Do atheists actually exist?

[Desert Snake]

I mean exactly what I said.


You had to read Christian documents - and then believe what they say about Jesus - to believe Jesus is God.

Eh, no..that's a 'real' belief, didn't 'have to read' that.

That would make you a believer in the Christian religion.

Hmm in some large context.

Also - Trinitarians believe Jesus is God.

Nope, they believe in the triune aspect of divinity, afaik.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do atheists actually exist?

There are people here who write that they are atheists; so they exist; yet without a positive evidence and prove for atheism.

Regards

 

[McBell]

Do atheists actually exist?

There are people here who write that they are atheists; so they exist; yet without a positive evidence and prove for atheism.

Regards

:biglaugh:

 

[LuisDantas]

Do atheists actually exist?

There are people here who write that they are atheists; so they exist; yet without a positive evidence and prove for atheism.

Regards

It's all part of our conspiracy, you know.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, unlike unicorns & the mythical free lunch, we atheists really do exist.

Actually, me and the free lunch have a lot in common existencewise.

 

[steeltoes]

Do atheists actually exist?



The real question is; does anybody care?

 

[Ingledsva]

mean exactly what I said.


You had to read Christian documents - and then believe what they say about Jesus - to believe Jesus is God.

Eh, no..that's a 'real' belief, didn't 'have to read' that.

ING - So you are telling us that without Christian doctrine - Ummm - ?? - Jesus just popped into your room and said - "Hello there, I'm Jesus, and I'm God. Pay no attention to those Christians that wrote about me (that you haven't read , of course)?


*

That would make you a believer in the Christian religion.

Hmm in some large context.

ING - No kidding!


*

Also - Trinitarians believe Jesus is God.

Nope, they believe in the triune aspect of divinity, afaik.

The belief is that there is ONE god with three persons. All are God.


"Trinitarianism is the theological belief in Christianity that God is a Trinity. The Trinity is the teaching that there is only one God in all existence and that God exists in three distinct, simultaneous, co-eternal, co-powerful persons known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic (there is only one God in all existence)."


What is Trinitarianism? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


*

 

[Desert Snake]

ING - So you are telling us that without Christian doctrine - Ummm - ?? - Jesus just popped into your room and said - "Hello there, I'm Jesus, and I'm God. Pay no attention to those Christians that wrote about me (that you haven't read , of course)?

This is funny. We actually don't know what we wouldn't know, get it? Aside from that, yes we're using texts etc., so are you in all your arguments. Reminds me, you never really answered why you argue in the position you do, if you don't believe it.

ING - No kidding!

Hey, tell the critics that, seems like some Christians are very against Oneness concept.

The belief is that there is ONE god with three persons. All are God.


"Trinitarianism is the theological belief in Christianity that God is a Trinity. The Trinity is the teaching that there is only one God in all existence and that God exists in three distinct, simultaneous, co-eternal, co-powerful persons known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic (there is only one God in all existence)."


What is Trinitarianism? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Yeah, I'm not Trinitarian though, notice they believe that the aspects of God are distinct, I don't believe that, I believe it is one Being, therefore Jesus actually is God. The distinct part is with Jesus as man, the man aspect is distinct, but Jesus the God isn't. In order to walk among us, that was necessary.

 

[s2a]

Eh, we use faith in the secular world all the time. We are constantly employing faith in any meaningful study, we'd never get anywhere without it.

And yet.....


...deniers of fact abound.

Any enlightened opinion to proffer on your part as to why that is so?

 

[Bunyip]

Eh, we use faith in the secular world all the time. We are constantly employing faith in any meaningful study, we'd never get anywhere without it.

In what way is faith used in the secular world? How is faith employed in any meaningful study, and why do you think we would never get any where without it?

I ask because 'faith' as it is defined in the context of religion is of no use in the secular world whatsoever, nor is it employed in any meaningful or beneficial way in study.

 

[Desert Snake]

In what way is faith used in the secular world? How is faith employed in any meaningful study, and why do you think we would never get any where without it?

I ask because 'faith' as it is defined in the context of religion is of no use in the secular world whatsoever, nor is it employed in any meaningful or beneficial way in study.

Ok, again you're using a specific definition for a word that doesn't have a specific relational meaning to a certain action.
1. Faith that the mail will arrive on time.
2. Faith in the teachings of Buddha.

It's the same word, same meaning, different context.
You were trying to do the same thing with 'religious', but you can't keep assigning specific meaning to words that are broader in meaning.
It's semantics that merely lead to meaningless sentences.

 

[s2a]

In what way is faith used in the secular world? How is faith employed in any meaningful study, and why do you think we would never get any where without it?

I ask because 'faith' as it is defined in the context of religion is of no use in the secular world whatsoever, nor is it employed in any meaningful or beneficial way in study.

Not really my call.

"Faith" is a belief that retains no reliance of facts or testable proofs. This is not a "secular" pov...it is what it chooses to "be". Just sayin', belief (in anything) does NOT equate to testable FACT. BELIEVE what you choose to be "TRUTH".

Doesn't make it so.

AT ALL.

 

[Bunyip]

Ok, again you're using a specific definition for a word that doesn't have a specific relational meaning to a certain action.

Words often have specific and different meanings in specific contexts, I am using the correct definition of the word 'faith' in the context.

1. Faith that the mail will arrive on time.
2. Faith in the teachings of Buddha.

It's the same word, same meaning, different context.
You were trying to do the same thing with 'religious', but you can't keep assigning specific meaning to words that are broader in meaning, example..

Of course I can. I am using the only correct meaning in the context here. Faith has a specific meaning in the religious context. You are commiting the fallacy of equivocation by moving from one meaning to another.
Faith is NOT ' broader in meaning', it has a specific meaning in the context of religion.

'Judy religiously attended church'. Which 'meaning' of religiously are we ascribing here, the religion associated one, or the "non-religion" context.
It's semantics that merely lead to meaningless sentences.

No, it has nothing to do with semantics, it is simply how language works - words have specific meanings in slecific contexts.

In your example there is only one definition of 'religiously' that applies in that context.

 

[Desert Snake]

I ask because 'faith' as it is defined in the context of religion is of no use in the secular world whatsoever, nor is it employed in any meaningful or beneficial way in study.

Same definition buddy. It's just a matter of context.

 

[Bunyip]

Same definition buddy. It's just a matter of context.

No. Two distinct meanings in two distinct contexts.

In the context of religion, faith means belief without evidence. This form of faith is not necessary in secular life or in any form of research.

You were equivocating by using the alternate definition of faith outside of the context here in which it simply means trust.

Different definition, different meaning according to context. You are fallaciously equivocating between the two definitions.

Equivocation by the way is when a person equivocates between different meanings of a word in order to make a point or argument - whichis what you are doing.

 

[Willamena]

Not really my call.

"Faith" is a belief that retains no reliance of facts or testable proofs. This is not a "secular" pov...it is what it chooses to "be". Just sayin', belief (in anything) does NOT equate to testable FACT. BELIEVE what you choose to be "TRUTH".

Doesn't make it so.

AT ALL.

Then there is no truth.

Not really your call.

 

[Willamena]

Same definition buddy. It's just a matter of context.

I, too, think they are different. Faith that is an obsession is a metaphor.

 

[Bunyip]

Then there is no truth.

Not really your call.

Could you elaborate? As far as I can see whether truth exists or not is independant of faith, and one does not need to know the truth for truth to exist.

 

[s2a]

Then there is no truth.

Not really your call.

Indeed.

Let us all bear in mind a simplistic concept.

"Truth" is an ideal borne of a philosophical "ideal".

"Fact"...is not.

All depends upon which you seek...
"fact" or "truth".

One delivers only religion as lone answer, the rest is science.

Believe in a mystical, invisible, omnipresent deity...

or not...

I don't care.

 

[Willamena]

Could you elaborate? As far as I can see whether truth exists or not is independant of faith, and one does not need to know the truth for truth to exist.

I believe in truth.