On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:15:11 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7Post by Yap HonghorPost by !! Atheist ------------------------------What all atheists have in common: when a theist says "a god exists", all atheists
say "I don't believe you when you say 'a god exists'".
I wouldn't call a believer a liar simply because they believe in something
that I don't believe in.
Which they routinely lie that we do.
The most common reason they get called liars, is for the personal lies
they use as ad hominems.
Or for insisting that our perspective isn't what we've taken the time
and trouble to explain - which implicitly accuses _us_ of lying about
ourselves.
For some reason, even otherwise sensible theists imagine they get to
tell us what our POV "really" is, after we've corrected them.
Post by hypatiab7That is outright rude. It's when you say things
like this that I believe that you are Matthew Brooks. I can't prove it, but you
keep sneaking in little anti-atheist comments like this one exactly the same
way he always has. And your writing style is the same as his.
When theists push their religion in our faces against our will, they are trolls
and deserve what they get.
At which point they usually accuse us of unprovoked hatred for theists
in general.
And they get called as liars for that.
Post by hypatiab7Post by Yap HonghorPost by !! Atheist ------------------------------theist - any person who thinks 'a god exists'.
atheist - any person not a theist.
An atheist either lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods or
does not believe that a god or gods exist. That's the difference
between a weak or strong atheist.
Which is purely academic, because even the strong one is simply how
they respond to theists.
But every time any of this is explained, you need to point out that
the very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing outside the
theist's religion (where atheists are) as inside it (where theists
are).
The late Cliff Walker wrote...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9161.htm
[unfortunately that site is now down, but it is accessible via the
Internet archive]
Here is the Merriam Webster's definition for the word God:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped
as creator and ruler of the universe
Encarta World Dictionary (print edition) defines the same word as
follows:
the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism,
Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator
of the universe, worshiped as the only god
The Oxford American Dictionary defines it this way:
the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish, and
Muslim teaching
Were I to use your [the person to whom he was responding]
understanding of the role that dictionaries play
in determining word meaning, and were I to rely solely upon the
Merriam Webster's, I'd be in big trouble, because this dictionary
expresses its definition as fact, rather than reporting it as the
opinion of some people. I'd have to believe that a "God" exists
because the dictionary does not qualify its definition as the
opinion of some but not all people.
The other dictionaries are more responsible than this, the second
reporting that this description is "believed" by certain groups, and
the third that this is according to the "teaching" of certain
groups. So, as a man who is proficient in the English language, I
would reject the first definition as patently biased, and would
accept the second and third as being accurate reports of how people
use this word.
[Me again...]
In other words, it is only seen as real inside those religions, and
outside them it is merely something they believe.
But most theists can't get their minds around this.
Merriam Webster's changes its tune when it comes to defining the
word astrology:
the divination of supposed influences of the stars and planets on
human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions
Ah! The "supposed" influences of the stars and planets, not the
actual influence of the stars and planets! So we see that MW is at
least capable of showing that something is an opinion and doesn't
accept every controversial claim as fact. This is clearly a
double-standard, typical of somebody with an agenda (such as
propagating the Christian faith)..
Encarta says this:
the study of the positions of the Moon, Sun, and other planets in
the belief that their motions affect human beings
And Oxford American says this:
the study of the supposed influence of stars on human affairs
So here we have complete agreement between the three reference works
that astrology is a belief or an allegation made by some people.None
of the three presuppose that astrology is based in fact. This makes
sense, seeing as how the astrology movement has never seen fit to
organize for the purpose of gaining widespread political control
over entire continents of nations, and thus has never become so
intoxicated with power that it would dare to think it could get away
with doing what Merriam Webster's has done with the word God.
[Me again...]
In other words the meaning of the word "God" is different inside and
outside Christianity. There's an extra layer that changes it - it's
like the difference between saying James Bond is a British secret
agent, and that he is a British secret agent in a series of novels and
movies. The former is universal and the latter restricts it to a
specific domain of discourse.
But try getting theists to understand this. Very few can.
I was recently told I was deranged on uk,railway after I and others
objected to theists telling us what our position "really" was after
they had been repeatedly corrected.
They don't seem to understand just how arrogantly nasty it is, to
dispute what ex explain our position is after they got it wrong
Post by hypatiab7A religious agnostic can believe that a god exists but doesn't know for certain.
Which makes all theists agnostics they don't actually know,but they
think they do.
Post by hypatiab7An atheistic agnostic can believe that no god or gods exist but not
know for certain.
To do that, they would have to be at least part way inside the
theist's religious paradigm.
Most atheists aren't.
Post by hypatiab7Due to lack of evidence, an atheist knows there is
no god of any kind.
Which is the falsifiable default when theists make their ridiculous
claims - and it is reinforced every time they cop out of backing them
up, resort to ad hominems, offer transparent fallacies, etc.
Every one of these is a data point against.
So far, it is gajillions against and none for.
Post by hypatiab7After nearly 10,000 years of lack of evidence, anyone with at
least half a brain should at least be suspicious.
The conclusion is obvious, but it usually gets dismissed with lies
that it is a claim.
Most atheists don't even give it a thought - but what they say depends
on how the theist brings it up.
But in any case, it's no different than "there ain't no Santa Claus",
"no UFO abductions", "no Loch Ness Monster", etc.
Again, try getting theists to understand this.
Post by hypatiab7Post by Yap HonghorPost by !! Atheist ------------------------------And maybe some as yet unheard from god exists in some far away
corner of the universe.
So there's no reason even to give it a thought.
Post by hypatiab7If someone says 'no one knows', they are agnostic.
Which lumps everything between a 0.0001 certainty and a 99.9999%
certainty, into a single mid point as if they were all the same.
Post by hypatiab7Post by Yap HonghorI for one would say no god can exist in this universe...not no one
knows. This latter gives a possibility for its existence.
Most atheists don't even see what is merely somebody else's religious
belief, as something which could or could not exist. It never reaches
that level.
Of course, if a theist makes claims that reduce it to zero, then it
cannot exist. Eg a god which cause a global flood higher than the
tallest mountains, is a zero, regardless of its other claimed
attributes.
Post by hypatiab7Post by Yap HonghorMy reason: There would not be a being so powerful that can create
even our moon, let alone millions of huge planets. THERE IS NO
SUCH POSSIBILITY, if one uses his brain to think!
Why even give it a thought?
That grants it too much credibility.
Post by hypatiab7Why not? Who knows how advanced scientifically some cultures are? But, being
able to move moons and planets still wouldn't make them gods.
Post by Yap HonghorAnd the joke is, the god for the theists will answer their prayers.....then we won't see all the human suffering, would we?
What?