• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Do Gods Exist?

 
 
 
RIS said:
Shadowy Man said:
If you define the word “gods” to include things that do exist then yes “gods” exist. Now what? You’ve won some trivial semantic point with at best some vague philosophical value.
Click to expand...

I haven't won anything. I only presented the data and it was rejected. That certainly isn't anything new to me. I'm here to discuss a subject of interest to me with people that disagree with me. If I had a reasonable discussion on that I would win something.

What now? Tell me what you think and why. I already know that about myself. I don't mind discussing how we disagree up to a point then it gets boring. He said she said. Tit for tat. Chasing our tails.

The fact that gods exist doesn't suggest all gods do. Just because someone knows God or gods exist, demons for example, doesn't mean they worship them. The point is constantly pounded into the ground but isn't reasonable to me because it's moot from an atheistic perspective.

There are two kinds of atheists. Apathetic and militant. The point is moot for both. The former because they just don't care, and the latter because it isn't about belief in gods, it's about believers in gods. Generally speaking, I think the definition of atheism is nonsensical. I think Hitchin's popularization; anti-theist, is much more reasonable.

That's why it's difficult to have this discussion. That's why @pood jumped on me when I set foot in the tank, and others followed.
Click to expand...

No, Pood did’t “jump” on you, and the reason the discussion is difficult is because you insist on employing the fallacy of equivocation to muddy all concrete discussion. The leader of North Korea is NOT a god no matter how much you equivocate on differing definitions of the word.
 
pood said:
In what sense does the above address what you quoted?
Click to expand...

My experience with militant atheists has almost always been the same. It's all about us vs them. It's like watching an argument between a married couple where the argument isn't really about what it appears to be. They may be arguing about crumbs on the counter but really, it's about something much more significant.
 
RIS said:
pood said:
In what sense does the above address what you quoted?
Click to expand...

My experience with militant atheists has almost always been the same. It's all about us vs them. It's like watching an argument between a married couple where the argument isn't really about what it appears to be. They may be arguing about crumbs on the counter but really, it's about something much more significant.
Click to expand...

Except nothing I wrote that you quoted had anything to do with us vs. them. So more gas lighting, semantics, evasion and equivocation, got it. Yawn.
 
Also, I’m not a “militant atheist,” so you’re wrong about that, too.
 
pood said:
Just more word games. Gets boring.

Kim Jong Un is NOT a god in the sense of Oxford 1 and 2. The sense of 3 and 4 is idiomatic and colloquial. If I say, “Money is my god,” it does NOT mean that money created the world and exists supernaturally. Or do you think that it does?
Click to expand...

"Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things." - Philippians 3:19

All of the definitions given by Oxford are examples. It doesn't give the meaning. All of the examples are gods for a reason. Might/veneration. Not necessarily supernatural, or natural, spirit or material, idiomatic and colloquial. They don't all fit into any category except for might/veneration.

He thinks he is a science god means he things he is mightier than any other and deserving of veneration. Clapton and Frodo were commonly referred to as God in late 60's early 70s graffiti, because they were thought to be mighty/venerated. The Christian God, Jehovah, isn't God to people who don't know of him or venerate him. They have other gods.

Money is probably the most common form of God.
 
pood said:
Except nothing I wrote that you quoted had anything to do with us vs. them. So more gas lighting, semantics, evasion and equivocation, got it. Yawn.
Click to expand...

Everything you say is about us vs them. You don't respond to me, you respond to them.
 
pood said:
Also, I’m not a “militant atheist,” so you’re wrong about that, too.
Click to expand...

I was an atheist for 27 years. Everyone I know is an atheist. None of them would spend a moment doing what any of the atheists online do in forums on the subject of atheism. None of them care about prayer in school, separation of church and state, in God we trust, or the 10 commandments and nativity scene at the courthouse. None of them care about evolution or believe in evolution, none of them care about politicizing abortion or homosexual marriage.

They are apathetic atheists. They see what I'm doing and shake their heads at the atheists I talk to. They think they're stupid and militant. A militant atheist, like a militant theist, myself, is outspoken on the subect. You don't get any militant atheists or theists bitching online at other atheists and theists. Only militant ones. Militant atheists and theists are a tiny minority of atheism and theism.
 
"Our cause is just, and the might of Korea that is united with truth is infinite." -Kim Jong-un
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." -Jehovah God, Sr.


The first speaker exists as a human being, as evidenced by the same empirical sources that validate Susan Boyle, the Prometheus statue at 30 Rock, or the Dunkin Donuts in Shamokin, PA.
The second speaker is a composite fictional entity, as evidenced by invisibility, thousands of inconsistent attributions, and a central printed source which is perforated with inconsistencies, absurdities, and primitive notions.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
This forum is about supernatural god(s), not money. No one on the planet except for an insane lunatic would be arguing that money does not exist. Your thread is a prime example of the fallacy of equivocation.
Click to expand...

Deification, that is gods, supernatural or not, are not defined as such due to anything other than their veneration. The forum makes no distinction between supernatural and material because there isn't any.
 
ideologyhunter said:
"Our cause is just, and the might of Korea that is united with truth is infinite." -Kim Jong-un
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." -Jehovah God, Sr.


The first speaker exists as a human being, as evidenced by the same empirical sources that validate Susan Boyle, the Prometheus statue at 30 Rock, or the Dunkin Donuts in Shamokin, PA.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll take your word for that.

ideologyhunter said:
The second speaker is a composite fictional entity, as evidenced by invisibility, thousands of inconsistent attributions, and a central printed source which is perforated with inconsistencies, absurdities, and primitive notions.
Click to expand...

Unsupported claim. No substance. Your uninformed opinion. We could debate those claims in another thread. You would lose.
 
pood said:
No, Pood did’t “jump” on you, and the reason the discussion is difficult is because you insist on employing the fallacy of equivocation to muddy all concrete discussion. The leader of North Korea is NOT a god no matter how much you equivocate on differing definitions of the word.
Click to expand...

Yes he is. 3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god. Same in Rome. Zeus was a god and Roman leaders. Same in Japan, the Royal family were gods. It isn't difficult. You're in denial.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
This is so obvious that a reasonable person would wonder if they are being pranked.
Click to expand...
I think so too. Two more possibilities:
(2) Gathering data for a college paper.
(3) Trying to strengthen his own faith.
RIS said:
it isn't about belief in gods, it's about believers in gods.
Click to expand...
Good point. I am militant because believers are militant. The religions have always been at war with each other over the harts and minds of the gullible.
Believers make it their duty to spread the disease... oops, sorry I meant to say 'spread the faith'.
Your god is a fraud. A human in disguise. With a human size ego.
A true all-powerful immortal wouldn't give a shit what puny humans believe.
Your god acts like an internet 'influencer' begging for 'likes' and subscriptions. Even running a protection racket to get them.
Human behavior.
 
pood said:
ideologyhunter said:
(Brings box back, sets it on table.)
-They wouldn't give me a refund.
-What?!! You told them the box was empty??
-I told him. He gave me some shit about God being invisible and having many forms and that how was I to say that God's presence wasn't in the box. And a whole bunch of other stuff. At one point he was reading to me from the dictionary.
(Pitches box in waste basket.) -Well, we're not going there again. Ever!!
Click to expand...

Since god really is nothing, I guess the seller has a point.
Click to expand...

This nonsensical exchange reminded me of Paul and the Unknown God or Nameless God.
 
RIS said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
This forum is about supernatural god(s), not money. No one on the planet except for an insane lunatic would be arguing that money does not exist. Your thread is a prime example of the fallacy of equivocation.
Click to expand...

Deification, that is gods, supernatural or not, are not defined as such due to anything other than their veneration.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.

RIS said:
The forum makes no distinction between supernatural and material because there isn't any.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the forum is not the discussion of money as a god, i.e. sense 3 or 4. To do so and then say "Aha, see gods exist!" is the fallacy of equivocation.
 
ideologyhunter said:
You really don't need to.
Click to expand...

Us vs them. I don't know that all of those things exist. I could look it up it were relevant to the point, but instead I took your word for it.

ideologyhunter said:
You can read minds!! You can tell the future!!! Are...are you God?
Click to expand...

The future doesn't exist. No God can tell the future. God observes, like sending the angels to determine the depth of Sodom and Gomorrah's sin. Or God makes things happen.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
That makes no sense.

The purpose of the forum is not the discussion of money as a god, i.e. sense 3 or 4. To do so and then say "Aha, see gods exist!" is the fallacy of equivocation.
Click to expand...


The Sumerian kings were deified upon their deaths. Tammuz (Ezekiel 8) was such a god. Gods only need to be worshipped. There is no other requirement to be a god. That's why Jehovah said Moses would be God to Aaron and Pharoah. That's why he called the judges of Israel gods. That's why the one true god before all others said don't worship other gods.

Who were they? All sorts of them. Like Paul said. Bellies, money. You want a forum dedicated to the existence of the supernatural have at it. But don't be so obviously myopic, ignorant, dogmatic and erroneous to suggest that a forum on the existence of gods devotes itself, ironically, specifically to supernatural. And expect no one except for the like minded idiots in your groupthink with your world view might call you on it.
 
Shadowy Man said:
If you define the word “gods” to include things that do exist then yes “gods” exist. Now what? You’ve won some trivial semantic point with at best some vague philosophical value.
Click to expand...
That. Same as this:
🙄
Tearing down semantic barriers does not confer existence upon the non- existent.
“God”, Gods and gods included.

I don’t believe in the existence of god, God or gods. The FACT that N Koreans think Kim is a god, coupled with my belief that Kim exists, does not alter my beliefs at all. The fact that N Koreans think Kim is a god in no way enhances the likelihood that some tri-Omni Creator dude exists.
Click to expand...
... And it doesn't make THIS FALLACY not a fallacy:
RIS said:
That doesn't mean men don't exist or that because Superman is a man he must exist.
Click to expand...
Thing is, SUPERMAN IS NOT A MAN, he is a story character. There is a difference. The story exists. The MAN does not.
Semi-related, Superman as a "man" seems to relate very well to the "data" you say is being ignored, @RIS, in that neither is Superman a man, nor is what you have presented, "data" in any normative sense.
Maybe I missed it though. Feel free to re-post the "data" you feel is being ignored. It wouldn't be even close to the first time I have missed something or been wrong - ask anyone here! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom