-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Definitions of atheism. Can atheism be scientifically defined?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
It is strongly recommended to give priority to the former, in order to obtain best results (viole).
Ciao
- viole
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Do you realise that your meta-inference does not make any sense?
To say that if logic is false, then "whatever", is self defeating at the root, since it is based on the same logic negated in the premise.
Ciao
- viole
Albert Einstein said the Bible is childish, too. And the product of feeble minds.
Now, either you agree with everything he said, or you just suffer from the typical theist malfunction: confirmation bias.
Ciao
- viole
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Your argument says, that one can not disprove the logic. But the fact, that logic is objective, says my argument.
No, my arguments is that to say: if logic if false, then....
is self defeating nonsense.
Don't you see it? It is not that difficult.
Ciao
- viole
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There are many theisms in the world. And only one atheism. One of the theisms is the most adequate description of God. Let us call it True Theism. The theisms share one common truth: God's unique name (identifier) is the holy word God, and God is existent. The atheism has no valid knowledge of God. The atheism talks about satan only, that is why atheists are angry at god, who done crimes in the Old Testament. It is the satan, not True God. NB! Word God in Old Testament refers to True God.
Last edited:
I am as angry at God as I am angry at Mickey Mouse.
You are talking nonsense. I cannot be angry at products of the human imagination.
Ciao
- viole
Jesus is anything but consistent. The notion of the requirement for sacrifice of a person in order to forgive the sins of all other persons is not consistent.
And no atheist is "against" God. We don't believe in the existence of God. I am never against anything I don't believe in. Hating Superman or Spiderman would be a bit idiotic. So with God.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
What?! You are playing theist mode now. Any sinful human is in limbo between theism and atheism. It is very convenient: most of the atheists accept the existence of even of Freewill and souls. But the unmasked atheism is hatred against True God: King Herod has murdered 10 000(?) children in Bethlehem just to harm the baby Jesus.
Google: "Christians to the lions!" Christianity is the most persecuted Religion.
Last edited:
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The holy communion might clear this: people eat Godman and drink His blood to become gods by Grace. Jesus has said: "if you will not eat My flesh and drink My blood, you will have no life in you."
Yes it does. That's the whole point!
People use words to communicate verbal symbols for the reality. How people use these symbols is where the meaning comes from.
Dictionary committees try to keep up with usage, but it's increasingly difficult in a world that's ever more eclectic and polarized and jargonized and, well, global and sophisticated.
Dictionary committees aren't authorities on how people communicate.
I don't know where you live, but around here theism most certainly is an expectation. People, who don't know you, will ask about where you go to church. The same way they might ask what you do for a living or your family. It's just to get to know you better.
But theism is such a strong expectation that non-theism is assumed to be another religion. Theism is such a powerful expectation that lots of people simply cannot understand not having a religion. So, they think atheism is a religion.
Tom
That was going to be my next post.
The idea that science could have a definition for such an abstract concept is compelling evidence(proof) that the OP doesn't understand science.
Tom
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
You can define all sorts of abstract concepts within the context of your scientific field - in fact in many scientific disciplines, the precise definition of the phenomenon you want to observe is crucial to doing science properly. But I don't think that means the process by which we arrived at those defintions is itself a scientific one.
Question begging, again. Sin makes sense only if we assume a theology in the premises. You really have to work on your logical skills.
These are just stories in a book, you know. Without additional evidence, believing them would be as rational as believing that kids can be made of wood and grow a big nose when they lie.
Aww. Are you afraid we will burn you at the stake like you guys did with us not long ago? Relax, we are better than you.
Believe me. Being laughed at, is much more comfortable than being burned alive.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Nope, doesn't clear anything up. Sounds like pure nonsense to me.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If you are better than even me, then tell me please one thing. Why here are only atheists? I was hoping to discuss the subject with theists. Have atheists taken the religion over?
Smarter than even you? With all due respect, that does not look very difficult to achieve.
And because of that, maybe the other theists in the forum are smart enough to realise how hopeless your case is, and do not want to be involved with it.
I wouldn't, if I were a theist.
Ciao
- viole