The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[Desert Snake]

And what is an 'explicit atheist' as compared to an 'non explicit atheist'. Not believing is simply not having any evidence with which to make a decision.

A theist doesn't have to have proof, or even evidence, to be a theist.



Merely not having proof or evidence of deity, does not make a person an atheist.

 

[Desert Snake]

True atheism applies only to those who say "I have no evidence of the supernatural". Not that there are no gods, or heavens or trolls, it's just that I can't perceive them, they are not part of my consciousness. In short, as I have

Atheism is a belief that there are no gods.

The reason why it can't simply mean, no evidence of the supernatural, is because, the "supernatural" is a broad vague term, not even traditionally used for theism, and theism does not require evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A theist doesn't have to have proof, or even evidence, to be a theist.
Merely not having proof or evidence of deity, does not make a person an atheist.

No evidence?
I've commonly seen people claim something as evidence that I wouldn't consider evidence.
But NO evidence?

I am confused. Or do you mean no material evidence/scientific evidence, etc (in which case, it makes sense).

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are welcome, I don't do relationships with fantasy figures.

Do you have some relationship with deceased persons of influence? I find the writings of people like Einstein, Lincoln, Aristotle, etc. inspiring. Start there with the words of Christ.

 

[ChristineM]

Do you have some relationship with deceased persons of influence? I find the writings of people like Einstein, Lincoln, Aristotle, etc. inspiring. Start there with the words of Christ.

And how is the writing of Einstein etc a relationship?

Educational, yes - brilliant, often - inspiring, to some - personally connected, no way.

I think you need to look up the meaning of relationship or place it in quotes and capitalised like christian "Truth" so it can easily be distinguished as a religious fantasy as opposed the having the real meaning of the word

P.s there is another word for a relationship with the dead, necrophilia

Please note, there is no 1st hand account of jc ever saying anything. No gospel according to jesus, no papyrus minutes of his claimed speeches. No documents of his words penned in his presence. All you have is third party claims written after the event and compiled some 350 years after his death.

 

[Curious George]

And how is the writing of Einstein etc a relationship?

Educational, yes - brilliant, often - inspiring, to some - personally connected, no way.

I think you need to look up the meaning of relationship or place it in quotes and capitalised like christian "Truth" so it can easily be distinguished as a religious fantasy as opposed the having the real meaning of the word

P.s there is another word for a relationship with the dead, necrophilia

Please note, there is no 1st hand account of jc ever saying anything. No gospel according to jesus, no papyrus minutes of his claimed speeches. No documents of his words penned in his presence. All you have is third party claims written after the event and compiled some 350 years after his death.

How can you miscontrue "relationship?" It is simply the way in which two objects are connected.

 

[ChristineM]

How can you miscontrue "relationship?" It is simply the way in which two objects are connected.

Relationship
Noun
the way in which two or more people or things are connected, or the state of being connected.

the state of being connected by blood or marriage.

the way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other.

The various common definitions give no mention of objects or dead people so can i fire the question right back at you?

 

[Curious George]

Relationship
Noun
the way in which two or more people or things are connected, or the state of being connected.

the state of being connected by blood or marriage.

the way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other.

The various common definitions give no mention of objects or dead people so can i fire the question right back at you?

Dead people are not people? Lol. Don't scramble, you are smarter than that.

 

[Mister Silver]

Dead people are not people? Lol. Don't scramble, you are smarter than that.

You're a necromancer now, one who can communicate with the dead?

 

[ChristineM]

A theist doesn't have to have proof, or even evidence, to be a theist.

Hence the reason its called faith

Merely not having proof or evidence of deity, does not make a person an atheist.

Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Northing more, nothing less

 

[ChristineM]

Dead people are not people? Lol. Don't scramble, you are smarter than that.

Yet BilliardsBall claims relationships with dread people and i am the one you castigate. I feel a curtain unhealthy bias from you.

I have been precise to the definition of the word please elucidate the bits that you consider misconstrued...

 

[Curious George]

You're a necromancer now, one who can communicate with the dead?

I do not think a relationship necssitates communication. For instance, if someone said that you were related to your biological great, great, great grandfather, I doubt you would object. Yet there is at least one undeniable correlation with you two: if he never had children, chances are you won't either.

Cheers

 

[Mister Silver]

I do not think a relationship necssitates communication. For instance, if someone said that you were related to your biological great, great, great grandfather, I doubt you would object. Yet there is at least one undeniable correlation with you two: if he never had children, chances are you won't either.

Cheers

Semantics. You cannot have a reciprocal relationship with a dead person.

 

[Curious George]

Yet BilliardsBall claims relationships with dread people and i am the one you castigate. I feel a curtain unhealthy bias from you.

I have been precise to the definition of the word please elucidate the bits that you consider misconstrued...

We all have relationships with dead people. It is the nature of the relationship that is questionable and it is certainly qiestionable whether or not a person actually existed. But attacking the concept of "relationship" and then implying that any suggestion of such is necrophelia, isn't exactly productive.

 

[Curious George]

Semantics. You cannot have a reciprocal relationship with a dead person.

Lol, now you are qualifying relationship. I believe that is called moving the goal posts. No, I don't suppose one can have a reciprocal relationship without equivocating the definition of reciprocal. Maybe you reciprocate your great, great grandfathers by bringing flowers to his grave or telling his story, or something along those lines. But generally we think of reciprocation happening prior to death.

 

[Mister Silver]

Lol, now you are qualifying relationship. I believe that is called moving the goal posts. No, I don't suppose one can have a reciprocal relationship without equivocating the definition of reciprocal. Maybe you reciprocate your great, great grandfathers by bringing flowers to his grave or telling his story, or something along those lines. But generally we think of reciprocation happening prior to death.

Reciprocation happens when the other in the relationship can actually respond in some way. Stop with the word salad and get with the program.

 

[Curious George]

Reciprocation happens when the other in the relationship can actually respond in some way. Stop with the word salad and get with the program.

I don't think that there is technically any temporal limit to reciprication. Obviously there cannot be any mutual agreement, hence I agreed that there would likely be some equivocation if someone was claiming a reciprocal relationship. But as I mentioned in the previous post limiting "relationship" to "reciprocal relationship" is moving the goal posts.

Cheers

 

[Mister Silver]

I don't think that there is technically any temporal limit to reciprication.

Yeah, that's called an imaginary friend.

As for your imaginary goal posts, they remain that.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, that's called an imaginary friend.

As for your imaginary goal posts, they remain that.

No, I think you are missing the point. Are you suggesting that a will offering a conditional devise or bequest is imaginary? I think you are trying to frame the discussion with respect to limits that are non existent.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

We all have relationships with dead people. It is the nature of the relationship that is questionable and it is certainly qiestionable whether or not a person actually existed. But attacking the concept of "relationship" and then implying that any suggestion of such is necrophelia, isn't exactly productive.

It is not the definition, which requires people. People are alive.

Necrophilia is a closer comparison according to the definition.

However i have become aware that religious people in particular tend to boost (pervert) certain words because they sound comfortable.

If he wants to call his imagined association with dead people a relationship, that's up to him, just don't expect me to bend over and agree to the perversion of the English language