I mean that god values the bond between parent and child far more than physical comfort since one is temporary and one isn't. Not that it doesn't care at all.
To challenge their parents, perhaps. Challenge the child. I don't believe in that kind of god, but that's one reason a god like that might do it.
Additionally, that god ultimately knows that child's suffering is temporary and meaningless in the long run and probably doesn't think much of that...
You don't understand how more information on a subject is better than less? Seriously, tell me that's true. Its the reduction of your argument that the dictionary is 'sufficient' after all. You, as a reasonable human being are more than capable of imagining atheism and leprechaunism (not...
The a-leprechaunist statement was one example, yes. A-leprechaunism is atheistic in nature. You don't think so? It isn't required for you to believe anything at all about leprechauns in order to be an atheist, but that doesn't change that it is atheistic in nature. Its not about what you...
You mean you don't see how it benefits your position in these arguments. It doesn't it argues against it.
I am arguing that you are arguing semantics. Don't get it twisted.
I know how logic works. We decided the rules and then decided we'd stick to them. Its not a bad idea. Its an amazing...
I did not state that YOU believed in anything. I do not have to be talking about YOU specifically in order to be correct. I specifically stated that no particular atheist is bound to adhere to any particular statement of atheistic belief at all, this fact of course does not negate their...
I agree that it is more than that, but it is that also. I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine more than one jury conviction hinging directly on that jury's collective idea of evil. I don't mean to say that our justice system determines what is evil and what isn't, but a jury is just people...
My point is that to state something like, "I believe leprechauns are only myths." Is an atheistic statement (or at least can be depending on the speaker's intent). This regardless to wether or not any particular atheist stands behind the statement. It is a statement of atheistic belief. An...
I didn't realize you equated 'no point whatsoever' with 'no clear point'. I know the language can be tricky sometimes, I'll try to remember that you equate these two in the future so that we don't get bogged down discussing the semantic difference between the two. In the future, when you say 'no...
Not one single post of mine has disputed a single definition you've given as false in any way, shape or form. I implied that the dictionary definition is confining. I also stated that it was insufficient. I also implied that it was not comprehensive as compared to the encyclopedia.
Shame me...
Wrong. When you insist on attempting to ram the dictionary definition of a word down someone's throat as opposed to understanding the concept behind the 'incorrect' usage, then you are engaging in semantics instead of actually addressing the issue at hand. You are basically trying to pretend...
You didn't leave it aside, you opened with it. Tongue in cheek, I hope. Otherwise its just petty.
That positive and negative statements are interchangeable. Therefore saying 'atheism is not a belief, its the lack of it' is no more than an attempt to avoid the same scrutiny they generally level...
Back to the actual topic...
From an atheist standpoint, which statement is more correct?
"I do not believe in supernatural beings."
"I believe supernatural beings are false constructs of the human mind."
From a theistic standpoint:
"I believe in supernatural beings."
"I do not believe...
But arguing on the basis of adherence to the dictionary IS. Which is what you did and continue to do below...
And as long as you confine your thinking to the dictionary, this will remain true. If, on the other hand, you accept the far more comprehensive definition provided by an encyclopedia...
Its a crying shame that you think I fail to see that. You're grouping me with the wrong group. The dictionary is simplistic in comparison to the encyclopedia. It is meant (as I said) for quick reference to terms we are unfamiliar with, where as the encyclopedia takes a far more comprehensive...
AND AGAIN, its a good thing we are not confined to the dictionary. If that's all that theism meant then it would be a crying shame that they wrote so much about it in the encyclopedia. HOW ARE YOU MISSING MY POINT?
Wow, you took my post to mean that I just make up whatever I want? You might want to read the entire post. Its only a few lines, dude. Get to it.
EDIT: Unless of course you are suggesting the dictionary somehow trumps the encyclopedia? I hope its that... I mean its likely just a mistake on your...