06 Jun 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou clearly missed the point. The 'ticket' I was refering to was the one where you buy into Islaam and various other religions, just in case you win those lotteries.
I absolutely do practice what I preach.
My purchase of the occasional lottery ticket is directly related to my confidence in winning: hardly ever.
Yet I still know I don't have the slightest chance at all of winning any of them by purchasing none of them.
But lets look at actual lotteries. You purchase 'the occasional lottery ticket'? Not every ticket you can get your hands on. Why?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by googlefudge
No atheism is the position of not having a belief in ANY gods.
It's not about rejecting your particular god.
The problem is you're so immersed in your own religion you cannot see the
world other than with respect to that religion.
This is the same reason dictionaries often say atheism is the lack of belief
in 'God' [singular capitalised][ ...[text shortened]... ing any gods [i][lower-case plural] exist.
Not everything is about you and your religion.
No atheism is the position of not having a belief in ANY gods.
Atheism is a rejection of God and of course the rejection of the Son of God.
There is no loophole, no side door, no escape hatch, no clever caveate.
Atheism is a rejection of God and necessarily a rejection of Christ sent by God.
It's not about rejecting your particular god.
Atheism is a rejection of Christ.
The problem is you're so immersed in your own religion you cannot see the
world other than with respect to that religion.
I have no problem about this.
It is a simple matter.
This is the same reason dictionaries often say atheism is the lack of belief
in 'God' [singular capitalised] signifying the Christian god... Except that that
could apply to anyone of a different faith, who believes in their god/s but not
in the bible god. It just never occurred to the dictionary writers of the time
that any other point of view might be relevant or valid.
Atheism isn't about rejecting Christianity.
Atheism is the position of not believing any gods [lower-case plural] exist.
Not everything is about you and your religion.
The atheist rejects the Son of God, period.
Since it rejects God it rejects the Son of God.
If you need to comfort yourself that Christ is benigh and on equal footing with Thor or the FSM, well, that's just your problem.
You have a need to assure yourself that there is no difference.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipLike I said, you are too deeply immersed in your religion to see anything else.No atheism is the position of not having a belief in ANY gods.
Atheism is a rejection of God and of course the rejection of the Son of God.
There is no loophole, no side door, no escape hatch, no clever caveate.
Atheism is a rejection of God and necessarily a rejection of Christ sent by God.
[quote]
It's not about rejectin ...[text shortened]... that's just your problem.
You have a need to assure yourself that there is no difference.
Your mind is lost to it's drivel.
This has been said time and again, and no-doubt will continue to be said time and again.
To reject something you have to believe it exists to reject.
Atheists don't believe gods exist and thus are not 'rejecting them'.
Also, atheism includes those who are completely open to the idea of god but haven't settled
on an opinion and don't believe yet, but are thinking about it.
Claiming that these people have 'rejected' your god, while they are considering whether
to believe in it and are completely open to that possibility is just plain stupid.
In short, your position is unsupportable and wrong. period.
EDIT: Also, Thor is vastly more plausible than the bible god. So is the FSM.
I don't place them on equal footing, your god concept comes plain last.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheism isn't about rejecting Christianity.
Atheism is a rejection of the Father and the Son.
The fact that the Atheist also likes sausages on his pizza is irrelevant to that fact.
The fact that he also laughs at the FSM is irrelevant.
The fact that he sneers at Thor or Odin ? So what ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipIt doesn't get any less wrong with repetition.Atheism isn't about rejecting Christianity.
Atheism is a rejection of the Father and the Son.
The fact that the Atheist also likes sausages on his pizza is irrelevant to that fact.
The fact that he also laughs at the FSM is irrelevant.
The fact that he sneers at Thor or Odin ? So what ?
Atheism is about not having a belief in any gods.
The fact that one god is more important to you has no bearing on me or my beliefs.
You are too self absorbed and self centred to see this however.
It's a common fault that people believe that things that are important to them are
important to everyone else too.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipI think there is a pretty big loophole. You are using a different meaning for the word 'rejection' than the way the rest of us understand it.
Atheism is a rejection of God and of course the rejection of the Son of God.
There is no loophole, no side door, no escape hatch, no clever caveate.
So, maybe it would help if you defined it.
My understanding is similar to what I found in the dictionary: 'To refuse to accept.'
I don't think I can refuse to accept something I don't believe to exist. Refusal implies choice. I do not have a choice.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
I think there is a pretty big loophole. You are using a different meaning for the word 'rejection' than the way the rest of us understand it.
So, maybe it would help if you defined it.
My understanding is similar to what I found in the dictionary: 'To refuse to accept.'
That will do fine.
I don't think I can refuse to accept something I don't believe to exist. Refusal implies choice. I do not have a choice.
I don't see any problem at all.
You say "No thanks, I don't want to have anything to do with God. That is my choice."
For some strange reason some of you atheists don't feel this is a secure enough pronouncement anymore.
Suppose I tell you to stand outside your back door tonight because I am sending you $10,000 by a carrier pigeon ? The only thing is that you have to stand outside your back door tonight between 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm.
Are you interested ?
Do you want to receive my $10,000 sent by pigeon ?
Do you want to participate ?
If you say "No" you've rejected the arrangement whether it is bogus or real.
Any poppycock like - "Well, I really cannot reject your arrangement because I don't believe that it is going to occur anyway" is fancy embellishment completely unnecessary.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipSuppose I tell you to stand outside your back door tonight because I am sending you $10,000 by a carrier pigeon ? The only thing is that you have to stand outside your back door tonight between 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm.I think there is a pretty big loophole. You are using a different meaning for the word 'rejection' than the way the rest of us understand it.
So, maybe it would help if you defined it.
My understanding is similar to what I found in the dictionary: 'To refuse to accept.'
That will do fine.
[quote]
I don't think I can refuse to ac ...[text shortened]... I don't believe that it is going to occur anyway" is fancy embellishment completely unnecessary.
Are you interested ?
Do you want to receive my $10,000 sent by pigeon ?
Do you want to participate ?
If you say "No" you've rejected the arrangement whether it is bogus or real.
Any poopycock like "Well, I really cannot reject your arrangement because I don't believe that it is going to occur anyway" is fancy embellishment completely necessary.
For the benefit of other theists, it is correct in this instance one has rejected the arrangement - but this does not imply they have rejected the pigeon!
Similarly atheists reject the proposition god exists, this does not imply they have rejected god
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipThe problem with your analogy is that it's missing an important element.I think there is a pretty big loophole. You are using a different meaning for the word 'rejection' than the way the rest of us understand it.
So, maybe it would help if you defined it.
My understanding is similar to what I found in the dictionary: 'To refuse to accept.'
That will do fine.
[quote]
I don't think I can refuse to ac ...[text shortened]... I don't believe that it is going to occur anyway" is fancy embellishment completely unnecessary.
We are confident that you exist, and that it's theoretically possible that
you could try to send us $10,000.
Lets rework the analogy to better match the situation we are talking about.
"Suppose I tell you there is a magic being called "The Great Pumpkin" who
appears in pumpkin patches on Halloween to people who who really believe
he exists. I tell you that if you go out to a pumpkin patch on this Halloween
and really believe in The Great Pumpkin then he will give you $10,000."
Now I am not The Great Pumpkin, I am just the one telling you about this figure.
Now if you decide that The Great Pumpkin doesn't exist and that I am having you
on, or am deluded, then you are rejecting what I am telling you.
BUT, and this is important, You are not rejecting the offer from The Great
Pumpkin because you never believed in The Great Pumpkin, you never communicated
with The Great Pumpkin, and never received any offer from The Great Pumpkin.
All you got was some person on the internet claiming that this impossible magic being
you have no reason to suppose exists is offering this deal.
You may well be rejecting the words of the random person on the internet, but you
are not rejecting any offer from The Great Pumpkin.
You never got an offer from The Great Pumpkin to reject.
I have never [received] any offer from god, or any communication from god at all.
All I have are random people on the internet telling me stuff I don't believe.
I reject what YOU are telling me as being false.
I'm not rejecting any offer of god, because god's never offered me anything.
I cannot reject what I haven't been offered, doesn't exist, from a being that
doesn't exist and I don't believe in.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergWhich is basically what I said, but with less pumpkin.
[b]Suppose I tell you to stand outside your back door tonight because I am sending you $10,000 by a carrier pigeon ? The only thing is that you have to stand outside your back door tonight between 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm.
Are you interested ?
Do you want to receive my $10,000 sent by pigeon ?
Do you want to participate ?
If you say "No" you've rejected ...[text shortened]... Similarly atheists reject the proposition god exists, this does not imply they have rejected god
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipHi Sonship,I think there is a pretty big loophole. You are using a different meaning for the word 'rejection' than the way the rest of us understand it.
So, maybe it would help if you defined it.
My understanding is similar to what I found in the dictionary: 'To refuse to accept.'
That will do fine.
[quote]
I don't think I can refuse to ac ...[text shortened]... I don't believe that it is going to occur anyway" is fancy embellishment completely unnecessary.
Here's my proposal: I want you to stand outside this coming night from 3.00 am until 4.00 am. You will need to take a "selfie" every 2 minutes and you will need to make 4 short videorecordings of yourself, as proof that you have in fact done what I asked. The pictures and video's will need to be posted online so that others can judge them as well.
Do this, and I will 1) dispense knowledge throughout the world that is going to result in some major breakthroughs in cancer research and is going to help cure a lot of people currently suffering from cancer, and 2) I will send you 10.000.000 (that's ten million) dollars which you may spend any way you want.
I look forward seeing the results.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by googlefudge
The problem with your analogy is that it's missing an important element.
We are confident that you exist, and that it's theoretically possible that
you could try to send us $10,000.
Lets rework the analogy to better match the situation we are talking about.
"Suppose I tell you there is a magic being called "The Great Pumpkin" who
appea ...[text shortened]... I haven't been offered, doesn't exist, from a being that
doesn't exist and I don't believe in.
I have never [received] any offer from god, or any communication from god at all.
Nice semantic dancing.
So you also reject that you were ever offered any gift.
Are you now going to argue that this sentence is not a rejection of the idea that you were ever offered anything from God at all ?
I have never [received] any offer from god, or any communication from god at all.
Now explain to me how you do not reject that you ever received any offer from God.
You have even more semantic dancing to do.
Why - you don't reject anything. Right ?
The new definition of Atheism should be - Atheism - the nonrejection of anything at all.
That will do it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipDo you actually speak English?I have never [received] any offer from god, or any communication from god at all.
Nice semantic dancing.
So you also reject that you were ever offered any gift.
Are you now going to argue that this sentence is not a rejection of the idea that you were ever offered anything from God at all ?
[quote] I have never [received] a ...[text shortened]... Atheism should be - Atheism - the [b] nonrejection of anything at all.
That will do it.[/b]
I'm/were not the one/s dancing.
We are, and have been completely consistent in our position/s.
YOU are the ones rewriting the meaning of words, and playing with semantics.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhen Bertrand Russell wrote his famous essay "Why I am Not Christian" was that a choice from him to reject the Christian faith ?
Do you actually speak English?
I'm/were not the one/s dancing.
We are, and have been completely consistent in our position/s.
YOU are the ones rewriting the meaning of words, and playing with semantics.
Yes ?
No ?