Debating Theism

a reply to: ChesterJohn

(I find that to be true because non belief is a belief form

Apparently you do not believe in the distinction between synonyms and antonyms. Let me give you another example:

black (the absence of color)
white (the combination of all colors)

According to your logic, black and white are the same thing.
Furthermore, read your own definition:

"belief in god/group of gods"
or
"an organized system of beliefs, etc. used to worship a god or group of gods"

-Atheism is not an "organized system"
-A god or gods do not figure into atheism

a reply to: scorpio84

belief like non belief is a choice, and are both part of a system of or form of a belief one is a lack there of but still falls into the system.

How about an organized system of belief there is no god.

Now go back and connect the context to what I said and stop trying to make something where there is nothing.

Atheism is a religion by all definitions of the word Religion.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: scorpio84

belief like non belief is a choice, and are both part of a system of or form of a belief one is a lack there of but still falls into the system.

How about an organized system of belief there is no god.

Now go back and connect the context to what I said and stop trying to make something where there is nothing.

So, you are going to give a definition of a word to "prove" a claim, yet leave out the part of the definition which is not pertinent to your personal theory? There is no "organized system of belief there is no god." You could, perhaps, argue that a group of atheists who have a bunch of traditions dedicated to atheism would be a "religion." However, under the definition you gave, that still would not fit, as they are not dedicating anything to "one or more gods."

Honestly, I don't see the point in arguing with you. I'm reminded of the words of Jesus:

"Whoever has ears, let them hear" (Mark 4:9; Matthew 11:15)

I gave the whole definition as found in the Merriam Webster dictionary complete with link. It just so happens that Atheism falls under the definition number 3.

Atheism is the religious belief there is no God.

oops dblpost

originally posted by: ChesterJohn


I gave the whole definition as found in the Merriam Webster dictionary complete with link. It just so happens that Atheism falls under the definition number 3.

Atheism is the religious belief there is no God.

Could you re-link that? Because atheism isn't a religion, it's a position that lacks belief in a god. It says nothing about anything else. It would be like claiming "Bald is a hair color"

a reply to: scorpio84

Are you saying that Belief only has to do with God or gods?

Are you not looking at the facts. What are Atheistic Views and traditions? Good question do they have any?

here are three traditions all atheist hold and I am sure there are more.

1) They stand on the belief there is no god despite the fact they cannot prove there isn't any.
2) They hold to the theory of Evolution, this is one of the pillars of their whole "there is no god" stance even though there is no actual proof evolution ever took place.
3) Actively debate the nonexistence of God, this is a very important duty of an Atheist to win others to his view, Also called Atheistic Evangelism, most Atheist like yourself are Evangelist for Atheism.

I am a bit tired having just worked an 10 hour day at the Hospital so forgive me if I am unable to think of others at the moment but I am sure there are more.

a reply to: scorpio84

Now that your "proof" has been shown to be illogical, let's get on to the meat of the matter - what you understand as "god." You are Christian, so that means you believe in Jesus. Answer me a couple questions:

1). How is it possible to be both fully human and fully divine?

2). Could God make a stone so heavy, He couldn't lift it?

No reason to discuss any of this just yet. I am not arguing for Christianity atm if we come to an agreement on the existence of a deity I would argue for Christianity until then I am simply arguing for a generic creator or creators.

So, basically, your proof that god exists is to just take as a given that god exists? That would be known as circular reasoning. What's more, the concept of a universe that is "designed" is flawed, as this essay by noted astrophysicist Steven Weinberg eloquently and clearly explains.

I am sorry but I don't think you paid close enough attention to what my post said, and I can forgive that cause I know it is hard to try and respond to everyone when the thread takes off while you are not on. Just a tip, if you want to discuss logic pull from a philosopher not an astrophysicist. That entire paper is based off the assumption, the principle of uniformity in nature, I put forth to you in my first post. I think you misunderstood that the statement I presented to you with was a reductio ad absurdum(gave you a link to read so you should know what that is). I even capslocked a statement telling you to keep that in mind, so that this misunderstanding didn't take place.

Statement:
God exist and the universe is designed, if the universe is designed then anything that exist in the universe functions in a particular way. In other words, because a design is made with a purpose and particular functions in mind we have good reason to believe that an observed instance in the past will tell us about an unobserved instance in the future.


That statement has an axiom and it is the existence of God. God was defined as a transcendent mind that is the creator of the totality of existence. If God created the world then by definition it would be a design because the creation of the universe was an action with some form of purpose or intent behind it. Nothing that I have said so far has to do with the teleological argument which is what Weinberg's essay is attempting to refute. Now the argument was not the axiom itself. The argument was a reductio ad absurdum based around that axiom, which means that it was a challenge put forth to you to show that you can deny that axiom and the resulting world view would still be coherent. That means you have to rationally justify your belief that a particular point in the past gives you some kind of information about an unobserved instance of time in the future if you fail to do that the reductio ad absurdum stands.


Please pay very close attention because you came no where close to addressing the topic I presented you.

a reply to: Ghost147

I linked it twice in this thread already now make it three. Read line three I underlined it and made it bold.

Religion
noun
re·li·gion ri-ˈli-jən

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

I sure know that Atheism is a very important to many people like you and scorpio, it is an activity you participate in that is for sure as seen by the posts, and it is of a particular interest to you, and lastly you believe their is no God.

So the third definition for Religion as a noun would indeed include Atheism

a reply to: Ghost147

not all religions have to do with a god or gods. you see men are gods too and it has to do with them.

Religion is not an activity for the dead and departed it is activity of men here and now.

Atheist are quite religious when it comes down to brass tacks, they are their own god. their whole system is based on what they believe and don't believe just like other religious people.

before I go to sleep I would say. The only reason I brought up the religion aspect was because in my first post I quoted where someone said that religion was a tool created by men to answer for the afterlife. However I found that that was not so as religion has to do with what men do while living and are not always about God or the afterlife.

For example while Christianity does give men peace about where they will spend eternity most of true Christianity deals with the inward man allowing him to change from the inside out. Every true Christian I know has gone through some forms of transformations in their lives that no one can answer for not even themselves.

I had the sudden release from 20 years of drug addictions, alcohol and tobacco in one moment upon a step of Faith the Lord showed me from his word that he wanted me to do. no withdrawals no shakes no fevers, nothing and been free ever since.

Religions are for men, and men have many of them, and they not all have to do with god or gods.

Sorry, but you could argue all night long that there is no God but I know differently by experience of the living word.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Which Greek, Whose Greek, the Numerous Greek dictionaries out there Stephanus, Vine's, Strongs et all are all based on "Classical Greek". No one I know speaks Koine Greek nor has there been anyone speaking it since about 250AD.

Koine Greek is "common" or "everday" Greek as opposed "formal" Greek. In other words, Koine Greek was the language of life not the language of books. Archibald Thomas Robertson, a New Testament Scholar who specialized in Koine Greek, characterizes Koiné Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken around the region of Athens during the classical period. So I don't really see your point here.

ALL anyone has are copies (not the originals) of a Bible, and every copy gets corrupted.

I disagree with this statement a hundred percent. Evidence is required to make a statement like this you don't just get to assume it. You ever copied anything by hand? How often do you mess up? When I copy trivial things by hand I don't mess up what makes you think if I was copying something sacred a person would mess up? You do realize if you apply this same concept to any historical work you lose all of history..

a reply to: ChesterJohn

could not the word mean both?

A word could mean anything. Words do not have intrinsic meaning they have usages. The usage is determined by the surrounding context.

One English word that incorporates all the meanings is best and less confusing, while others use only one pinpoint meaning of the word.

Or how about whatever message is put across in the original language that is the one we take, because that is what the writers intended.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Ghost147
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

I sure know that Atheism is a very important to many people like you and scorpio, it is an activity you participate in that is for sure as seen by the posts, and it is of a particular interest to you, and lastly you believe their is no God.

So the third definition for Religion as a noun would indeed include Atheism

Except, Atheism isn't an interest, because it's not a state of wanting to know something. It's not a belief, because it's a lack of belief. and it's not an activity, for obvious reasons. You do realize that "being important" is cataloged alongside those first three traits. It's not it's on trait.

That would make Water a religion, because it's important to me to survive.

So no, your claim is incorrect.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Servant, you are not here to argue with me about Greek text, I can answer you fully, especially about you having copies and no originals that one is easy. But the man. AT Robertson, of whom I have read 20 of his books, you quoted never heard a single word of original Koine Greek from anyone who knew how it was originally spoken. I, you and he learned it from scholars but it was a long dead language, long before the reformation.

I have faith that God move on Holy Men to keep his promise to preserve his words and he did so supernaturally and that one Bible has a few characteristics that no other English Bible version has 1) if defines all words in it without any dictionary or going to any other language and it does it by the context in which the word found, 2) It has a supernatural non-denominational/non-sectarian cross-referencing system to words, phrases and whole verses built into the text that no man could every place there, and 3) has led more people to Jesus Christ and was part of the largest evangelistic movements over the last 400 years than all the other 350 plus English versions combined.

I have personally read and used 12 different English versions of the Bible and hereby testify only one version of the Holy Bible has the above characteristics.

a reply to: Ghost147
in other words Atheism is nothing at all.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Ghost147
in other words Atheism is nothing at all.

No, it's just not a religion, as I've proven.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Please pay very close attention because you came no where close to addressing the topic I presented you.

Do you mean in the same way you paid attention to the OP and then decided to go off on your own tangent, which I already graciously addressed in my first reply to you?

a challenge put forth to you to show that you can deny that axiom and the resulting world view would still be coherent.

So, your way of responding to a challenge is to issue one of your own. Isn't this a bit like answering a question with a question? Now, before I continue, I'll make clear that I'm working from the understanding that your argument is to prove that the existence of God is the only logical conclusion. That said, let's continue...

God exist and the universe is designed

Should I assume you forgot to add the "s" to "exist" or that you are polytheistic? (Joking!) Your proof for God's existence is to label "God exists" as an axiomatic truth. This is called, as I explained before, circular reasoning. Furthermore, the assumption that the universe is designed is just that - an assumption. One way to explain this away is the idea of infinite possibilities that would be present in a multiverse (or even eternally cyclical universe). Furthermore, what does "and" mean? Are you bringing two different points to notice or saying that "God exists, [and therefore] the universe is designed." Either way, whether you like it or not, you are starting your argument with the teleological argument. Here are some other explanations of how the universe could appear designed, yet not need a god.

if the universe is designed then anything that exist in the universe functions in a particular way

This is a false conclusion, also known as non sequitur. An example that proves my point would be an ice pick used as a murder weapon. What was the ice pick designed to do? What was its function in the ice-pick murder? No need to answer, just think about it.

In other words, because a design is made with a purpose and particular functions in mind

Are you sure? Do artists always have a particular purpose in mind when creating something other than to put what is in their imagination into tangible existence? Furthermore, as noted above, even if design indicated purpose, it does not mean that it would function as the designer intended.

we have good reason to believe that an observed instance in the past will tell us about an unobserved instance in the future.

Taken by itself, yes. Such as putting one's hand in fire. However, this has nothing to do with your argument and when taken with the previous quote:

In other words, because a design is made with a purpose and particular functions in mind we have good reason to believe that an observed instance in the past will tell us about an unobserved instance in the future.

is completely non sequitur (again). Furthermore, why are you bringing observation into this? Has God ever been "observed?" I will answer that for you: no.

That means you have to rationally justify your belief that a particular point in the past gives you some kind of information about an unobserved instance of time in the future if you fail to do that the reductio ad absurdum stands.

I'll ignore the fact that this is not a reductio ad absurdum, but rather an argument involving circular reasoning and non sequitur logic. First, you are asking me to justify my belief that fire is hot. First, I could just test that by running by fingers through my lighter's flame. More to your point, however, it is because I have never observed fire to be cold. This whole bit about observation has nothing to do with whether or not God exists - nor does it have to do with a designed universe or any of your assumptions.

God was defined as a transcendent mind that is the creator of the totality of existence.

Transcends what - existence? I eagerly await your explanation of how Jesus could be both limited by the material world (fully human) AND transcendent (fully divine).

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I just think you are misrepresenting what Koine greek and a dead language actually is, but we can leave it be so we don't derail the thread. What version do you like to read ?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I just think you are misrepresenting what Koine greek and a dead language actually is, but we can leave it be so we don't derail the thread. What version do you like to read ?

If his use of "debate" is anything to go by, he's using the KJV. I'm in full agreement with you, by the way, regarding the translation of the word - especially when we consider it comes right after 'murder'. It is strife - nothing to do with civil debate. Also, another thing to consider is that Romans was written during a time when saying you believed in Christ (Christians were scapegoated and seen as a Jewish sect) could get you killed.