, of some specified sort and with these or other characteristics. In many countries, people are locked up for expressing that. In a few, they'll even kill you for saying it. In the West, these days, it's increasingly coming under the heading of 'disrespecting' a religion and governments are becoming punitive about it. But - what the hell choice do I have? With some things, all I need to do - can do - is realise that something is silly - then move on with my life to think about other things.

You may be right but I think most people are going to be upset when anyone suggests any idea of theirs is silly. Human nature being what it is. I also think that's the reason so many athiests act like angry little children when people ignore their oh so sage advice about god. They just can't grasp the idea that they have told people there is no god and despite the fact that they keep crowing about how uber intelligent they are, people still ignore them and continue to worship. They have created huge websites going into detail about how every religion out there is wrong and people still don't listen to them. Must be very frustrating. Personally I am not sure why they care so much.

quote:

at which time I simply bowed out since I have never spoken to you in my life.

quote:



at which time I simply bowed out since I have never spoken to you in my life.

quote:


and you responded with utter non sequitor bullshit that I put to waste with: [see red]

quote:


BUT not before explaining it to you in living color detail like I would teach an adolescent.

wherein you upped the bullshit anti even further!

quote:

My statement stands, how the hell can we be free from atheists who project and use the gubblemint to enforce their ungodliness on religious people in violation of the right of religious people to practice their religion?

quote:

My statement stands, how the hell can we be free from atheists who project and use the gubblemint to enforce their ungodliness on religious people in violation of the right of religious people to practice their religion?

quote:

You arent very good at this my friend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


Hey when Moses came down, his people were worshiping the Ram wasn't it ? Ok, at least some such shit.

Having endured Catholic boarding school, their book claims it was a golden calf, being a bit interested in religion on a purely historical level, I think it was Aspis bull worship...

Though what I find quite telling was how their oh so merciful and loving deity reacted (or Moses thought he spoke for the deity) 'Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.' And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

So basically kill your own friends and family members if they don't pray to the same deity as you do... Yeah, religion is so peaceful

quote:

'Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.' And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Let's simplify this. This is America and I am a orthodox capitalist, so I worship the dollar and kneel at the alter of profits. I mean really, is there anything more socially, economically, psychologically and ecumenically satisfying...then a profit ? NO !!

You see, I can't take it with me as when I die, I will go to sleep, I will not dream and I will...never wake up. Now where are those tax changes. I was just reading them ?

.....and yes, when my pastor got a nice shiny new Mercedes...I quit the church.

But you know you can show evidence of profit... Personally I can think of a few things that are more satisfying than profit, but then again it all depends, if I'd worry about a roof over my head and food on the table or how to pay bills, I'd possibly think different.

However I know that I don't need a priest to tell me to not mess with others, to not steal from them or to break up their relationships, if I donate to a charity, I'm not trying to buy my way into some obscure concept of afterlife, I do it because I simply care about others and want to do the right thing, not for a reward or absolution.

As for churches, yes their charitable arms should be tax exempt, if they are amassing wealth they should be taxed just like you and I are taxed on our assets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Of course I believe in Flargledorpf.

Really? I don't, and I invented him. I don't, however, have a monumental edifice of reasoning behind my not believing him; I haven't thought about the matter for many years, I've read nothing at all about the matter - I just don't believe in him because it's a manifestly silly idea to believe in him.

I've come to notice that the one thing that religionists cannot tolerate is atheists finding their beliefs silly - their most central belief of all, that is: that there's this big thing in the sky, a controller, of some specified sort and with these or other characteristics. In many countries, people are locked up for expressing that. In a few, they'll even kill you for saying it. In the West, these days, it's increasingly coming under the heading of 'disrespecting' a religion and governments are becoming punitive about it. But - what the hell choice do I have? With some things, all I need to do - can do - is realise that something is silly - then move on with my life to think about other things.

You may be right but I think most people are going to be upset when anyone suggests any idea of theirs is silly. Human nature being what it is. I also think that's the reason so many athiests act like angry little children when people ignore their oh so sage advice about god. They just can't grasp the idea that they have told people there is no god and despite the fact that they keep crowing about how uber intelligent they are, people still ignore them and continue to worship. They have created huge websites going into detail about how every religion out there is wrong and people still don't listen to them. Must be very frustrating. Personally I am not sure why they care so much.

Where do you get this stuff ? I have never in my decades young life, ever seen atheists act like angry little children. Never have received any atheist's 'sage' advice about any god. (in fact never read or heard anybody offer 'advice' about something they don't believe even exists) Never ever seen anybody let alone atheists crow on about their 'uber' intelligence.

Could you link to these 'huge' websites you refer to ? Most atheists I know and in fact, ALL atheists I know...don't care that much at all about theism or atheism. In fact, in my lifetime, it has become obvious to me that the theists care much more than atheists about the idea that there are such people...as atheists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

at which time I simply bowed out since I have never spoken to you in my life.

Well, I lied about having spoken to you. Just as you lied about believing in Flargledorpf: Of course, I made up this god, for the purpose of this thread ... so you couldn't have believed in it. Seriously, RO - what was the point in that lie? It didn't really demonstrate your sticking to the rules of logical debate as you demand that I do, now did it?



Look - seriously, I don't mind people having their religious beliefs, so long as they don't try to foist them onto me. But I cannot help but see silliness where I see silliness, and no amount of cod-philosophy is going to change the fact that I've seen the silliness in the foundation of religions and can't now somehow arrange to have un-seen it.

quote:

Flonglesquink means peon got his ass handed to him ;) which I also believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Let's simplify this. This is America and I am a orthodox capitalist, so I worship the dollar and kneel at the alter of profits. I mean really, is there anything more socially, economically, psychologically and ecumenically satisfying...then a profit ? NO !!

You see, I can't take it with me as when I die, I will go to sleep, I will not dream and I will...never wake up. Now where are those tax changes. I was just reading them ?

.....and yes, when my pastor got a nice shiny new Mercedes...I quit the church.

But you know you can show evidence of profit... Personally I can think of a few things that are more satisfying than profit, but then again it all depends, if I'd worry about a roof over my head and food on the table or how to pay bills, I'd possibly think different.

However I know that I don't need a priest to tell me to not mess with others, to not steal from them or to break up their relationships, if I donate to a charity, I'm not trying to buy my way into some obscure concept of afterlife, I do it because I simply care about others and want to do the right thing, not for a reward or absolution.

As for churches, yes their charitable arms should be tax exempt, if they are amassing wealth they should be taxed just like you and I are taxed on our assets.

Interesting that you should mention why you don't need that priest. The Buddhists believe that man (humankind) can live completely in concert with (obedience to) the 10 commandments...without even realizing it. In fact, not even grasping the concept. How, a religious person might ask ?

Because humankind has (or should have) the intelligence and moral capacity not to grasp the concept of lying, stealing, coveting thy neighbors wife, killing and on and on... and without even knowing they were some ordained set-in-stone...TEN commandments.

quote:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

You know RO, I read your stuff as I believe I've opined before, some of it is good research and informs, while some gives me a chuckle but this 'projection' and 'using govt.' and 'enforcing' all resulting in some sort of 'violation ?'

Where do you get such unmitigated bullshit ?

Well it does not change the fact that I laid the atheist 'lacking' theory to waste.

First is it that you feel this is so outlandish why in the world would the constitutors reserve the right 'of religion' and the 'exercise' thereof if this were not a very serious problem?

Why would they say exercise, which I presume you realize carries the meaning to 'act upon'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


In fact for me, Jesus, Moses Mohammed are just that for me...moral philosophers. But RO...nothing more.