Originally posted by Bardock42
No. That is wrong. Even if the concept did not exist to you, or anyone else. You would still fit the definition. We have a word for it because we know there is such a concept as God. If there wasn't such a concept asw God we wouldn't have the word. But we would still be atheists as we do not believe in God, since the concept doesn't exist.It is just true. I am sorry that you do not understand the word atheism. You see it as an ideology. Which it can be. But it also describes a state of mind. That all humans have by default. To have something by default doesn't make it better, by the way.
Wrong. It is just wrong. Why can you not understand the word. Why do you have to go by what you have been told? Just read what atheism means. And go from there. Think for yourself.
Yes. Your point?
Okay, so, now that I have proven you wrong. Again. Could you stop insisting on your wrong understanding and we can get on with your thread (that already uses wrong definitions anyways)?
You have not proven me wrong, you have demonstrated lack of basic logic.
The fact that you cannot see that one cannot be an Atheist without a concept of God, makes all your other posts void and not worth noticing.
You are simply wrong. There is no base of your argument. Just midless babble.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You have not proven me wrong, you have demonstrated lack of basic logic.The fact that you cannot see that one cannot be an Atheist without a concept of God, makes all your other posts void and not worth noticing.
You are simply wrong. There is no base of your argument. Just midless babble.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You have not proven me wrong, you have demonstrated lack of basic logic.The fact that you cannot see that one cannot be an Atheist without a concept of God, makes all your other posts void and not worth noticing.
You are simply wrong. There is no base of your argument. Just midless babble.
Oh Dear...it's myself and Lil B versus everyone else on this damn thread lol
Lil B, what they don't understand is that Atheism is a term relative to the concept of God. Without the concept of God, the word Atheism does not apply.
Bardock and XYZ have this black and white opinion on the matter. That ALL people can be fit into these two or three definitions, and that there is NO exception. Then they will argue on other threads against generalizations and against using labels to define people. How fkn hypocritical.
Atheism as it's modernly defined is not the "default", despite that there is no belief in a god in the naive state. However if the requisite for being the default is that one must be absent of the concept of god then nor is agnosticism by it's modern definition. In which case, what exactly is the "default."
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Atheism as it's modernly defined is not the "default", however if the requisite for being the default is that one must be absent of the concept of god then nor is agnosticism. In which case, what exactly is the "default."
Indifference. That simple.
A person who has never heard the concept of God cannot be defined as someone who "rejects" or "disbeleives".
Even if a person who heard the concept of God doesn't blatantly reject the concept of God, but simply doesn't buy into it, that makes them Athiest right there. As long as thier mentality can be related to the concept of God ,then they can be labelled "Athiest, Thiest, Agnostic, etc."
But without the concept of God, those terms do not apply to the person...they mean nothing in that case.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Atheism as it's modernly defined is not the "default", despite that there is no belief in a god in the naive state. However if the requisite for being the default is that one must be absent of the concept of god then nor is agnosticism by it's modern definition. In which case, what exactly is the "default."
I suggested that Agosticism is ''by default'' only in terms when the concept of God is known. It is by default because it claims nothing for certain, no knowledge of either spectrums, due to the fact that we simply do not know.
It is not ''by default'' i general. I don't know what would be just by default.
Perhaps a state of lack of awareness i God when no evidence is present to support his/hers/its existance?
Although Im not so sure about that either...
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You have not proven me wrong, you have demonstrated lack of basic logic.The fact that you cannot see that one cannot be an Atheist without a concept of God, makes all your other posts void and not worth noticing.
You are simply wrong. There is no base of your argument. Just midless babble.
No. My logic is true. Where yours come from I do not know, but it is not in line with truth.
That you would even suggest such a thing is ridiculous. Just because most of your posts are wrong I will not disregard them as general, but judge on a case to case basis. This happens to be one more when you are wrong. I think I recall some time when you were right though, maybe autumn of 2005?
Well, I do not need to convince you, I jsut thought it would be nice to help you understand the word you are talking about.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Oh Dear...it's myself and Lil B versus everyone else on this damn thread lolLil B, what they don't understand is that [b]Atheism is a term relative to the concept of God.
Without the concept of God, the word Atheism does not apply.Bardock and XYZ have this black and white opinion on the matter. That ALL people can be fit into these two or three definitions, and that there is NO exception. Then they will argue on other threads against generalizations and against using labels to define people. How fkn hypocritical. [/B]
If everyone is me and xyz (seeing as x-spot apparently doesn't agree and no one else argues) then yes, you are right.
It would not be known. But it would apply in the definition we have now. You do not understand simple thoughts. And I think it is obvious to anyone who can be regarded as halfway smart on here.
No, that is wrong. I just have actual definitions of words in the English language and I go by them. You choose to make up your own. It starts to unease me just how ignorant you are. There are two states a person can be in. Dead or Alive. To label them as one of those is not generalizing. It is just stating an attribute that a person has. WHy do you not understand that? To say all whites are racist on the other hand is not true. And an idiotic generalisation. Please, just stop talking, you are embarassing yourself and you make me angry.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is Bardock's style 😉
No.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Indifference. That simple.A person who has never heard the concept of God cannot be defined as someone who "rejects" or "disbeleives".
Even if a person who heard the concept of God doesn't blatantly reject the concept of God, but simply doesn't buy into it, that makes them Athiest right there. As long as thier mentality can be related to the concept of God ,then they can be labelled "Athiest, Thiest, Agnostic, etc."
But without the concept of God, those terms do not apply to the person...they mean nothing in that case.
They can be defined as a person that "does not believe in God". Which is atheism.
q.e.d.
Without the concept of God they would not exist. Granted. But since there is such a concept as God they exist. And they are defined even for the time before such a concept existed.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They can be defined as a person that "does not believe in God". Which is atheism.q.e.d.
Without the concept of God they would not exist. Granted. But since there is such a concept as God they exist. And they are defined even for the time before such a concept existed.
The first 2/3's of your post is your usual bullshit, that I would normally respond with further bullshit, and then we'd end up going in circles insulting the other and making a joke of this thread.
I'm not in the mood, so let me get to the point.
I understand what you are saying. Entirely and completely. It makes sense. Don't get me wrong.
But the definitions are not complete. To say "Atheism- lack of beleif in God" leaves itself up in the air. Definitions are intended to be complete, concise, and clear.
If Atheism was that simple, then the same logic applies to Sexuality. Someone who has never had sex is automatically ASEXUAL by default and by your take on the definition. That would mean Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, and Bisexuals cannot be Virgins, which is totally incorrect.
Look up Asexuality. One of the many different definitions you will find will be, "the state of being non-sexual; incapable of having sex". That definition would NOT be 100% accurate, because it implies that Virgins and people who have been castrated are non-sexual beings, and that is not true. All human beings are sexual creatures, including those who idiotically choose celebacy.
Same applies for Theism and Atheism. Being and Atheist does not mean "never exposed to the concept of God". Your entire "Atheist by default" argument lacks a good portion of logic.
If someone has nothing to do with the concept of God, they cannot be called "Atheist", "Theist" or "Agnostic" by any means. You cannot just lump the entire human race into those 3 categories.
The SAME way you cannot truly classify a person as "asexual" just because they never had sex.
Atheism is RELATIVE to the concept of God, not independent from it.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The first 2/3's of your post is your usual [b]bullshit, that I would normally respond with further bullshit, and then we'd end up going in circles insulting the other and making a joke of this thread.I'm not in the mood, so let me get to the point.
I understand what you are saying. Entirely and completely. It makes sense. Don't get me wrong.[/B]
I agree that you would reply with Bullshit. Well, you do. Anyways, what I am saying makes sense and is right. That should be the end of this debate.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But the definitions are not complete. To say "Atheism- lack of beleif in God" leaves itself up in the air. Definitions are intended to be complete, concise, and clear.If Atheism was that simple, then the [b]same
logic applies to Sexuality. Someone who has never had sex is automatically ASEXUAL by default and by your take on the definition. That would mean Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, and Bisexuals cannot be Virgins, which is totally incorrect.Look up Asexuality. One of the many different definitions you will find will be, "the state of being non-sexual; incapable of having sex". That definition would NOT be 100% accurate, because it implies that Virgins and people who have been castrated are non-sexual beings, and that is not true. All human beings are sexual creatures, including those who idiotically choose celebacy.
Same applies for Theism and Atheism. Being and Atheist does not mean "never exposed to the concept of God". Your entire "Atheist by default" argument lacks a good portion of logic.
If someone has nothing to do with the concept of God, they cannot be called "Atheist", "Theist" or "Agnostic" by any means. You cannot just lump the entire human race into those 3 categories.
The SAME way you cannot truly classify a person as "asexual" just because they never had sex.
Atheism is RELATIVE to the concept of God, not independent from it. [/B]
If you have a problem with the current definition, fair enough. But it is the definition that exists. So, don't pretend it does not exist. Atheism applies to babies. Done.
No, just because one definition is that way (i.e. Atheism) does not mean that another is the same way. Logical fallacy right there. Sexuality is defined one way, Atheism another. So, lets cut the bullshit arguments (yours) and just accept that the definition of atheism includes the lack of believe in a deity.Which is the default for and also applicable to anyone who doesn't know of the concept of God.
And the definition of Atheism needs a concept of God to exist. But What we have defined does not. If no one would know of God in a parallel Universe they would still be atheist by our definition. Such things are hard to imagine, for their is a concept of God. If there wasn't at all no one would ever think of Atheism, but it would still exist just as the possibility of a concept of God would exist.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And the definition of Atheism needs a concept of God to exist. But What we have defined does not. If no one would know of God in a parallel Universe they would still be atheist by our definition. Such things are hard to imagine, for their is a concept of God. If there wasn't at all no one would ever think of Atheism, but it would still exist just as the possibility of a concept of God would exist.
Do you beleive Love exists regardless of how we percieve it ?
.....you know, the way I think it does exist as something beyond a physical nature, the way X beleives it is purely physical, and the way XYZ beleives it doesn't exist at all and that we invented it ?
It's all our perceptions on the same concept. But without the concept, could we even have definitions ?
Atheist is just a word. Nothing that should define a person. That definition he presented, while ignoring the other, is not complete, the same way the definition of Asexuality that i found is also NOT complete and no accurate.
You can't just decide to pay attention to his definition of Atheism, and IGNORE the common definition I brought of Asexuality, just for the sake of strengthening your argument. You accuse me of such, do it yourself, and it shows what a hypocrit you are (which we all already knew)
But that's besides the point. You are not right, because you have no undeniable basis for your argument. Your entire argument is based on one flawed and incomplete definition, and you suddenly claim victory ?
But what more can I expect from an annoying, hypocritical, non-serious debator like yourself ?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you beleive Love exists regardless of how we percieve it ?.....you know, the way I think it does exist as something beyond a physical nature, the way X beleives it is purely physical, and the way XYZ beleives it doesn't exist at all and that we invented it ?
It's all our perceptions on the same concept. But without the concept, could we even have definitions ?
[b]Atheist
is just a word. Nothing that should define a person. That definition he presented, while ignoring the other, is not complete, the same way the definition of Asexuality that i found is also NOT complete and no accurate.You can't just decide to pay attention to his definition of Atheism, and IGNORE the common definition I brought of Asexuality, just for the sake of strengthening your argument. You accuse me of such, do it yourself, and it shows what a hypocrit you are (which we all already knew)
But that's besides the point. You are not right, because you have no undeniable basis for your argument. Your entire argument is based on one flawed and incomplete definition, and you suddenly claim victory ?
But what more can I expect from an annoying, hypocritical, non-serious debator like yourself ? [/B]
No.
I believe it is a word we made up for a feeling that might or might not be different from strong liking. I do not know. i do not think it is something eternal, absolute or outside of our thoughts. The definition of Atheism is complete though. You can state for every person if it is an Atheist or not.
Yes I can. the debate is about atheism, therefore the definition of Atheism is what I will focus on. Open a thread about Asexuality and I will tell you my thoughts or knowledge about that word. In this thread it is of no matter. Also please don't call me a hypocrite since I am obviously not in this case. Your argument is illogical. Asexuality and Atheism have nothing to do with each other.
Yes I do. There are definitions of words. They are undeniable (to a reasonable degree). I don't have to claim victory. I am just right. You go by your own definition of Atheism. I go by the actual definitions of atheism. One of which explains what people are atheist.s Like people that do not know of God for example. It is pretty easy to understand. that is all I need. The definition agrees with me, that it does not fit your concept of Atheism is of no matter. None.
Stop being childish. It is obvious to anyone to who your insults apply.
No we couldn't, your point?
Of course the word Atheist does not define a person. A person is the way it is. And if it is a certain way (not believing in God) they are an atheist.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenFirst off, think why no one else agrees with you, second we NEVER said that. You seem to think that because you like to generalise people against you and like to insult them as if they are lower than you.
Oh Dear...it's myself and Lil B versus everyone else on this damn thread lolLil B, what they don't understand is that [b]Atheism is a term relative to the concept of God.
Without the concept of God, the word Atheism does not apply.Bardock and XYZ have this black and white opinion on the matter. That ALL people can be fit into these two or three definitions, and that there is NO exception. Then they will argue on other threads against generalizations and against using labels to define people. How fkn hypocritical. [/B]
Originally posted by Lord UrizenAre virgins incapable of having sex?
The first 2/3's of your post is your usual [b]bullshit, that I would normally respond with further bullshit, and then we'd end up going in circles insulting the other and making a joke of this thread.I'm not in the mood, so let me get to the point.
I understand what you are saying. Entirely and completely. It makes sense. Don't get me wrong.
But the definitions are not complete. To say "Atheism- lack of beleif in God" leaves itself up in the air. Definitions are intended to be complete, concise, and clear.
If Atheism was that simple, then the same logic applies to Sexuality. Someone who has never had sex is automatically ASEXUAL by default and by your take on the definition. That would mean Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, and Bisexuals cannot be Virgins, which is totally incorrect.
Look up Asexuality. One of the many different definitions you will find will be, "the state of being non-sexual; incapable of having sex". That definition would NOT be 100% accurate, because it implies that Virgins and people who have been castrated are non-sexual beings, and that is not true. All human beings are sexual creatures, including those who idiotically choose celebacy.
Same applies for Theism and Atheism. Being and Atheist does not mean "never exposed to the concept of God". Your entire "Atheist by default" argument lacks a good portion of logic.
If someone has nothing to do with the concept of God, they cannot be called "Atheist", "Theist" or "Agnostic" by any means. You cannot just lump the entire human race into those 3 categories.
The SAME way you cannot truly classify a person as "asexual" just because they never had sex.
Atheism is RELATIVE to the concept of God, not independent from it. [/B]
Originally posted by Lord Urizen😆 Idiocy reaches a new level.
Do you beleive Love exists regardless of how we percieve it ?.....you know, the way I think it does exist as something beyond a physical nature, the way X beleives it is purely physical, and the way XYZ beleives it doesn't exist at all and that we invented it ?
It's all our perceptions on the same concept. But without the concept, could we even have definitions ?
[b]Atheist
is just a word. Nothing that should define a person. That definition he presented, while ignoring the other, is not complete, the same way the definition of Asexuality that i found is also NOT complete and no accurate.You can't just decide to pay attention to his definition of Atheism, and IGNORE the common definition I brought of Asexuality, just for the sake of strengthening your argument. You accuse me of such, do it yourself, and it shows what a hypocrit you are (which we all already knew)
But that's besides the point. You are not right, because you have no undeniable basis for your argument. Your entire argument is based on one flawed and incomplete definition, and you suddenly claim victory ?
But what more can I expect from an annoying, hypocritical, non-serious debator like yourself ? [/B]
Say Urizen, would you call someone before they were born IE before the sperm and egg used were even existed, would you call them dead, alive or other?
Originally posted by lord xyz
First off, think why no one else agrees with you, second we [b]NEVER said that. You seem to think that because you like to generalise people against you and like to insult them as if they are lower than you.[/B]
The only people who don't agree with me are YOU and Bardock. Calm down 👇
"you seem to think that because you like to generalise people against you and like to insult them that they are lower than you"
Can you please rephrase this sentence ? It makes absolutely no sense.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Are virgins incapable of having sex?
Nope. But they are in the "state of being non-sexual" according to one definition of Asexuality. Like I said, that definition is wrong and cannot be applied, because it contradicts the very fact that you yourself brought up....Virgins are not asexual just because they haven't had sex.
Likewise, not all non-beleivers are Athiest, just because some of them never heard of God.
Originally posted by lord xyz
😆 Idiocy reaches a new level.
INDEED droolio
Originally posted by lord xyz
Say Urizen, would you call someone before they were born IE before the sperm and egg used were even existed, would you call them dead, alive or other?
Other.
Probably non-existance. Alive or Dead in any definition cannot accurate define that scenario.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen😐
The only people who don't agree with me are YOU and Bardock. Calm down 👇
Originally posted by Lord UrizenCertainly.
[b]"you seem to think that because you like to generalise people against you and like to insult them that they are lower than you"Can you please rephrase this sentence ? It makes absolutely no sense.[/B]
"You seem to think that because you like to generalise people against you and like to insult them as if they are lower than you." I think that's the sentence I used, don't you?
Originally posted by Lord UrizenNo, because virgins masturbate, AKA have monosex. That's a word I made up, but the definition is self explanitory.
Nope. But they are in the "state of being non-sexual" according to [b]one definition of Asexuality. Like I said, that definition is wrong and cannot be applied, because it contradicts the very fact that you yourself brought up....Virgins are not asexual just because they haven't had sex.[/B]
Originally posted by Lord UrizenYour usage of the word "just" in that sentence made it's point different to what you were trying to make. Y'know for someone who complains about someone else's grammar, IN THE SAME POST, you might want to reread what you say. Moving on...
Likewise, not all non-beleivers are Athiest, just because some of them never heard of God.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI asked that to test you if you understood negatives, obviously you don't.
Other.Probably non-existance. Alive or Dead in any definition cannot accurate define that scenario.
Dead = not alive, it is a negative therefore it applies to everything that doesn't fall into the alive catagory. Likewise, Atheist = not theist IE not a believer of God, so it falls into all who don't believe in God.
Try to learn about Negatives Urizen, it makes you less of an idiot.