Thread: Theists and atheists

Thank you for posting your work and making it available. However, there is something that bothers me about what people claim a theist and an athiest are. Most say "a belief in" or a "disbelief in", yet, if I say I believe in tomatoes, does that make me a tomatoist? Obviousl not. The operant is the word belief. Some say that belief is a form of ignorace, i.e. that we can believe in that which we have not known-but then there is scriptural definition, being of "whole body, mind, and soul"--this is what I am want to acknowledge. This last assertion implies that our destiny is to be "as God" as we find in Genesis 1-3. This can only be attained when the mind of man reaches a certain functional behavior.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

if I say I believe in tomatoes, does that make me a tomatoist?

If tomatoes ever become important enough to argue about; yes.

I will never admit that one is the objects or things that they think about.

Being a tomato =/= Being a Tomatoist

Then, by your words God is not a theist--which makes him very insecure.

I think such arguments are beneficial for all involved. It challenges both parties, and, in some instances, we all learn something new. Prodding theists in the gray matter and making them question their beliefs is quite fun, and reading through scientific journals expands one's knowledge. Most debates end with theists plugging their ears and going lalala to preserve belief walking away with a stronger belief, and the atheists get a good chuckle and some new fun facts. It's a win-win.

As for "mutual respect" and whatnot, were I to ever meet these people in real life, I'd be outwardly pleasant enough. I don't think anything less of most of the theists I know in real life. But on the internet, behind a veil of anonymity, it's an entirely different ball game.

I have never seen an arguement yet that was based upon the Scriptural definition of God. If it did, there would hardly be dissention.

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

This of course, is a great deal different from man's mythological definition.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I have never seen an arguement yet that was based upon the Scriptural definition of God. If it did, there would hardly be dissention..

Maybe you haven't looked very hard. There are many aspects of god seen in the bible, which help to define his nature. For instance, god is jealous. That is seen when he orders his believers to slaughter all the nonbelievers and take their women. He cannot accept that people do not believe in him, so in his jealousy, he has them all killed and sent to hell.
God is also immoral. He values belief and slavish worship over life and freedom. If you don't believe in god, he kills you and sends you to hell to suffer for all of eternity for a finite "crime". That is certainly immoral. Whether or not he has different ideas of morality, I'm concerned with the human race's ideas of morality, such as not killing people just because of their beliefs.

Aspects like these help define the nature of god. In response to your original statement, several belief systems dissent with qualities like these, and according to my atheist beliefs, if there was ever an all-knowing god, I doubt he would ever be as childish as he is described in the bible.

Actually, I am one of the few people who have actually typed out the entire text of the book--even made a spell checker using a concordance.

The Scripture is sealed--that is written in the text. When you look through the text, metaphors are used to equate God with Truth--or again, judgement. Which is immortal, all powerful, etc. it also includes all good and evil. Isaiah 45:7. The function of the human mind is judgement, and the perfection of that function is the only God man can ever know.

Maybe you, as a pseudo-theist don't believe in a deity that you have no knowledge of and interprate God to mean something else, but most theists don't. I dont' really identify with being a theist or an atheist,

What is the scriptural definition of God? In my opinion different things are reffered to by the word God in different places in the bible. It's a vague word and causes more confusion than anything else. Why not just use normal words that convey what you are talking about if it is not some deity who is watching us and can influence our lives?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Then, by your words God is not a theist--which makes him very insecure.

Critical logic failure?

All of Aristotle's explanation of assertion and denial being the root of all logical error can be reduced to one sentence, Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. When we construct groups of words that do not comply with this, one is simply speaking non-sense.

You should try making the connection between the topic of the discussion and your pseudo-logical assertions more clear. It's not our job to decipher the meaning of your ambiguous statements; it's yours to make your reasoning evident. If you can't do that, then I see no reason to respond to you or even try to figure out what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

All of Aristotle's explanation of assertion and denial being the root of all logical error can be reduced to one sentence, Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. When we construct groups of words that do not comply with this, one is simply speaking non-sense.

Your pseudo-intellectual babble is unappealing.

Predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

You posted this in another thread as well. What does it even mean?

And how does this post relate to the thread?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

All of Aristotle's explanation of assertion and denial being the root of all logical error can be reduced to one sentence, Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. When we construct groups of words that do not comply with this, one is simply speaking non-sense.

There's the Philosopher we all know. It just didn't feel right without all the extraneous bullshit on ancient grammar systems and how we're all somehow using English wrong because we can't understand what the fuck he's trying to say using the definitions of words that we have been taught and that have been accepted by every major English dictionary on the planet.

"Predication is the inverse function of abstraction."

Definitive things are the opposite of abstract things.

I don't believe this statement, however. I really don't care how famous the author of this quote was. It is still a very three dimensional thought. The uncertainty principal makes it hard for me to believe in absolutes. I prefer Friedrich Nietzsche's quote:
"There are no facts, only interpretation."

Originally Posted by sloth

"Predication is the inverse function of abstraction."

Definitive things are the opposite of abstract things.

I don't believe this statement, however. I really don't care how famous the author of this quote was. It is still a very three dimensional thought. The uncertainty principal makes it hard for me to believe in absolutes. I prefer Friedrich Nietzsche's quote:
"There are no facts, only interpretation."

I see you are a very wise man. So, please inform me, as I am one of those who are not really so sharp, is a tooth real before or after it has been abstracted? And, consequently with definition, does a name stand for something before predication or only after?

Now the same idea can be put into a great number of expressions. And I have said no more than a truly wise man once said, but you did not hear him either. "We testify to what we have seen, and speak of what we have known." Nothing difficult about either expressions, yet everything you say speaks volumes that you are quite oblivious to the concepts involved.

[QUOTE=Philosopher8659;1634733]Thank you for posting your work and making it available. However, there is something that bothers me about what people claim a theist and an athiest are. Most say "a belief in" or a "disbelief in", yet, if I say I believe in tomatoes, does that make me a tomatoist? Obviousl not. ... /QUOTE]

I also never encountered the word tomatoist. But the word theist is often used; and it refers to a person who believes in God.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

[QUOTE=kowalskil;1643468]

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Thank you for posting your work and making it available. However, there is something that bothers me about what people claim a theist and an athiest are. Most say "a belief in" or a "disbelief in", yet, if I say I believe in tomatoes, does that make me a tomatoist? Obviousl not. ... /QUOTE]

I also never encountered the word tomatoist. But the word theist is often used; and it refers to a person who believes in God.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

That is just my point. A very wise man once said, 'we testify to what we have seen, and speak of what we have known.' or something to that effect. This is the foundation of langauge-- it is a requirement for a convention of terms. Also, it means that belief is of knowledge, while one cannot claim a belief in that which they are ignorant of.

Now, I am one of the rare people who have had some direct experience with what men call God, but I could never say I believe in God. I can only say what I have experienced. I cannot claim to believe that which was demonstrably beyond my comprehension.

If I were to be called an "ist" for every thing I really believe, it would be pointless.

There also is a distinction between believing in the source of what men call God, and believing in God. I don't understand the latter--it violates all rationality. And most importantly, men do not learn to fear God with this familiar concept.

I think Phil should be set upon all noobs as a right of passage.

Originally Posted by tommo

I think Phil should be set upon all noobs as a right of passage.

It is written that one should search unto the living and unto the dead for their God, but I am not looking for God--God found me because I was looking for an understanding, I am looking for a wife. Should I be any less dilligent searching for life?

I do know for a fact that this God can make itself known to every living creature on earth, however, since it does not, it is for a very good reason. This God knows the difference between knowledge and ignornace and I don't believe that it demands ignorance of anyone, or blind belief.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

It is written that one should search unto the living and unto the dead for their God, but I am not looking for God--God found me because I was looking for an understanding, I am looking for a wife. Should I be any less dilligent searching for life?

I do know for a fact that this God can make itself known to every living creature on earth, however, since it does not, it is for a very good reason. This God knows the difference between knowledge and ignornace and I don't believe that it demands ignorance of anyone, or blind belief.

So.... yes?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I do know for a fact that this God can make itself known to every living creature on earth, however, since it does not, it is for a very good reason. This God knows the difference between knowledge and ignornace and I don't believe that it demands ignorance of anyone, or blind belief.

LOL you spelled ignorance wrong. lol

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

LOL you spelled ignorance wrong. lol

Wow! aint u special!