Do Gods Exist?

[bilby]

A mining company uses credit to literally move mountains.

So, you did mean "figuratively true".

You seem to be irrationally impressed by word games, and indeed by words themselves.

Words are not actually magic. Though they have been believed to be probably since the development of language.

 

[bilby]

None of them care about evolution or believe in evolution

No sane person believes in evolution. That would be like believing in gravity.

If I drop a coin into a charity tin, I don't first pray to gravity to make the coin fall, nor do I subsequently give thanks to gravity for having done so. The coin falls, because gravity is real, whether I believe in gravity or not.

Gravity just happens, whether or not anyone believes. So does evolution. These are inevitable consequences of the way reality is.

 

[bilby]

They sound like dead atheists to me.
But hey - they might be gods, right? How do you even know they're atheists? Or alive?
If they constitute "everyone [you] know" I'd venture that you don't know many actual people.

Like you reject the Oxford definition of gods, I reject their definition of atheist. Atheism, to me, is like apolitical. I believe politics exists, but I don't believe in politics. I'm without politics. Atheists are without theism. Without gods.

You can equivocate all you like on the meaning of "atheist", and not change one iota the fact that there exist people who not only do not believe in gods, but who also do not believe that any god exists.

I am not merely "without gods"; I am aware that gods are not a part of reality. They exist, like superheroes, only in (and as) fiction.

 

[bilby]

Equivocation is a thing.

Things are everywhere.
Therefore equivocation is everywhere.

QED.

 

[RIS]

It also sounds like you really cannot grasp the simple fact that atheists have nothing whatsoever in common, except a disbelief in gods.

I've heard that from hundreds of atheists over the last 30 years. In fact nothing any of you have said all the time I've been here is new to me. It's like you have a string on your neck that you pull to vomit the same thing over and over. Do you realize what a desperately myopic statement it is?

Nothing in common. Not one thing. No two of them are either male or female. They all came from a different place. No two were born in the same country, hemisphere, planet, etc. Only one is rich, only one is poor, only one is young, only one is old, only one likes peanut butter, only one is grouchy, only one is bashful.

It's a perfect example of how dulusional most of them are.

It's like when they say atheists are like cats. You can't train a cat.



So dumb.

 

[bilby]

It also sounds like you really cannot grasp the simple fact that atheists have nothing whatsoever in common, except a disbelief in gods.

I've heard that from hundreds of atheists over the last 30 years. Do you realize what a desperately myopic statement it is?

Nothing in common. Not one thing. No two of them are either male or female. They all came from a different place. No two were born in the same country, hemisphere, planet, etc. Only one is rich, only one is poor, only one is young, only one is old, only one likes peanut butter, only one is grouchy, only one is bashful.

Yeah, obviously that's what I meant.

It's a perfect example of how dulusional most of them are.

It's like when they say atheists are like cats. You can't train a cat.

View attachment 48894

So dumb.

You know what's dumb?

Taking a statement with two (or more) possible interpretations, and pretending that the most reasonable interpretation isn't the one intended.

Sure, the sentence "atheists have nothing whatsoever in common, except a disbelief in gods" could mean "No atheist has anything in common with any other atheist, except a disbelief in gods".

But it could also mean "Atheism does not imply any specific commonality other than disbelief in gods".

Now, as you so perspicaciously observe, the first of these interpretations is completely ABSURD.

So, a sane, reasonable, and charitable person would immediately assume that that first was NOT the intended meaning.

Most intelligent people would work out that the second meaning was also possible, and was not absurd, and therefore perhaps the more likely intent.

Even the less intelligent would ask for clarification, having regard to the fact that few people deliberately make absurd statements that are trivially easy to refute.

So, what was your motive for this misinterpretation? Are you so uncharitable that you assume that I am incredibly stupid; and simultaneously so stupid yourself that you couldn't see the more plausible meaning? Or are you just being childish and deliberately misinterpreting anything that you don't want to think too hard about?

My claim is that any sentence of the form "This person is an atheist, therefore this person _______", is not true of all atheists for any ending other than "... does not believe in gods".

As I am absolutely certain you are fully aware.

If you came here for a discussion, then let's discuss. If you came for a debate, then let's debate. If you came here to be a childish tit, then just fuck off.

 

[RIS]

You know what's dumb?

Yes. I do. Atheism and science.

 

[bilby]

You know what's dumb?

Yes. I do. Atheism and science.

"Childish tit" it is then.

Seems like an unwise choice, but it was your choice to make.

I shalln't bother to further enable you.

 

[pood]

It's a perfect example of how dulusional most of them are.

A guy who believes the things you say you believe should not be calling others “delusional.”

So dumb.

Your beliefs and your word games, yes.

 

[pood]

If you came here to be a childish tit, then just fuck off.

This.

It’s always amusing how cultists who claim to be so sure of their beliefs immediately become aggressive, hostile and insulting at the first questioning of their claims, and then play word games like imputing to you something you obviously did not intend. Someone who really believed in this shit would be calm, placid and generous in discourse. RÍS constantly betrays his insecurity.

 

[pood]

You know what's dumb?

Yes. I do. Atheism and science.

Keep embarrassing yourself, it’s quite amusing.

 

[pood]

It's like you have a string on your neck that you pull to vomit the same thing over and over.

Funny, that sounds like a Jehovah’s Witness.

 

[DBT]

You know what's dumb?

Yes. I do. Atheism and science.

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

 

[RIS]

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

Faith, like faithfulness, faith in your spouse, children, family, science, money. Credit, credentials, credible - all mean faith. Faith is simply trust. You know that don't you? I think atheism in general, and specifically these forums, need a translation guide for double speak and misappropriated colloquialisms.

 

[RIS]

Funny, that sounds like a Jehovah’s Witness.

Yeah. It does. And atheists. Well, most theists and atheists as long as we are generalizing. People.

 

[RIS]

Keep embarrassing yourself, it’s quite amusing.

The sentiment is mutual.

 

[RIS]

It’s always amusing how cultists who claim to be so sure of their beliefs immediately become aggressive, hostile and insulting at the first questioning of their claims, and then play word games like imputing to you something you obviously did not intend. Someone who really believed in this shit would be calm, placid and generous in discourse. RÍS constantly betrays his insecurity.

Such pathological hypocrisy.

 

[Jarhyn]

A mining company uses credit to literally move mountains.

So, you did mean "figuratively true".

You seem to be irrationally impressed by word games, and indeed by words themselves.

Words are not actually magic. Though they have been believed to be probably since the development of language.

Apologetics for losing arguments are usually like that, though: shock and awe to wow people who are easily impressed or talked up, since there's literally nothing else behind the belief.

 

[pood]

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

Faith, like faithfulness, faith in your spouse, children, family, science, money. Credit, credentials, credible - all mean faith. Faith is simply trust. You know that don't you? I think atheism in general, and specifically these forums, need a translation guide for double speak and misappropriated colloquialisms.

“Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.”

So, no, faith according to the bible is not simply “trust.” It is, as the quote from the bible above shows, a combination of wishful thinking and magical thinking. Trust is earned. Spouse, children, family, science, money, etc. are real, and can be trusted or not based on performance.

 

[pood]

It’s always amusing how cultists who claim to be so sure of their beliefs immediately become aggressive, hostile and insulting at the first questioning of their claims, and then play word games like imputing to you something you obviously did not intend. Someone who really believed in this shit would be calm, placid and generous in discourse. RÍS constantly betrays his insecurity.

Such pathological hypocrisy.

Because?