Absolute Certainty

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I couldn't give a rat's ass what he meant by the term.

We have all known exactly what the term 'atheist' means from well before it was hip to be one.
We don't need a grande-extra-hot-soy-extra-foam-split-shot-with-a-half-squirt-of-sugar-free-vanilla-and-a-half-squirt-of-sugar-free-cinnamon version of it: coffee is coffee.

We get that when it comes t ...[text shortened]... h others like him, is very sheer in his intentions... and I don't find it alluring in the least.

It is not just him that has changed the definition of atheist. The dictionaries today add "disbelief" and "godless" as well as the belief that there is no God or gods.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not just him that has changed the definition of atheist. The dictionaries today add "disbelief" and "godless" as well as the belief that there is no God or gods.

It is you religious types that are the duped ones. For instance, you believe the bible is the absolute truth but the real truth is there were hundreds of essays from the era written but only the ones we see today included as the 'bible' only 400 years after JC and the boys.

It is clear the bible is a compilation of stories cherry picked by religious politicians at the Council of Nicea.

For instance, as I said before, the recently found 'book of Judas' was well known to those dudes but it was not in their interest to portray Jude as a hero, selected by Jesus to do what he did.

It was necessary for political reasons for Judas to be a defector, thus adding to the fear factor which was the main method for crowd control.

They didn't want to hear about a hero Judas. That was a human choice, no god involved. That is only one of the books rejected, so you are just following their line, hook line and sinker without ever going into just what made up the bible in the first place.

Try reading the article I linked to:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

Here is one bit from that piece:

" "So, are you religious, Kevin?" I asked.
He choked involuntarily on his tea. "Are you kidding? What church would have me? I'm treading on their territory. I say folks have God inside them. The Church says it has God inside of it. There's a phrase in the Bible which states that one should never countenance spiritual entities other than God. Most Christians go by that. But then the Bible says nothing about reincarnation either and it's quite well known that the Council of Nicea voted to strike the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible."
"How do you know that?" I asked.
"Well, most serious metaphysical students of the Bible know that. The Council of Nicea altered many of the interpretations of the Bible. The man Jesus studied for eighteen years in India before he returned to Jerusalem. He was studying the teaching of Buddha and became an adept yogi himself. He obviously had complete control over his body and understood that the body was only the house for a soul. Each soul has many mansions. Christ taught that a person's behavior would determine future events--as karma, as the Hindus say. What one sows, so shall he reap."
I didn't question these rather sweeping assumptions. I offered Kevin a cookie. He seemed to like sugar. He ate it in two bites. (p.182. 'I' is MacLaine's persona - 'Kevin' is a medium)."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I couldn't give a rat's ass what he meant by the term.

Well then you were being dishonest when you responded to his post based on your assumption that he meant something else and then called him 'simpleton'.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I couldn't give a rat's ass what he meant by the term.

We have all known exactly what the term 'atheist' means from well before it was hip to be one.
We don't need a grande-extra-hot-soy-extra-foam-split-shot-with-a-half-squirt-of-sugar-free-vanilla-and-a-half-squirt-of-sugar-free-cinnamon version of it: coffee is coffee.

We get that when it comes t ...[text shortened]... h others like him, is very sheer in his intentions... and I don't find it alluring in the least.

We have all known exactly what the term 'atheist' means from well before it was hip to be one.

Well this is evidently not true, you clearly still don't know what it means.

We get that when it comes to the notion of God, he chooses to reject Him.

Wrong on several levels. There are an infinite number of god concepts, not just one.
And I don't reject those gods because they do not exist to be rejected.

It's not that I don't like the way he uses the word; it's that he is purposely trying to reinvent the word
into something more palatable for his conscience.

Suzianne recently chastised me for explaining and stating that I don't believe that gods exist... Claiming
that you all already know and understand this.
Here is yet another proof that you clearly do not understand this, and need telling again.

I do not believe that any gods exist, and I have never believed that any gods exist.
Furthermore, I believe that all god concepts that I have thus far encountered do not actually exist.

Given that. I have absolutely no ethical qualms about not believing in gods, or about what the label atheist
means because to have ethical qualms about not believing in gods I would first have to believe that one or
more gods actually existed.

The entomology of the word gives us it's meaning. a-theist = not-theist.
A theist is a person who has a belief that a god or gods exist.
The negation of that is a person who does not have a belief that gods or a god exist.

Not having a belief that something exists, is not the same as believing that something does not exist.
Although it is a prerequisite of the second position.

Thus atheism is most simply and broadly defined as lacking a belief in the existence of gods.

It was ever thus.

I do not misunderstand him for a second.

No you 'misunderstand' me for eternity.

Originally posted by googlefudge

We have all known exactly what the term 'atheist' means from well before it was hip to be one.

Well this is evidently not true, you clearly still don't know what it means.

We get that when it comes to the notion of God, he chooses to reject Him.

Wrong on several levels. There are an infinite number of god concepts, ...[text shortened]... uote]I do not misunderstand him for a second.[/quote]

No you 'misunderstand' me for eternity.

You are so thoroughly confused, it's difficult to find a place to start.
From your telling of it, you don't even know what you disbelieve... or, at very best, you're just having a whopper of time trying to spit it out in anything resembling coherence or logic.

There are an infinite number of god concepts, not just one.
There cannot possibly be an infiinite number of anything created, let alone god concepts.
To say otherwise is beyond daft, it's just plain silly.

And I don't reject those gods because they do not exist to be rejected.
Sounds like you've made up your mind before you made up your mind.
How is that done, exactly?
Do you consider your statement here to pass the test of falsifiability?
It's obvious you thought it clever enough to represent your position, but did you really think it through before typing it out?
I'm gonna go with 'no' on that one...

The entomology of the word gives us it's meaning.
Your thinking withered with the slightest spritz from a can of Raid.

A theist is a person who has a belief that a god or gods exist.
The negation of that is a person who does not have a belief that gods or a god exist.
You're so close to realizing the untenable position you've found yourself in.
Bet you can nearly taste it, huh.

Can you have a theist without a god?
Can you have an atheist without a rejection of god?
Don't you kinda need one (in some form or another, real or imagined) to have the other?

It's sorta like saying if my uncle didn't have balls, he'd be my aunt.
Or is it ant?

Not having a belief that something exists, is not the same as believing that something does not exist.
Although it is a prerequisite of the second position.
Thus atheism is most simply and broadly defined as lacking a belief in the existence of gods.
You forgot one of the most important aspects: a conscious, willful decision.
Prior to consciousness/self-awareness, the question of ANY entity's existence cannot be entertained.
Once one has reached consciousness/self-awareness, the question of others' (and one's own) existence can be contemplated.

The term atheist has always referred to the conscious rejection of whatever diety was in consideration.
Only the very-recent atheist has been so ashamed of the term's meaning.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There are an infinite number of god concepts, not just one.Googlefudge

There cannot possibly be an infiinite number of anything created, let alone god concepts.
To say otherwise is beyond daft, it's just plain silly.

[/b]

Can you conceive of a multi-headed god?
Some people can.
Can you conceive of a god with 2 heads? 3 heads? 4? 5?
Anyone with imagination would not put a limit on a number of heads.
Which is what "infinite number" (a rather loose term) means.

So there you have it. An infinite number of gods.

It is you being just plain silly.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Can you conceive of a multi-headed god?
Some people can.
Can you conceive of a god with 2 heads? 3 heads? 4? 5?
Anyone with imagination would not put a limit on a number of heads.
Which is what "infinite number" (a rather loose term) means.

So there you have it. An infinite number of gods.

It is you being just plain silly.

Is man infinite or finite?
Can his number be counted, from the first man capable of formulating an idea about any type of deity to the last man capable of formulating an idea about any type of deity?
Do each of those numbered people have numbered days within which to contemplate and imagine myriad forms of deity?

There you go, definitely finite.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is you religious types that are the duped ones. For instance, you believe the bible is the absolute truth but the real truth is there were hundreds of essays from the era written but only the ones we see today included as the 'bible' only 400 years after JC and the boys.

It is clear the bible is a compilation of stories cherry picked by religious poli ...[text shortened]... like sugar. He ate it in two bites. (p.182. 'I' is MacLaine's persona - 'Kevin' is a medium)."

I can't believe you are quoting from that wacko Shirley MacLaine. In her book Out on a Limb, Shirley MacLaine describes her first meeting with Kevin Ryerson, who had been referred to her as a trance medium through whom spirits from her past might commune with her.

The book received both acclaim and criticism for its candor in dealing with such topics as reincarnation, meditation, mediumship (trance-channelling), and even unidentified flying objects. This is the book that made Shirley MacLaine the butt of many a joke, especially by the late-night comedians. Once, when David Letterman would not let up on the New Age subject, MacLaine responded by saying, "Maybe Cher was right; maybe you are an ass-hole!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_on_a_Limb_(book)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you were being dishonest when you responded to his post based on your assumption that he meant something else and then called him 'simpleton'.

Tough time at comprehending, or just too much to keep straight for you?
I've already addressed the issue, and it had nothing to do with either being too simple to understand basic principles, or with honesty.

It has everything to do with a lack of patience (on my part) with jackasses who think they are able to cloak their painfully obvious attempts to redefine commonly understood concepts.
Moreover, not only are the attempts obvious, they have a net result of rendering the topic nonsensical.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Tough time at comprehending, or just too much to keep straight for you?
I've already addressed the issue, and it had nothing to do with either being too simple to understand basic principles, or with honesty.

It has everything to do with a lack of patience (on my part) with jackasses who think they are able to cloak their painfully obvious attempts to ...[text shortened]... r, not only are the attempts obvious, they have a net result of rendering the topic nonsensical.

The trouble is, you are the person doing this.

You are that jackass.

And your posts are indeed nonsense.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Is man infinite or finite?
Can his number be counted, from the first man capable of formulating an idea about any type of deity to the last man capable of formulating an idea about any type of deity?
Do each of those numbered people have numbered days within which to contemplate and imagine myriad forms of deity?

There you go, de[b]finitely finite.[/b]

You were arguing against there being an infinite number of god concepts.

I quite clearly showed you to be wrong.

Suck it up.

"Is man infinite or finite?" is meaningless and nothing to do with the post you are replying to.

Originally posted by googlefudge

We have all known exactly what the term 'atheist' means from well before it was hip to be one.

Well this is evidently not true, you clearly still don't know what it means.

We get that when it comes to the notion of God, he chooses to reject Him.

Wrong on several levels. There are an infinite number of god concepts, ...[text shortened]... uote]I do not misunderstand him for a second.[/quote]

No you 'misunderstand' me for eternity.

Freaky,

You and I have had so many conversations on here over the years. Sometimes we have agreed—more often, perhaps not. We have both been more than cordial—this is my recollection, anyway—with sometime exceptions: perhaps sometimes you, and sometimes I, have lost our patience. But that was always temporary—and followed by personal expressions of regret.

Do you believe that I am dishonest, deceitful? Do you believe that my unbelief in the kind of theos that you believe in is a conscious (or even subconscious), deliberate lie?

That goes to the crux of that word “rejection”. I can “reject” in various ways. I can reject that the kind of theos that you believe in is (or can be) real. I can reject the idea that the kind of theos that you believe in even makes any sense. I can reject the idea of the kind of theos that you believe in, in many ways—some of them perhaps valid, some them perhaps not.

I can also reject your theos in the way that one rejects a date to the prom—not rejecting their existence, or the idea of their existence/reality, etc.—but rejecting that relationship, a relationship with an entity that I really know exists. Of course, I might (dishonestly/deceitfully/cruelly) “pretend” that he/she “does not exist”—either out of embarrassment, or to accentuate the snub.

So, which kind of “rejection” is being asserted here?

Do you believe that I am dishonest, deceitful—cruel? Do you believe that my unbelief in the kind of theos that you believe in is a conscious (or even subconscious), deliberate lie?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are so thoroughly confused, it's difficult to find a place to start.
From your telling of it, you don't even know what you disbelieve... or, at very best, you're just having a whopper of time trying to spit it out in anything resembling coherence or logic.

[b]There are an infinite number of god concepts, not just one.
There cannot possibly be ...[text shortened]... y was in consideration.
Only the very-recent atheist has been so ashamed of the term's meaning.[/b]

There are an infinite number of god concepts, not just one.
There cannot possibly be an infiinite number of anything created, let alone god concepts.
To say otherwise is beyond daft, it's just plain silly.

Numbers are concepts.

There are an infinite number of numbers.

This is true independent of the fact that we have not collectively or individually thought of every
single one. [which would be impossible].

Similarly there are an infinite number of god concepts, only a finite subset of which have actually
been conceived.

And I don't reject those gods because they do not exist to be rejected.
Sounds like you've made up your mind before you made up your mind.
How is that done, exactly?
Do you consider your statement here to pass the test of falsifiability?
It's obvious you thought it clever enough to represent your position, but did you really think it through before typing it out?
I'm gonna go with 'no' on that one...

You're confused.

To 'reject' any gods, I would have to believe that they existed first.
I don't believe that any gods exist, thus I cannot reject them.
I state that gods don't exist because I know independently of this argument that gods don't exist [beyond any and
all reasonable doubt].

Can you have a theist without a god?
Can you have an atheist without a rejection of god?
Don't you kinda need one (in some form or another, real or imagined) to have the other?

"Can you have a theist without a god?"

Obviously yes. A theist is a person who believes that a god or gods exist.
There are theists who believe in mutually exclusive gods, and in gods that are logically impossible.
There are thus at least some theists who believe in gods that cannot possibly exist.
Thus it's possible to be a theist who believes in god/s that don't exist.
And by extension it's possible for there to be theists without any gods existing.
Given that we know that there are theists, and that there are no gods, this is in fact the case.

"Can you have an atheist without a rejection of god?"

Obviously yes.
Rejecting a god requires believing that that god exists.
Atheists by definition don't believe that gods exist.
Atheists also can and do exist in worlds without gods, which means that they exist where there are no
gods to reject.

"Don't you kinda need one (in some form or another, real or imagined) to have the other?"

Theist and atheist are labels for people [intelligent beings/agents] that either have or do not have a belief
in the existence of gods.

You don't need any theists to exist for there to be atheists, and vice versa.

The labels are only relevant in that belief in the existence of gods or not has important implications
and consequence's for our society and our behaviour in that society.

You could create similar labels for people who do or do not believe that the Earth is [roughly] spherical,
but that issue isn't disputed or relevant enough for specific labels for it to be needed.

The term atheist has always referred to the conscious rejection of whatever diety was in consideration.
Only the very-recent atheist has been so ashamed of the term's meaning.

Again, no. We/I are not 'ashamed' of our atheism.
The meanings of the word created by biased and bigoted Christians over the years are wrong, and inaccurate.
We are taking back the meaning of the word from those who believe/d us evil.

If you don't like it, tough s***.

The fact that you seem to think that trying to alter the meaning of the word will change our actual position
demonstrates how pathetically weak your position and hold on reality is.

There are people who lack belief that gods exist. They do not all believe that gods don't exist, they do not
and cannot reject gods they don't believe exist. We call these people atheists.

Trying to insist that the word means something else changes what we actually believe not one jot.

Your argument is stupid and pointless.

Like you.

Originally posted by vistesd
Freaky,

You and I have had so many conversations on here over the years. Sometimes we have agreed—more often, perhaps not. We have both been more than cordial—this is my recollection, anyway—with sometime exceptions: perhaps sometimes you, and sometimes I, have lost our patience. But that was always temporary—and followed by personal expressions of re ...[text shortened]... d of theos that you believe in is a conscious (or even subconscious), deliberate lie?[/b]

Hey Vistesd o/

Nice to see you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hey Vistesd o/

Nice to see you.

Hi, Google. Thanks. Hope you’re well, man.

I think that the last time we talked, I said that I presently consider myself an “agnostic theist”—using the terminology that you laid out. But my notion of theos is so outside the conventional notions generally proffered on here, that I am more and more using that term—theos—rather than the common English word “god”. I have discussed that on here both in terms of the ancient Stoics’ purely naturalistic conception (of course, limited by the physics of their time), and Buddhist, Taoist and Jewish/kabbalistic variations. (I prefer the term “nondualism” for that broad paradigm—the term “pantheism” can be used synonymously, though sometimes seems to have different connotations.)

That is why I also apply to myself the term “non-theist”—just as a bit of a semantic distinction between myself and more “secular atheists” such as yourself. Though one of the brightest lights I’ve encountered on here (no longer here) described himself as an atheist—while also being an Advaita Vedantist. So—whatever . . .

Suffice it to say that sometimes I post on here as an “atheist”, and other times as “theist”—no doubt confusing all and sundry! 😉