Atheists and Theists

Started by Mindship32 pages

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Ahem - as much as I hate to go off - topic(relating to a post or thread topic) I felt it necessary to commend yourself(*yourself* meaning you Mr. Mindship) on the wonderful articulation of your argument - and overall debate style...

This was a worthwhile reason for going off-topic 😉

Me(usagi_yojimbo): I commend you.
Mindship: Thank you for commending me.
Me(usagi_yojimbo): Not a problem - I give credit where it is due.
Thank you once again sir..it has been a pleasure...he..he..he..😉

You are most welcome.
😇

Originally posted by Bardock42
But the concept of God exists regardless of the knowledge a person has of it. We have the concept. They fit the definition of Atheism. They are Atheist. Really, they are.

Bardock I love how you argue that "good and evil" do not really exist, and those terms cannot be factually applied to a person or their actions, but THEN you will insist that a person is factually Athiest, even if they never were exposed to the concept of God.

Hypocrit.....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Bardock I love how you argue that "good and evil" do not really exist, and those terms cannot be factually applied to a person or their actions, but THEN you will insist that a person is factually Athiest, even if they never were exposed to the concept of God.

Hypocrit.....

1. No he's not, you are though, and the worst one in fact.
2. Hypocrite
3. He's right
4. Saying good and evil don't exist and saying those who haven't heard of God are Atheist are two completely differet things, I hope you realise that.
5. You fail at life.

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. No he's not, you are though, and the worst one in fact.
2. Hypocrit[b]e

3. He's right
4. Saying good and evil don't exist and saying those who haven't heard of God are Atheist are two completely differet things, I hope you realise that.
5. You fail at life. [/B]

1) YESSIER HE IZ ! 😄

2) MY BAD 🙁

3) HE's WRONG

4) It's the same ol' shit

5) Then why am I so content ? 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Bardock I love how you argue that "good and evil" do not really exist, and those terms cannot be factually applied to a person or their actions, but THEN you will insist that a person is factually Athiest, even if they never were exposed to the concept of God.

Hypocrit.....

...what?

I believe that good or bad do not absolutely exist as there is not absolute scale to measure it on. Atheism is defined well and can be measured. I fail to see even a trace of hypocrisy in that. Enlighten me as to how I am wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...what?

I believe that good or bad do not absolutely exist as there is not absolute scale to measure it on. Atheism is defined well and can be measured. I fail to see even a trace of hypocrisy in that. Enlighten me as to how I am wrong.

I don’t see how atheism can be measured.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) YESSIER HE IZ ! 😄
...
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) MY BAD 🙁
You should say that more often.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
3) HE's WRONG
No, he's not, but for a fundamentalist like you, I didn't think you would nderstand.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
4) It's the same ol' shit
How so?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
5) Then why am I so content ? 🙂
...

Originally posted by Bardock42
...what?

I believe that good or bad do not absolutely exist as there is not absolute scale to measure it on. Atheism is defined well and can be measured. I fail to see even a trace of hypocrisy in that. Enlighten me as to how I am wrong.

Okay....

First, let me ask you something: You have the conviction to call someone an Athiest, even when they know nothing about the idea of God, however, will you hesitate to call that same person a "good" or "bad" person ? Will you be truly convinced that your analysis of that person is in anyway factual ?

Or will you still factually see that person as neutral ? Remember, you have no factual basis to call that person neutral either. You only have your perspective.

Now, as for calling someone an Athiest. The term is NOT absolute. It is JUST a word, the same way "Good" and "Evil" are JUST WORDS. You cannot call newborn children, animals, dead people, or people who have never heard of the concept of God Athiest because the concept of GOD, and the TERM Athiest, does not apply to them.

Plants don't beleive in God. Are plants Athiest ? Rocks don't beleive in God. Are rocks Athiest ?

It's absurd to label someone an Athiest who has NO RELATION to the concept of God. The TERM Athiest is IN REGARD to the concept of God, and if the PERSON is NOT in anyway in regard to the concept of God, then the person cannot factually be labelled an Athiest.

That is now ASSUMING that you can even FACTUALLY label anybody anything. And since you are against the attempted "factual" labelling of people as "good" or "evil", how are you okay with factually labelling someone an Athiest ?

You may argue that the term Athiesm is factual, because the CONCEPT of GOD exists. Morality exists TOO....regardless of whether or not it is SUBJECTIVE or RELATIVE, MORALITY EXISTS....as a personal perspective or collective idea...it exists......thus, the terms "good" and "evil" must exist as well.

IS the concept of God somehow more valid or more solid than Morality? With all the contradictions behind the idea of God, how can ANYTHING related to this concept even be factual ?

You tell me.....

Originally posted by ThePittman
I don’t see how atheism can be measured.

Well, if you ask do you believe in God and the answer is either "No" or "I don't knpow what God is" you know if someone is an atheist. Which is measuring it. Simplified obviously.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if you ask do you believe in God and the answer is either "No" or "I don't knpow what God is" you know if someone is an atheist. Which is measuring it. Simplified obviously.

That's not a measurement dumbass.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if you ask do you believe in God and the answer is either "No" or "I don't knpow what God is" you know if someone is an atheist. Which is measuring it. Simplified obviously.
That is not really measuring but seeing if you are or are not. The same could be said with evil and good, you ask someone if they are evil and they say no. Anything that can be measured must have defined values and with any belief system doesn’t have these if it did then there wouldn’t be any discussion if someone is an atheist or agnostic.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Okay....

First, let me ask you something: You have the conviction to call someone an Athiest, even when they know nothing about the idea of God, however, will you hesitate to call that same person a "good" or "bad" person ? Will you be truly convinced that your analysis of that person is in anyway factual ?

I am not sure what you mean. I am a sceptic. I am not ever 100% convinced of anything. I will be convinced that my analysis about whether they are atheist or not is relatively correct when I can be pretty sure that they either don't believe in God or do not know what a God is. What "good" and "bad" have to do with that I am not sure.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Or will you still factually see that person as neutral ? Remember, you have no factual basis to call that person neutral either. You only have your perspective.

I would still be pretty convinced that from an absolute basis they are neutral. Because I don't know of or believe in an absolute moral code.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Now, as for calling someone an Athiest. The term is NOT absolute. It is JUST a word, the same way "Good" and "Evil" are JUST WORDS. You cannot call newborn children, animals, dead people, or people who have never heard of the concept of God Athiest because the concept of GOD, and the TERM Athiest, does not apply to them.

The word is defined as something. i go by that definition. Good and bad are defined as well, but in a way that involves an absolute measurement that in my opinion does not exist. What is your trouble understanding that? And the term atheist applies to them. I don't see your problem. One does not need to have a grasp or knowledge of a concept for it to apply to them. I mean you were bisexual before you knew the word, right? And it applied to you before you knew it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Plants don't believe in God. Are plants Athiest ? Rocks don't believe in God. Are rocks Athiest ?

As things they are atheistic. Sure. But we usually refer only to people as atheist. If you want to call inanimate object that as well though, I am not opposed. They fit the definition. They are in fact Godless due to their lack of knowledge of God.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

It's absurd to label someone an Athiest who has NO RELATION to the concept of God. The TERM Athiest is IN REGARD to the concept of God, and if the PERSON is NOT in anyway in regard to the concept of God, then the person cannot factually be labelled an Athiest.

No it is not. It is the correct definition. You want it to apply only to those that are opposed to Religion. You may wish that, but it is not the actual definition. Stop trying to change the English language. it is doing quite fine without you.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

That is now ASSUMING that you can even FACTUALLY label anybody anything. And since you are against the attempted "factual" labelling of people as "good" or "evil", how are you okay with factually labelling someone an Athiest ?

"Good" and "bad" need a moral code that I don't believe in. Or know of. By the way, you don't know of it either, to be fair. Atheism does not. They are different things.

You may argue that the term Atheism is factual, because the CONCEPT of GOD exists. Morality exists TOO....regardless of whether or not it is SUBJECTIVE or RELATIVE, MORALITY EXISTS....as a personal perspective or collective idea...it exists......thus, the terms "good" and "evil" must exist as well. [/B][/QUOTE]

Of course, relative moral probably exists. I don't deny that people can seem good or bad to me. Or you, Or Hitler. I never denied that. I denied that "good" and "bad" are absolute terms that relate to people regardless of subjective opinions. Atheism applies to them because they fit the description of the word, not because you might think they are atheists.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

IS the concept of God somehow more valid or more solid than Morality? With all the contradictions behind the idea of God, how can ANYTHING related to this concept even be factual ?

You tell me.....

Nothing can be factual. I am not dealing in absolutes. And "good" or "bad" are not terms relating to the concept of morality. But specific "morality". Atheism relates to the concept. Difference.

I mean I know you won't understand. You are not smart enough. But maybe others in this thread will get what I mean. I have great hope that lil b might. You are more of a lost case.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Okay....

First, let me ask you something: You have the conviction to call someone an Athiest, even when they know nothing about the idea of God, however, will you hesitate to call that same person a "good" or "bad" person ? Will you be truly convinced that your analysis of that person is in anyway factual ?

What is the relation between calling someone good, and calling someone who hasn't heard of god atheist?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Or will you still factually see that person as neutral ? Remember, you have no factual basis to call that person neutral either. You only have your perspective.
Neutral is something you can't call good or bad, so everything is neutral by default, sinse everyone has a different opinion on what's good and bad, nothing can be absolute, they're in the middle.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Now, as for calling someone an Athiest. The term is NOT absolute. It is JUST a word, the same way "Good" and "Evil" are JUST WORDS. You cannot call newborn children, animals, dead people, or people who have never heard of the concept of God Athiest because the concept of GOD, and the TERM Athiest, does not apply to them.
How so? The concept of God exists, does it not? They exist do they not?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Plants don't beleive in God. Are plants Athiest ? Rocks don't beleive in God. Are rocks Athiest ?
Yes, they don't believe anything else either.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It's absurd to label someone an Athiest who has NO RELATION to the concept of God. The TERM Athiest is IN REGARD to the concept of God, and if the PERSON is NOT in anyway in regard to the concept of God, then the person cannot factually be labelled an Athiest.
like it how people capitalise words and phrases in their posts as if we read capitals better somehow, and how people argue with, "What you're saying is absurd" and then not give something to back it up.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is now ASSUMING that you can even FACTUALLY label anybody anything. And since you are against the attempted "factual" labelling of people as "good" or "evil", how are you okay with factually labelling someone an Athiest ?
If you actually read what Bardock writes when he makes his points, you will understand it better, and not make a mistake as obvious as this one.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You may argue that the term Athiesm is factual, because the CONCEPT of GOD exists. Morality exists TOO....regardless of whether or not it is SUBJECTIVE or RELATIVE, MORALITY EXISTS....as a personal perspective or collective idea...it exists......thus, the terms "good" and "evil" must exist as well.
Yes, but saying something is true because of your opinion is not the same as labeling someone into a category that applies to others aswell. It's like saying oranges are fruit, therefore apples aren't, if you say otherwise, then by using your logic, red is a nice colour but blue isn't is a fact because you said that apples are fruit.

There is a difference between opinion and fact.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
IS the concept of God somehow more valid or more solid than Morality? With all the contradictions behind the idea of God, how can ANYTHING related to this concept even be factual ?
Someone's Concept of God is a fact.
Someone's actions being good or bad is opinion.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's not a measurement dumbass.
Originally posted by ThePittman
That is not really measuring but seeing if you are or are not. The same could be said with evil and good, you ask someone if they are evil and they say no. Anything that can be measured must have defined values and with any belief system doesn’t have these if it did then there wouldn’t be any discussion if someone is an atheist or agnostic.

Wow, what do you guys think we are measuring things with. We only have our senses and our comprehension. You collect data. That's measuring as well. But I was thinking from a more objective standpoint. If we knew all their thoughts and such. We could know relatively exactly that someone is atheist or not.

If you are thinking of measuring as going to some place with a ruler...that is different obviously. A very basic conception you have of measuring of course.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow, what do you guys think we are measuring things with. We only have our senses and our comprehension. You collect data. That's measuring as well. But I was thinking from a more objective standpoint. If we knew all their thoughts and such. We could know relatively exactly that someone is atheist or not.

If you are thinking of measuring as going to some place with a ruler...that is different obviously. A very basic conception you have of measuring of course.

Measuring is not observation, you're seeing how much of something something is, how can someone be more Atheist than another?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Measuring is not observation, you're seeing how much of something something is, how can someone be more Atheist than another?

Well, you can measure if something is either one thing or another.

Whether it is a continous scale. Or an either-or thing is of no matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow, what do you guys think we are measuring things with. We only have our senses and our comprehension. You collect data. That's measuring as well. But I was thinking from a more objective standpoint. If we knew all their thoughts and such. We could know relatively exactly that someone is atheist or not.

If you are thinking of measuring as going to some place with a ruler...that is different obviously. A very basic conception you have of measuring of course.

You can measure things without a ruler but they must have defined values. I’m an atheist but I leave open the option that I may be wrong. To some that may mean that I’m agnostic and not atheist and others say that I may be atheist, there is no defined value of what an atheist is.

Originally posted by ThePittman
You can measure things without a ruler but they must have defined values. I’m an atheist but I leave open the option that I may be wrong. To some that may mean that I’m agnostic and not atheist and others say that I may be atheist, there is no defined value of what an atheist is.

Well, there is a defined value. That most people are not sure about it is not the point. You are an atheist if you either believe in a God And you are an Atheist if you do not believe or do not know of a God. It is defined. It is hard to evaluate maybe, but it is defined as that.

Whether people know how the Kelvin scale is defined or not does not matter to the measurement performed with it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Measuring is not observation, you're seeing how much of something something is, how can someone be more Atheist than another?

Exactly my point Bardock, measurement is the wrong word.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, there is a defined value. That most people are not sure about it is not the point. You are an atheist if you either believe in a God And you are an Atheist if you do not believe or do not know of a God. It is defined. It is hard to evaluate maybe, but it is defined as that.

Whether people know how the Kelvin scale is defined or not does not matter to the measurement performed with it.

That is not really measuring atheist though, that is a test if you are or are not. If you are measuring something you already know what it is but deciding the level or size or what ever of that thing. If you are measuring them to your values or idea then you can but you are using your own value scale. Unless rules or values have been set and accepted then it can’t be “measured” like if you do this and this but don’t do this then you are 10% atheist.