What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

...

Originally posted by The Chess Express
“Believing” in God does not mean rejecting God in everyway. That is what atheists and hardened criminals do.

BTW, which God do you believe in?

Sorry, you don't get to define what "believe" is any more than you get to define what "theism" is. If someone says they believe in a god, they are a theist by definition, they don't have to act in the way you think a theist should. Your original statement was wrong and now you are trying to re-define words to make it a tautology. Typical fanatic tricks; you must be reading Coletti's BS.

I'm tempted to answer your question with a NOYFB (which would be entirely accurate) but since I've stated many times in these forums I'm an agnostic you should be able to figure it out (that is, if you would BUY A DICTIONARY and look under "agnostic"😉.

BTW, Jesus was a "hardened criminal" under the laws of the society he lived in.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. What use is atheism/skepticism, if any? Not that is has to be useful: it could merely be empirically or logically warranted. But, crucially, utility is not reducible to, nor necessarily even positively related to, warrant. Indeed, the relation may be negative: for example, theism/credulity may be, on balanc ...[text shortened]... ch circumstances? Why should warrant always be a greater source of moral obligation than use?

Interesting - I might have reversed the warrant / utility assignments. I think of theism is warranted, by not necessarily the most useful belief system. On the other hand, atheism/skepticism seems low to me on warrant and utility. I suppose it depends on your criteria for measuring utility and warrant. Theism seems more useful for a society then an individual.

Atheism/skepticism seems possible useful for a individual since it removes any moral obligations and allows one to act only in ones best interests. But it lacks warrant since it leads to no justified true beliefs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, you don't get to define what "believe" is any more than you get to define what "theism" is. If someone says they believe in a god, they are a theist by definition, they don't have to act in the way you think a theist should. Your original statement was wrong and now you are trying to re-define words to make it a tautology. Typical fanatic tricks; ...[text shortened]...

BTW, Jesus was a "hardened criminal" under the laws of the society he lived in.

I never assumed that you were a theist. It seems that agnostics also don’t think that it’s possible to know what a theist is.

If the law makers are hardened criminals then one such as Jesus is justified.

I assume you would call Gandhi and King hardened criminals as well.

Originally posted by rwingett
It boggles the mind to realize that there are people in this world as incredibly stupid as you are. I would not believe it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

If you ever wonder why an increasing number of people are turning away from christianity these days, it is sanctimonious idiots like yourself who are partly responsible for it. You repulse me in every way.

Vice-versa, keep practicing your good, wholesome atheism.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I never assumed that you were a theist. It seems that agnostics also don’t think that it’s possible to know what a theist is.

If the law makers are hardened criminals then one such as Jesus is justified.

I assume you would call Gandhi and King hardened criminals as well.

It's possible to BUY A DICTIONARY and know what a theist is for anybody.

I realize now my point was a little tooooooooooooo subtle for you to understand. You used the term "hardened criminals" initially but who is a "hardened criminal" is defined by the laws of the individual society. You claimed that "hardened criminals" rejected God by their acts, but as I pointed out, Jesus was a "hardened criminal". Of course, you can simply make up your own definition of "hardened criminal" to get around that difficulty, too. That is why having discussions with simple minded fanatics like you is a waste of time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's possible to BUY A DICTIONARY and know what a theist is for anybody.

I realize now my point was a little tooooooooooooo subtle for you to understand. You used the term "hardened criminals" initially but who is a "hardened criminal" is defined by the laws of the individual society. You claimed that "hardened criminals" rejected God by their at is why having discussions with simple minded fanatics like you is a waste of time.

It's possible to BUY A DICTIONARY and know what a theist is for anybody.

First you have to accept what it means to believe in God. Otherwise people are stuck where you are.

You used the term "hardened criminals" initially but who is a "hardened criminal" is defined by the laws of the individual society. You claimed that "hardened criminals" rejected God by their acts, but as I pointed out, Jesus was a "hardened criminal". Of course, you can simply make up your own definition of "hardened criminal" to get around that difficulty, too. That is why having discussions with simple minded fanatics like you is a waste of time.

If you had any kind of moral guidelines we wouldn’t be debating this. Most people know that slavery is wrong whether it’s legal or not. This is called a sense of right and wrong, something you must have dispensed with a long time ago as a defense lawyer.

It’s simple minded fanatics like you who always try to justify wrong actions with legal subtleties. I can see why you’re probably not going to get this.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]It's possible to BUY A DICTIONARY and know what a theist is for anybody.

First you have to accept what it means to believe in God. Otherwise people are stuck where you are.

You used the term "hardened criminals" initially but who is a "hardened criminal" is defined by the laws of the individual society. You claimed that "hardened cr ...[text shortened]... g actions with legal subtleties. I can see why you’re probably not going to get this.

"First you have to accept what it means to believe in God. Otherwise people are stuck where you are."

To be a theist you don't have to follow the lifestyle of certain religions, or your idea of how someone should follow God; all it means is to simply believe in a God or Gods. Nothing more.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b/]It's possible to BUY A DICTIONARY and know what a theist is for anybody.

First you have to accept what it means to believe in God. Otherwise people are stuck where you are.

You used the term "hardened criminals" initially but who is a "hardened criminal" is defined by the laws of the individual society. You claimed that "hardened cr g actions with legal subtleties. I can see why you’re probably not going to get this.

I won't waste further time with a complete idiot like you. You don't get to change the meanings of words whenever you feel like it to belittle other people's beliefs. Like a true fanatic you think your way is the only way. I'd pity you if you weren't such a pathetic dick.

You've obviously never read or been able to understand my belief in a Fundamental Rights, Natural Law philosophy. It's obviously over your head. Suffice to say, that I do believe in a Natural Law that is enforceable on every person. Try reading something other than a Bible and you might figure it out (I highly doubt it though).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sounds like someone has been reading from the pages of Lenin/Marx/Stalin's lives.

And if he had been? So what?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
You get lost. Claiming that there is a God and rejecting him in everyway does not make you a theist, it makes you a atheist.

Example: See the “God is nothing but a method” thread. rwingett basically tells God to go take a hike. rwingett is also a self-proclaimed atheist.

I realize that playing with words must be the specialty of a defense la ...[text shortened]... epresented hundreds of hardened criminals, but you don’t get to change the meaning of the words.

How does raping people reject that there is a "God"? It may reject your particular god, but one need not believe in him to be a theist. You can believe in Sodomus, God of murder and rape. You would be a theist (for believing in at least one deity), and you would be living in a way perfectly consistent with your belief.

If that example is too hypothetical for you, I recommend searching down and reading a few of my summaries of Numbers and Deuteronomy in the archives. There you'll find stories of a celebrated tribal group that believed in the same god you do. You'll also find that they often obeyed their god by commiting genocide and taking young virgins to be concubines.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I won't waste further time with a complete idiot like you. You don't get to change the meanings of words whenever you feel like it to belittle other people's beliefs. Like a true fanatic you think your way is the only way. I'd pity you if you weren't such a pathetic dick.

You've obviously never read or been able to understand my belief in a reading something other than a Bible and you might figure it out (I highly doubt it though).

I won't waste further time with a complete idiot like you. You don't get to change the meanings of words whenever you feel like it to belittle other people's beliefs. Like a true fanatic you think your way is the only way. I'd pity you if you weren't such a pathetic dick.

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Jesus: “Why call ye me master and do not the thing that I say?”

Every great religion teaches the same thing. To believe in God, you have to live the life. Going around telling people that you believe in God is not enough.

A serial killer who walks into the courtroom and says “I believe in God” is not a theist.
Only an idiotic dick like yourself would think so, or worse yet, try to convince a jury of it.

You've obviously never read or been able to understand my belief in a Fundamental Rights, Natural Law philosophy. It's obviously over your head. Suffice to say, that I do believe in a Natural Law that is enforceable on every person. Try reading something other than a Bible and you might figure it out

This must be your pathetic explanation for why people like Jesus, Gandhi and King were all hardened criminals. Maybe you should try to figure it out.

Originally posted by telerion
How does raping people reject that there is a "God"? It may reject your particular god, but one need not believe in him to be a theist. You can believe in Sodomus, God of murder and rape. You would be a theist (for believing in at least one deity), and you would be living in a way perfectly consistent with your belief.

If that example is too hypothe they often obeyed their god by commiting genocide and taking young virgins to be concubines.

As I’ve already mentioned in my previous post, Satanism is the exception.

Originally posted by rwingett
It boggles the mind to realize that there are people in this world as incredibly stupid as you are. I would not believe it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

If you ever wonder why an increasing number of people are turning away from christianity these days, it is sanctimonious idiots like yourself who are partly responsible for it. You repulse me in every way.

Yes, it seems some of the fundies here have set aside the Sword of Truth for a Webster's dictionary.