Religion/Spirituality Athiest re-write the 10 commandments

[acri1]

Not I............

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/lvhfb/disgusting_video_leaked_of_the_amazing_atheist/

That's where I found the pic. 'Interesting' conversations atheists have.

​

Yes, a video of some random atheist somewhere engaged in homosexual behavior is somehow a valid pro-theistic argument.

Perfect logic. It's clearly evident that no one claiming to be religious would ever engage in such activity.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Yes, a video of some random atheist somewhere engaged in homosexual behavior is somehow a valid pro-theistic argument.
.

That wasn't a pro-theistic argument. I was making fun of atheists.

WTF is wrong with you.....​

 

[tmonster]

Again... if not believing in a God is a belief then not having sex is a sexual position.

and baldness is a hair color

 

[blackzeus]

LOL

I don't believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun between Mars and Earth (Russel's teapot), yet I cannot 100% conclusively prove there is not. Does this in fact mean that I DO believe a teapot is orbiting the Sun, but don't claim it to be true?

That's your logic right there.

Not sure who Russel is, but there is a clear difference between an asinine analogy and modular logic with regards to a set of axioms, but regardless, to answer your statement.

1) Red herring, and we're arguing semantics here, but let's rock with it

2) Let's break it down logically. to point out the ridiculousness of these stances

A = Belief of teapot's orbit

B = Proof of teapot's orbit

C = Teapot is actually orbiting

D= Not sure if teapot is orbiting or not




Axioms (should be straight forward):

1) If B, then C

2) If B', then D

3) If A, then D

4) If A', then D

5) If A and B, then C

6) If A and B', then D

7) If A' and B, then C

8) If A' and B', then D


What I am saying, is that 6) and 8) are equivalent, based on modular logic and what you are saying is that they're not, contrary to modular logic. Fine, so let's go ternary. Do you know Kleene's ternary logic table?

If you look at the second truth table, a double negative is a positive, which is equal to a double positive. So using your analogy, with A = belief that teapot is orbiting the sun and B = claiming that it's true, not believing the teapot is orbiting the sun and not claiming that your belief is true IS LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to believing the teapot is orbiting the sun and claiming your belief is true. To the contrary, believing that that the teapot is orbiting the sun and not claiming your belief is true IS NOT LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to stating that you don't believe the teapot is orbiting the sun and you not claiming your belief is true. Again, I hate to do it to you nikkaz, but you keep doing it to yourselves. Whether it's logic, whether it's nature, whether it's physics, whether it's chemistry, whether it's math, you can't avoid intelligent design. THAT'S THE FUKKIN' irony, the atheists' argument are destroyed by their very own science and logic my Sith lord, there's no logical difference between an agnostic atheist and a Christian believer

 

[NoMayo15]

No you don't really, but I am not in a position to judge who YOU feel you are, I am simply stating my impression of you, which is one of no stance. That's MY stance, take it how you want it

Well, YOUR stance is wrong. How does my position of "I don't know if there is a god(s), but I don't believe any exist" not align with "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"? I'm telling you, point blank, I reject the theist position, and you're coming back with all these fallacies about what a "true" atheist is like. Which brings me to this nugget:

Hmm, technically there's a slight misconception in your statement. A true atheist DOESN'T BELIEVE GOD EXISTS. Not necessarily believing in Buddha, and emphatically stating that I don't believe there is a higher power/intelligent designer/God in existence are not one and the same. Atheism is a clearly defined belief, a belief that there is no God, you are merely stating some sort of viewpoint. It's amazing how theists are so clear in the points, yet you as an "atheist" of sorts has a muddy definition of your own idealogies.

One, there's no misconception. I don't see a difference in the definitions we used there. I don't believe in Buddha nor do I believe in a higher power/intelligent designer/God. I wanna make myself clear that when I said I don't believe in god, I was talking about ALL gods, not just the one of the Christian variety.

My viewpoint isn't muddled. Your grasp of the English language seems to be.

Ok, agnostic atheist got it. Using your (with all due respect) "wish washy" rubric, I would be a an Gnostic Theist, why, because I believe there is a God, a Designer, and I know he exists because of his Designs. Now I can't be sure if God is a man/woman/buddha/Osiris/whatever, but I am sure of it because of all the entities that exist on this planet in relative harmony. That's my observed phenomena, using simple modular logic: A) It is obvious computer has a designer B) brain is more complicated than a designer C) it is obvious the brain also had a designer. With all that said I get your position now. You don't believe God exists, but you don't claim to know that to be true, you just haven't seen enough evidence to refute your beliefs. I don't know how you can see the laws of gravity in effect with the rising and subsiding of ocean tides relative to the position of the moon and that not be enough evidence of intelligent design, but hey, that's your right

What's wishy washy about it? It's pretty damn straight forward. Either you're a theist or not. Either you're agnostic or not. People (you) misunderstand definitions, so you get tripped up.

You say you can't be sure about specifically which Designer this god is, or what characteristics it has, so why (and this might be getting way far ahead) have you chosen to identify as Christian? How do you connect harmony to therefore this particular set of beliefs are probably true?

And relative harmony? Relative to what? What do you mean by that?

Here's another problem... you say you think/know the human brain had a designer because computers have designers, the brain is more complicated, therefore the brain must have a designer. You do realize we don't recognize design by how complex something is. We recognize design by comparing it to natural, non-designed things. Our experience shows us that 100% of the computers have been manufactured by mankind, and we have evidence of this. And 0% of computers occur naturally. If you wanted, you could go to one of the companies that makes computers, and see the designs for the computers, and watch them put it together. Biological creatures, and their organs aren't like that. They aren't built by some being like a machine. The argument from design fails because what you're making here is a false analogy. Just because both things are "complex" doesn't mean they are both built, or designed.

Ah, yes. "Tides go in, tides go out". That ole chestnut. Well since you want to invoke science, and laws, let me ask you this question I asked earlier. Why do you think it is that the vast majority of scientists, who actually have studied this stuff, disagrees with you so overwhelmingly? Why is it that now that we know more about evolution and the big bang, that fewer biologists, cosmologists and other scientists appeal to a higher being when answering these questions? Why haven't some of our best thinkers reached the same conclusion as you?

Personally, I don't see how you can look at the universe and have such an ego that it was made for us. That it couldn't happen any other way. Even if we didn't know how it happened, and we don't know all the details, but even if we had no clue, that doesn't make it reasonable to say Zeus is throwing the lightning bolt, or Neptune is controlling the waves. I see your believes in the same light as any other bronze age myth humanity has long casted aside.

No, If I believe in Christ, then I believe he is the only way to salvation FOR ME.

2 Thessalonians 3:11-18 ESV
For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

^^^If you don't want to follow God's rules/regulations, that's on you. My Christian duty is to tell you what the Bible says out of concern for your soul, AS A BROTHER. I can tell you that this is what Jesus says, and at the same time state that this is what I believe, but I don't believe YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS TO BE SAVED, I believe I have to follow this to be saved. That's not the same thing as saying "I don't believe in God, but who knows, he may exist", it's a self contradicting sentence. I am saying "I believe in God, I believe he exists, but I am not in the position to tell you that you HAVE to do this to be saved. But this is what my God says, and if you want, you are welcome to join me on the path to righteousness". If you want, you can do it, and if you don't want, well that is your right as a human being of free will.

And again, why do you believe this or anything in the bible is valid or true?

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive to someone with no stance.

Wha... but I do have a stance

You believe but you don't believe. I get it.

Uh, if you're saying this, I don't think you do...

But in reality, agnostic = someone who believes he doesn't know anything to be true, and atheist = someone who believes God doesn't exist. They are not one and the same. I want to say you're confused, but I'm going to refrain from ad hominems. I'm going to say that while I respect you somewhat defining your stance with the rubric, in fact, you are saying you are two things at the same time. That would be like me being a Christian santeria.

Yeah, clearly you don't get it. It seems to me, rather than use the earlier definition, you just want to cling to this "atheists believe gods don't exist". I'm sorry, I know this is going to be insulting, but it's like talking to a child. You realize words can have several different meanings, right? And they might mean different things in different contexts... right?! Clinging to this definition of atheism so desperately won't move the conversation along. Don't try to abandon the definition you posted because it's inconvenient to your argument.

No I'm not confused. I extrapolated to show how in fact atheism is really a religion like any other religion, it's just never been expounded upon/developed. I can say I believe in the sun and leave it at that, or I can do like the Mayans and build temples and have priests and sh*t. But it's still a faith like any other. No, you don't need to believe in God to have a conscience/set of morals. BUT THE FACT THAT YOU DO innately have these attributes attest to some entity placing something in you that isn't in any other creature. Thus "God gene". It's my own fabrication, but I feel it's a good way to describe the attributes that in my opinion are a testament to an intelligent designer

Wait, believing the sun exists doesn't take faith. Likening it unto a god does. How is atheism like that?

Other creatures have a sense of morality too. Is god putting it in them?

This fabrication is nonsense. Merely having an innate sense of morals doesn't mean some entity put it there. You know, there's whole sciences dedicated to understanding this, right?

I don't have to state "I am formulating a belief" in order to be doing so. If I say, because the sky is gray, it will rain, I have formulated a belief unconsciously.

I don't know what you mean by this.

YOU my Coli breh are the one who are wording things strangely. If you don't believe any God exists, by default you think there are no Gods.

Okay.

Again, I can't define you, you are your own person, but to me you are an agnostic if that's the case, someone who just claims he doesn't know something to be true.

It's like bangin my head against a wall.... I ALREADY TOLD YOU I WAS AN AGNOSTIC.

These convoluted positions are contrived from intentions to confuse IMHO.

No, just because you're too dense to understand...

Everyone else gets it, except for you

Most of the famous atheists clearly went out of their way to discourse on how God doesn't exist, I'm not sure they would look at your "stance" in a positive light, since you clearly are stating that you are not sure if there is a God or not

I'm pretty sure Richard Dawkins has the exact same stance as I do. At least he did when he wrote God Delusion when I was like 19. But that was about a decade ago and I don't really follow him so I don't know.

which in essence means you're not an atheist, because an atheist is SURE God doesn't exist.

No they don't. Not necessarily. You can't be this dumb. Not even being mean... seriously. I'm legit concerned now.

That would be like me saying I believe in Christ but I don't know if he really existed, Christians would be looking at me like

Well, you know, and I'm gonna blow your mind, but people like that DO exist. They believe this religion, don't even know if it's true or why they believe. But just go with the motion because they were taught it's true as a kid, and everyone else around them believes it. Going through life completely unquestioning. Would you at least agree with me on this?

Anyway breh, this is going nowhere, you're clearly an "agnostic atheist", meaning someone who doesn't believe God exists, but at the same time recognizes that there may be a chance God does exist, which is why you don't want to explicitly state you're an atheist. How you see that as taking a stance is beyond me, but do you playboy

What do you mean, don't want to state? How many times have I told you that I am one? You're denying it because it doesn't mesh with your worldview. You NEED it to be the case that atheists are irrational and dogmatic like you, so theists don't look so silly for unquestionably believing things they can't possibly know. I'm sorry to let you know but this isn't reality.

 

[NoMayo15]

That wasn't a pro-theistic argument. I was making fun of atheists.

WTF is wrong with you.....​

What's wrong with HIM? You're the one googling gay atheist porn

 

[blackzeus]

One, there's no misconception. I don't see a difference in the definitions we used there. I don't believe in Buddha nor do I believe in a higher power/intelligent designer/God. I wanna make myself clear that when I said I don't believe in god, I was talking about ALL gods, not just the one of the Christian variety.

Yes, but you're an agnostic theist, you don't believe in Gods but you don't want to claim your belief is true. I already answered this in my previous post, I will just quote it for you, I don't the reason to keep going back and forth with people who don't realize the logical fallacies in their argument, even more shocking with an atheist who usually are excellent logists:

Not sure who Russel is, but there is a clear difference between an asinine analogy and modular logic with regards to a set of axioms, but regardless, to answer your statement.

1) Red herring, and we're arguing semantics here, but let's rock with it

2) Let's break it down logically. to point out the ridiculousness of these stances

A = Belief of teapot's orbit

B = Proof of teapot's orbit

C = Teapot is actually orbiting

D= Not sure if teapot is orbiting or not




Axioms (should be straight forward):

1) If B, then C

2) If B', then D

3) If A, then D

4) If A', then D

5) If A and B, then C

6) If A and B', then D

7) If A' and B, then C

8) If A' and B', then D


What I am saying, is that 6) and 8) are equivalent, based on modular logic and what you are saying is that they're not, contrary to modular logic. Fine, so let's go ternary. Do you know Kleene's ternary logic table?

If you look at the second truth table, a double negative is a positive, which is equal to a double positive. So using your analogy, with A = belief that teapot is orbiting the sun and B = claiming that it's true, not believing the teapot is orbiting the sun and not claiming that your belief is true IS LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to believing the teapot is orbiting the sun and claiming your belief is true. To the contrary, believing that that the teapot is orbiting the sun and not claiming your belief is true IS NOT LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to stating that you don't believe the teapot is orbiting the sun and you not claiming your belief is true. Again, I hate to do it to you nikkaz, but you keep doing it to yourselves. Whether it's logic, whether it's nature, whether it's physics, whether it's chemistry, whether it's math, you can't avoid intelligent design. THAT'S THE FUKKIN' irony, the atheists' argument are destroyed by their very own science and logic my Sith lord, there's no logical difference between an agnostic atheist and a Christian believer

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

What's wrong with HIM? You're the one googling gay atheist porn

Umm, no. I googled Amazing Atheist. The search box filled in 'banana'. I figured.... let's see what this shows. Went to Reddit and ..........

There. No 'active' search for 'gay porn' on my part. That dude filmed himself and uploaded it. Those atheists on Reddit posted that pic. I have NO clue about a vid and don't care.

Thought it was funny, posted it. Y'all caught feelings. Mission Accomplished.

The End.


​

 

[NoMayo15]

Umm, no. I googled Amazing Atheist. The search box filled in 'banana'. I figured.... let's see what this shows. Went to Reddit and ..........

There. No 'active' search for 'gay porn' on my part. That dude filmed himself and uploaded it. Those atheists on Reddit posted that pic. I have NO clue about a vid and don't care.

Thought it was funny, posted it. Y'all caught feelings. Mission Accomplished.

The End.


​

::Tries It::



Fair enough breh.

 

[NoMayo15]

Yes, but you're an agnostic atheist, you don't believe in Gods but you don't want to claim your belief is true. I already answered this in my previous post, I will just quote it for you, I don't the reason to keep going back and forth with people who don't realize the logical fallacies in their argument, even more shocking with an atheist who usually are excellent logists:

I don't MAKE a claim. I reject the claim that theists make. Now if you wanna just admit you can't address the rest of my post, that's fine too.

 

[blackzeus]

I don't MAKE a claim. I reject the claim that theists make. Now if you wanna just admit you can't address the rest of my post, that's fine too.

I succinctly and logically answered all your statements with the previous post. FYI, rejecting a claim = making a claim. And you yourself said you were an agnostic atheist, which I proved is logically equivalent to being a Christian believer via ternary logic, can't wait for your testimony on Sunday breh

 

[noon]

I thought you atheist were supposed to be pretty good logists

Pretty good what now? Are you trying to argue what words mean while having trouble with your own?

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Hold up, when did this thread turn into these walls of text? :dahellbill:

I skimmed a bit (I ain't finna read all this shyt) but what's the beef? Yall arguing whether Atheists believe in a God or what? Atheism is clearly the lack of belief in deities and God(s). Whether you claim to not know if God exists or no, you still lack belief in any, so basically you don't believe in God.

If I don't believe Aliens exist and I claim to not be sure whether they do exist or no, it still means I don't believe in them.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Atheism is clearly the lack of belief in deities and God(s). Whether you claim to not know if God exists or no, you still lack belief in any

False. Can't claim that they are an atheist when they may just as likely be a theist depending upon how 'God' is defined. They may not believe YOUR definition.​

 

[blackzeus]

Pretty good what now? Are you trying to argue what words mean while having trouble with your own?

http://wordinfo.info/unit/1463

The word -ology is a back-formation from the names of certain disciplines. The -logy element basically means "the study of ____". Such words are formed from Greek or Latin roots with the terminal -logy derived from the Greek suffix -λογια (-logia), speaking, from λεγειν (legein), "to speak".

The suffix -ology is considered to be misleading sometimes as when the "o" is actually part of the word stem that receives the -logy ending; such as, bio + logy.

Through the years -ology and -logy have come to mean, "study of" or "science of" and either of these suffixes often utilize the form of -ologist, "one who (whatever the preceding element refers to)".

A logist is someone who studies a particular science. In general atheists are good students of the sciences, so it me that people who are so good at science can't see the inherent logical flaws in their argument, not to mention that telling me I have trouble with my words in an attempt to discredit me while completely ignoring the key points of my argument is an ad hominem fallacy , I would have thought that you atheists were above such logical errors,