Thread: Atheists do you wish you could beleive in god?

Yes, I'm an atheist and I hope I'm wrong funnily enough. My beleifs predict a pretty dull way of looking at the world, even though I beleive in them. I would love to beleive I am going to heaven.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Allow me to broaden your vocabulary further:

id·i·om (ĭd'ē-əm) – noun
1. an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.
2. a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language.
4. the peculiar character or genius of a language.
5. a distinct style or character, in music, art, etc.: the idiom of Bach.

And just to clear things up further:

ad ho·mi·nem (hŏm'ə-něm', -nəm) – adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

you used the word idiom, even though my explanation applies to definition number 2, and this was the one appropriate in the context. ???

Originally Posted by psychology student

you used the word idiom, even though my explanation applies to definition number 2, and this was the one appropriate in the context.

It is quite clear to everyone here the intended meaning of ad hominem as it was first used to describe your attack. Everyone except you, it seems. That is precisely why I also included its definition as well.

You argue that my arguments are not "lucid and simple." I am sorry, but if 2-3 word resposnes are not simple enough for you, than I can't do anything.

Might I define another word for you...

stu·pid
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.

I am sorry, but if you are having trouble accepting the use of "big words" (that seems to be a major thrust of your argument), then there is nothing I or anyone else can do for you.
If you can't understand how the objective definitions of the fallacies I listed apply to the statements I listed, then that, I would say, fits into the above definition.

Overall it seems your retort to my list is a combination of using your own lack of understanding to say that my terms are invalid, and using ad hominem attacks to insult my use of such terms.

Originally Posted by wasup

You argue that my arguments are not "lucid and simple." I am sorry, but if 2-3 word resposnes are not simple enough for you, than I can't do anything.

Might I define another word for you...


I am sorry, but if you are having trouble accepting the use of "big words" (that seems to be a major thrust of your argument), then there is nothing I or anyone else can do for you.
If you can't understand how the objective definitions of the fallacies I listed apply to the statements I listed, then that, I would say, fits into the above definition.

Overall it seems your retort to my list is a combination of using your own lack of understanding to say that my terms are invalid, and using ad hominem attacks to insult my use of such terms.

^
Ad hominem attacks, you hypocrite. My arguments are flawed becuase the supposedly have ad hominem attacks (when they don't). Even then, you still have the cheek to call me "stupid" (implicitly at least). Now I won't call you stupid because its a strong word, and I might hurt you feelings. So may be you have short-term memory difficulties (perhaps you forgot the definition of ad hominem, or maybe you forgot that you had accused me of making ad hominem re-marks). Or perhaps your cognitive abillities of memory and attention are in a state of dissociation.

Did you read my last post? It some of your new questions were answered then. I said I understood your crap, but I musn't be too quick to judge because you may have difficulties reading. Or perhaps you were offended, thus, you weren't paying full attention. Alternatively, you could just be blurting out complicated words in a ploy to gain credit with your peers, regardless whether or not they actually make sense or carry any validity whatsoever? Tell me which, if any, is it?

See, I wasn't suggesting you were stupid as an ad hominem attack in order to discredit you. I am just pointing out that you must have a difficult time understanding the connection between the definitions of the words I listed and your quotes. This is the definition of "stupidity" -- the lack of ability to learn and make associations. Is it an insult to call a 12-year old who can't see that the square block goes in the square inset and instead tries to force it into the circular one "stupid?" I really don't think it is, and I'm sorry if you see it that way. Again, I realize that my use of "complicated words" is again a main thrust of your argument.

And secondly, you were indeed using "ad hominem attacks." I refer back to the comment about stupidity if you can't associate your quotes ("you're so cool", etc.) are simply such attacks. I am not going to try to convince you anymore of that, it is up to you to make those associations. An insult presented among other points as a valid retort is an ad hominem.

Psychology student, may I ask how old you are?

Originally Posted by wasup

See, I wasn't suggesting you were stupid as an ad hominem attack in order to discredit you. I am just pointing out that you must have a difficult time understanding the connection between the definitions of the words I listed and your quotes. This is the definition of "stupidity" -- the lack of ability to learn and make associations. Is it an insult to call a 12-year old who can't see that the square block goes in the square inset and instead tries to force it into the circular one "stupid?" I really don't think it is, and I'm sorry if you see it that way. Again, I realize that my use of "complicated words" is again a main thrust of your argument.

And secondly, you were indeed using "ad hominem attacks." I refer back to the comment about stupidity if you can't associate your quotes ("you're so cool", etc.) are simply such attacks. I am not going to try to convince you anymore of that, it is up to you to make those associations. An insult presented among other points as a valid retort is an ad hominem.

Psychology student, may I ask how old you are?

25

Originally Posted by psychology student

25

I honestly thought you were at least 10 years younger.

Originally Posted by psychology student

25

There's something very sad about this.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

There's something very sad about this.

It's both sad and funny. My eyes got wet when I first saw it because I was laughing so hard!

don't see whats wrong about him being 25...

Originally Posted by Stephent91

I honestly thought you were at least 10 years younger.

Yeah, I'm actually 18, but i lied, if you had the initiative to check my profile. Or what about the "student" talk e.t.c e.t.c e.t.c.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

don't see whats wrong about him being 25...

They all percieve that I'm stupid, probably. Well its only because I argue (arguing in this context being logical) for theism (theism often illogical and unscientific). I hope you see the impossibility of my situation.
Believe me guys, though I'm smarter than most of you, though I don't know the little intricacies of your lives, i'm speaking in general.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

There's something very sad about this.

Although the comment was made under a pretence, I would still like to know what you meant.



Lets compare eachother by university, you tell me which you have gone to, have a place at, or are at at the moment, and we'll see how they compare. Ofcourse this excludes Stephent as he is 16, I believe. Any Ivy leagues I wonder? Or if your English, "Russell group"(s)? Carosoul are you English?

We could compare IQ, but as somebody said on this forum, IQ only measures thintelligence

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yeah, I'm actually 18, but i lied, if you had the initiative to check my profile. Or what about the "student" talk e.t.c e.t.c e.t.c.



They all percieve that I'm stupid, probably. Well its only because I argue (arguing in this context being logical) for theism (theism often illogical and unscientific). I hope you see the impossibility of my situation.
Believe me guys, though I'm smarter than most of you, though I don't know the little intricacies of your lives, i'm speaking in general.



Although the comment was made under a pretence, I would still like to know what you meant.



Lets compare eachother by university, you tell me which you have gone to, have a place at, or are at at the moment, and we'll see how they compare. Ofcourse this excludes Stephent as he is 16, I believe. Any Ivy leagues I wonder? Or if your English, "Russell group"(s)? Carosoul are you English?

We could compare IQ, but as somebody said on this forum, IQ only measures thintelligence

I'm still weeping.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I'm still weeping.

Whats wrong with you, post something valid or don't post.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Whats wrong with you, post something valid or don't post.

Look at your own.

Wait wait wait... why are you debating a side which you claim yourself is "entirely illogical?" I can just as easily say that I worship the invisible pink unicorn, and we don't follow logic. Our book says that your god is fake, and our book says that our book is always right. Thus, using your logic (or lack thereof, whichever you prefer), I am right and you are wrong. Is my hypothetical situation any less legitimate than yours? Unfortunately, no, no it's not. (And pre-emptively let me say that talking about your "religion being around longer" or "being created for serious purposes" are logical fallacies: argumentum ad antiquitatem and appeal to motive. Realize that while indeed the religion itself may be illogical, it is entirely valid to use logic when arguing about certain aspects about the religion. That is kind of my point.)

Originally Posted by wasup

Wait wait wait... why are you debating a side which you claim yourself is "entirely illogical?"

Because people attack it logically, and fail to acknowledge the point, that I made which prompted you comment, above. What else can one do?

Originally Posted by wasup

I can just as easily say that I worship the invisible pink unicorn, and we don't follow logic. Our book says that your god is fake, and our book says that our book is always right. Thus, using your logic (or lack thereof, whichever you prefer), I am right and you are wrong. Is my hypothetical situation any less legitimate than yours? Unfortunately, no, no it's not.

Hypothetically you could do that, but we both know that the invisible pink unicorn is made-up as a logical criticism of religion. However religion is not so overtly initiated: it was not out of scorn, or criticism of something else, but supposedly by divine inspiration.

Originally Posted by psychology student

They all percieve that I'm stupid, probably. Well its only because I argue (arguing in this context being logical) for theism (theism often illogical and unscientific).

This is not the reason.

Originally Posted by skysaw

This is not the reason.

Well, what is it then?

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yeah, I'm actually 18, but i lied, if you had the initiative to check my profile. Or what about the "student" talk e.t.c e.t.c e.t.c.

Why need to check your profile when you already claimed to be 25? I trusted you enough. You can be 25 and going to college. Maybe you wanted to go back to get a degree in psychology.

Originally Posted by psychology student

They all percieve that I'm stupid, probably. Well its only because I argue (arguing in this context being logical) for theism (theism often illogical and unscientific). I hope you see the impossibility of my situation.
Believe me guys, though I'm smarter than most of you, though I don't know the little intricacies of your lives, i'm speaking in general.

We don't perceive your stupidity because you argue for Theism, we perceive it because of how you argue for it and other reasons that are seen through your posts. It's not impossible for somebody to be extremely smart and argue for Theism. I've had plenty of discussions with Theists that were very intelligent. One person on here that comes to mind is 27. We've had some great discussions and he's Mormon.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Although the comment was made under a pretence, I would still like to know what you meant.

He meant that it's sad that you are 25 and as stupid as you are. Like me, he probably thought that you were in the 14 year old range.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Lets compare eachother by university, you tell me which you have gone to, have a place at, or are at at the moment, and we'll see how they compare. Ofcourse this excludes Stephent as he is 16, I believe. Any Ivy leagues I wonder? Or if your English, "Russell group"(s)? Carosoul are you English?

We could compare IQ, but as somebody said on this forum, IQ only measures thintelligence

Comparing intelligence by university isn't a very good medium as there are many other contributing factors. IQ would actually be the best way to do it as it measures one's ability to adapt to new methods of thinking and logical thought... not sure what "thintelligence" is, but I'll look that up.

My IQ is in the top 1.5% since the last time I took it. We can all take the Mensa IQ test and see how we all compare! I'm willing to bet that Carou and I get in, but I'm not too sure about you.

Don't kid yourself? Your stupid and naive. I'm smarter than you, don't worry.

University is a good way as they look at your whole academic performance, you just haven't got to that stage yet. Tell me what uni are you thinking of applying to?

And yes I am 18.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Don't kid yourself? Your stupid and naive. I'm smarter than you, don't worry.

University is a good way as they look at your whole academic performance, you just haven't got to that stage yet. Tell me what uni are you thinking of applying to?

And yes I am 18.

No it's not a good one. Academics aren't a good way to measure intelligence. Although they generally follow the pattern of intelligence, they are still bad. Edison, for example, was considered so stupid that he was kicked out of school, while he was a genius.

I don't kid or flatter myself, and I'm far less naive than most people my age or even your age even though I am still naive. I don't worry about you being smarter than me. Even though you should, you obviously aren't unless you are playing as dumb as you could possibly be. I'm reading Shakespeare's Twelfth Night right now, and the fool is considered a genius because of how he is able to play a fool so well. The logic behind it is that one has to be very wise to be able to be a good fool. I don't think that that is your case though. I see you as just being a fool, because this fool is able to intelligently joke and be foolish, while you just make a fool of yourself. There is a difference.


As for what colleges do I want to go to, the main one that I want to go to is Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. Aside from it being a very good college, it is perfect for me because:

-It's extremely small, and I don't want to go to a big college. I'm sick of big schools.

-It's in Texas, and only a couple hours from home. Location is a major thing for me because I don't want to go off to college thousands of miles away. While I hate my city, I don't want to end up completely removed.

-It's only 20-30 minutes away from Austin. Austin is my favorite place to go to. It's super fun and alive, and there's always something to do. Great, cutting edge music (yes, there's good music that's recent there!) This way I can be in a small community, but still be very close to a big city.

-It's a liberal arts college. Since I don't really have a very good idea about what I want to do, these colleges are designed to put people very well rounded, so you can go into many different fields if you want to. Also, it's a good college for classes like philosophy and psychology which I will probably have one major and minor in one or the other of those. It also connects to a separate music college thing for its music classes, which is awesome!

-I don't really need to go to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or other ivy leagues. I will still apply to them for shits and giggles, but I don't really care for them or need that. Whatever field I go into, I will be able to be successful with a degree from this college just as well as from an ivy league. I might get a masters if I want to or feel like I need it if I end up going into whatever field (I don't really have much of a clue). Also, I'm actually starting something now, but I can't really talk about it. I might soon post something within the next couple of months though about it if it ends up being successful.

-It's a fairly good college.


There you go. Where do you go?

I just looked up the word "thintelligence". It was a word invented in the book, "Jurassic Park". It means an idea that seems brilliant at first, but turns out very bad, such as the cloning of dinosaurs. (The thing about cloning dinosaurs is gonna be on the Discovery Channel in an hour! I'm excited! )

Another website said, "Test your thintelligence!" This website made thintelligence mean knowledge about working out and health.

Nothing to do with IQs.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Because people attack it logically, and fail to acknowledge the point, that I made which prompted you comment, above. What else can one do?


Hypothetically you could do that, but we both know that the invisible pink unicorn is made-up as a logical criticism of religion. However religion is not so overtly initiated: it was not out of scorn, or criticism of something else, but supposedly by divine inspiration.

As I had JUST said in that post, it is a fallacy to say it is wrong because of motive. As we both agree, my invisible-pink unicorn that has a book that says you are wrong and the book guarantees that it is right because it isn't guided by logic is, (il)logically just as valid as your religion. Thanks, I just wanted to clear that up.