July 13, 2011

Atheism Is A Lack Of Belief?

"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality" ~Ayn Rand

Atheism is a lack of belief? They claim it is, we hear this all the time. It's the Atheists slam dunk to do a hands off to the evidence of God.

Let's examine the claim.

From dictionary.com

Atheism
a·the·ism

–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

OK its a disbelief of things, not a lack. So lets examine the definition of disbelief.

From dictionary.com

disbelief
dis·be·lief

–noun
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment:

---
merriam-webster.com defines it as:

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Synonyms: incredulity, nonbelief, unbelief

---
Thesaurus.com has an interesting entry,

disbelief
Definition: doubt, skepticism

Synonyms: atheism, distrust, dubiety, incredulity, mistrust, nihilism, rejection, repudiation, spurning, unbelief, unbelievingness, unfaith

Antonyms: belief, trust

atheism
noun

Definition: belief that no God exists
Synonyms: disbelief, doubt, freethinking, godlessness, heresy, iconoclasm, impiety, infidelity, irreligion, irreverence, nihilism, nonbelief, paganism, skepticism, unbelief


I see no "lack in any of those definitions and synonyms.

I see more iconoclasm then anything else.

Sure does not sound like Atheism is a "lack of belief" of anything but instead a REFUSAL to accept things as true. Its a positive stance my friend. As Choosing Hats puts it, an implicitly positive claim. Its intellectual dishonesty to say otherwise. If that is indeed the case, and it certainly is, then as Gary pointed out, "Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position."

Slam Debunked!?

bit.ly/lackofbelief

137 comments:

  1. Wow, has your blog always been this facile, or have I just come along at a point where you're going massively off the rails?

    I've seen some garbage in my past, but that post is truly a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let’s put aside the definition of atheism in the dictionary for an awhile. Let’s go the etymology.

    Atheism comes from the word atheos.

    The prefix a means: no, absence, lack of.
    The suffix theos means god.

    So, the term atheos means: no god; lack of god; absence of god. Therefore, atheism means the lack of belief in gods.

    Now, coming back to the dictionary’s definition of the word:

    According to Oxford dictionary:

    Atheism text
    noun: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
    Origin: late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

    Disbelief: text
    Noun: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
    lack of faith in something (that definition fits the definition of atheism)

    Let’s see the definition of faith, shall we?

    Faith text
    noun
    1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof (that defines your religious beliefs)
    - a system of religious belief: the Christian faith (Oh! That one even uses your own religion as an example...what a remarkable coincidence!)
    - a strongly held belief or theory: the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe


    But – of course – as being intellectually dishonest as you are, you’re just going to ignore all this and manipulate information to fit your religious misinformed viewpoint as you did before.

    Dan, if you say we are refusing to accept things (in this case, your god’s existence) as true, so prove you god exist first as you claim he does. Give us some reliable, tangible and verifiable evidence which shows your god is real.

    Many of us here asked you to prove that and you still failed in doing so because all you gave was circular reasoning, your personal experiences/personal revelations and the bible.

    We are rational people with critical thinking; I can’t speak for all the atheists who post in your blog, but I’m an open minded person and I can perfectly believe in your god if you demonstrate he exists (without mentioning your personal revelations, without circular reasoning and without mentioning the bible).

    I’ve already asked you before and you didn’t answer me. This only means that all you have as “evidence” to prove your god is real is faith and that is not evidence for anything (see again the definition #2 of faith by the Oxford Dictionary)

    ReplyDelete
  3. D.A.N., how do you feel knowing that you've failed to ever debunk a single atheist?

    Here's a challenge to you DAN

    1. prove that gods exist

    2. prove that your version of your particular god is the 'right' one

    Should be easy for you if you're as right as you think you are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alex,

    First I had to look up "facile", nice word. Second, gripes and complaints about me aside, do you have anything to add to the discussion? If truth is "going massively off the rails" then I wear it like a badge of honor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michelle,

    etymology of atheism,
    1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist." Ancient Gk. atheotes meant "ungodliness."

    etymology of Atheist
    1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

    Without a God is far different from lack of belief.

    Thanks for including the term "faith" into the discussion, I cannot tell you how many Atheists wrongly believe that faith means being blind or discounting evidence. Its obvious that faith means trust.

    >>Oh! That one even uses your own religion as an example...what a remarkable coincidence!

    Yea, the discussion is never about FSM and such, but the Christian God. It always is. Good point. Thanks for pointing out that your beliefs are a chosen metaphysical position about the Christian God. I don't believe in "remarkable coincidences"

    >>But – of course – as being intellectually dishonest as you are, you’re just going to ignore all this and manipulate information to fit your religious misinformed viewpoint as you did before.

    What are you talking about now? Ignoring what? Manipulate what information? Could you get any less vague in a comment? *pshaw Well everyone, Michelle said I do this so it MUST be true. argumentum ad verecundiam

    (To be cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michelle cont'd,

    >>We are rational people with critical thinking;

    Bwahahahahh, sure you are. Who are you trying to convince here, me? Look at your own presuppositions that negates, or at least sets aside, critical thinking skills. If Atheists started with, "How am I looking at this situation? Is there another way to look at it that I should consider? What exactly am I focused on? And how am I seeing it? Is my view the only reasonable view? What does my point of view ignore? Have you ever considered the way others view this? Which of these possible viewpoints makes the most sense given the situation? Am I having difficulty looking at this situation from a viewpoint with which I disagree? What is the point of view of the author of this story? Do I study viewpoints that challenge my personal beliefs?", their presuppositions might be changed. Its my hope anyway.

    >>I can’t speak for all the atheists who post in your blog, but I’m an open minded person and I can perfectly believe in your god if you demonstrate he exists (without mentioning your personal revelations, without circular reasoning and without mentioning the bible).

    Stop. My cheeks and sides are hurting. I cannot take this humor anymore. You're exhausting me. BTW, thanks for giving evidence for the arrogance of Atheists. "The “arrogance of atheism” is manifest by those Atheists who presuppose the truth of their system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, all the while denying for the Christian the inverse thereof because the only presuppositions the Atheist permits in the field of debate are his own. Again, the issue is not about Atheists insisting that theistic claims be supported, but rather how they insist those claims get supported."

    >>Many of us here asked you to prove that and you still failed in doing so because all you gave was circular reasoning, your personal experiences/personal revelations and the bible.

    Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.


    To help you out though...Your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God. Now, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    >>I’ve already asked you before and you didn’t answer me. This only means that all you have as “evidence” to prove your god is real is faith and that is not evidence for anything (see again the definition #2 of faith by the Oxford Dictionary)

    I reject the premise of your question. It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alex,

    >>D.A.N., how do you feel knowing that you've failed to ever debunk a single atheist?

    First, I don't remember you addressing my question, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>1. prove that gods exist

    Funny how someone that touts the scientific method for knowledge, yet you ask for proof of things. I will say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. Hope that helps.

    >>2. prove that your version of your particular god is the 'right' one

    There is not many versions of truth. Truth is truth. The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation. Without the Christian God, the alternative results in rational absurdity and contradiction (since there is no longer a basis for rationality). This is why we speak of the "impossibility of the contrary."

    >>Should be easy for you if you're as right as you think you are.

    Yes its easy. Also, I don't think this, I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty.

    I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. D.A.N,

    Since the mankind invented the concept of gods there are beliefs in thousands different gods. I don’t believe in any of those thousands of gods, the past and the present ones.

    You act like I don’t believe only in the christian god. Your christian god is as real as Vishnu, Orixás, Eros, Tupã, Thor, Hades, Osiris, Iemanjá, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Allah, YHWH, Tlaltecuhtli, etc… You also act like we have some grudge against your god. In order to have a grudge towards your god we have to believe in him, which we don’t. But you’re free to assume whatever you want if that allows you to sleep better at night.
    I don’t give a damn about it.

    The discussion in this particular blog is about the christian god because is the god you write about. Start writing about the ancient roman-greek mythology, ancient Egyptian mythology, the Mesoamerican mythologies, afro-brazilian religions, Hinduism, wicca, The Flying Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn and the FSM etc and we will discuss them all.

    >> Actually you do manipulate information or you already forgot the post Independence Day Indeed where you manipulated information at your behalf and interpreted the article the way you wanted?

    >> The so-called evidence you gave about the existence of your god is your personal revelations/personal experiences/the bible/circular reasoning. If you have other evidence that proves your god to be real, show it to me. If your personal revelations/personal experiences/the bible/circular reasoning is all you have to show me, well… you have nothing to support the existence of your god and therefore I don’t have to believe in him just because some ancient book tells me I should or else I’ll be stoned to death, have a fate worse than Sodom and Gomorra in the judgment day for not following Jebus or that I’ll burn in hell until the end of times.

    I’m not the one who has to prove the non-existence of your god. I never said ” The christian god doesn’t exist for sure. As I told you many time the reason why I don’t believe in any divine/supernatural entities is because there’s no evidence that proves their existence. If you believe in my reasons or not, I don’t give a rat’s ass. I don’t need you to believe in me or to convince you in order to be an atheist.


    >> Your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God. Now, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    That proves my point that all you have is circular reasoning. I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "First, I don't remember you addressing my question, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?"

    I've told you, I'm not interested in your presup bullshit, and I can see you trying to get an 'in' with it. Don't you feel ashamed having such a boner for Sye?

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, from reading your reply, the ONLY evidence you think you have is based on that circular presup nonsense??? Really???

    D.A.N., you're a dead loss if that's the case!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists."

    My friend's daughter doesn't even know what God is because no one told her about him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mhich is right btw, it's not just the Christian god I don't believe in, it's all of them, plus anything supernatural.

    Here's the thing, D.A.N., even if your presup rubbish could prove a god existed, you'd still have no way whatsoever of being sure it was the Christian one. All Sye (and Matt Slick, and all the other presup obsessives) has is a circular argument.

    Tell me, has that presup crap EVER converted anyone? I'm willing to bet the answer is 'no', and that's because it's not designed to - no, it exists purely to give Christians a way to shore up their faith.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Mandatory Chaos,

    First, Welcome!

    >>My friend's daughter doesn't even know what God is because no one told her about him.

    You mean besides God Himself? You see, as a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing Atheist's contempt toward God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, she doesn't even understand the concept of what a god is, let alone the Christian god. She's 6 years old, I really doubt she's suppressing anything to avoid accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alex,

    >>D.A.N., you're a dead loss if that's the case!!

    The case that Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position? No, its pretty evident that argument is sound.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Alex,

    >>Here's the thing, D.A.N., even if your presup rubbish could prove a god existed, you'd still have no way whatsoever of being sure it was the Christian one.

    Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.

    Case in point, try rereading my comment again and see if you can actually find the answer to your question.

    >>Tell me, has that presup crap EVER converted anyone? I'm willing to bet the answer is 'no', and that's because it's not designed to - no, it exists purely to give Christians a way to shore up their faith.

    That is just it though, we are not used car salesman here. My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Alex,

    >>it exists purely to give Christians a way to shore up their faith.

    That is a side effect that cannot be denied. Logic and reason have a way of doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Mandatory Chaos,

    >>No, she doesn't even understand the concept of what a god is, let alone the Christian god.

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>She's 6 years old, I really doubt she's suppressing anything to avoid accountability.

    That is a shame, at age 5 my daughter already knew God and was witnessing to many people. Now she is 9 and wants to read and talk about God daily. Its sad that people set limitations on kids. God gave even a 6 year old the capacity to know and love Him. Its time for a formal introduction.

    Side bar: Today my one year old said thank you when I handed his tooth brush to him. Kids know far more about life then you expect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>Side bar: Today my one year old said thank you when I handed his tooth brush to him. Kids know far more about life then you expect.

      Ah, so did your child magically know the words "thank you" then? Why didn't he say "gracias"? It can't be that he's heard you and others around him saying thank you in certain situations and learned from it, right? Of course not - because then that would imply that your daughter believed in God when she was 6 because you and the adults in her life kept talking about it as if it was fact. And then that buggers up your whole argument doesn't it?

      Delete
    2. >>Ah, so did your child magically know the words "thank you" then?

      Nope, he picked it up as a gratuitous gesture, although he is 3 now. :p

      >>Of course not - because then that would imply that your daughter believed in God when she was 6 because you and the adults in her life kept talking about it as if it was fact.

      Yes, and is that "wrong"? If so, is it merely your opinion or HOW is it objectively "wrong"?

      >>And then that buggers up your whole argument doesn't it?

      Not at all. She still knows God, just as you do. You see, God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. We call it self deception. Self deception is very powerful to the mind. My daughter certainly could have been one of those who self deceives. Thankfully, that is not the case.

      The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

      "The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural.” is the claim. In other words, without God you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical in science, logic, reason, etc.

      This is exposed by asking you a very simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?


      Delete
  20. First off, there were no limitations set on this child. God simply wasn't mentioned. My friend has no problem talking about God with her if she asked.

    Secondly, your daughter knew God because she grew up hearing about him from you.

    "How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?"

    Independent confirmation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. D.A.N,

    A child only knows the concept of god if someone mentions to her.

    No one is born automatically believing in some god. A baby with 5 minutes old doesn’t think automatically ”I believe in god even if the parents, relatives and friends mention the name of god in front of him because he barely has notion of his surroundings imagine having the notion of some divine entity?

    Do you think – that when I was baptized in the catholic church at the age of 1 month old – I had the notion of what was happening to me? That I knew it was a baptism performed in order to get the blessings of god? No.
    If I knew how to speak at 1 month old I would probably complain about someone waking me up by throwing cold water in my forehead, lol.

    Now, children with 5/6 years old are capable of understanding some things if someone explains that to them. If a kid lives with family who never mentions “god”, this kid is not going to know the concept of god; now – if since in an young age, when the kid is learning to speak the first words and understanding their meaning and someone shows to her the concept of god, she will know.

    Basically, the belief in a god (whatever this god may be) is the result of what people - your parents and other relatives, friends close to your family,etc - tell you at a very young age (when they put you in church sunday school, when you have your first communion, when they ask you to pray to god for a good night sleep every night, when they say “god bless you”, etc)

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Church of England's General Synod was told this week that the Church of England is currently on course to die out within 20 years.

    See Daily Telegraph

    ReplyDelete
  23. As for the claim that "there is no such thing as an Ex-Christian because Christians don't Fall Away": in the UK the church is dying out as old members die off. But in Germany, for example, people have been actively been leaving the church in droves.

    The writing's on the wall!

    Daniel 5

    24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.
    25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
    26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
    27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
    28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan being stupid and using unsubstantiated claims (again):
    You mean besides God Himself? You see, as a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.

    If that was the case, then what the hell were missionaries ever useful for?

    Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God
    You have to show that your first premise is true before you can start throwing accusations around. Otherwise, you're just being a bigoted prat.

    It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing Atheist's contempt toward God.
    No, it "reveals" our lack of belief in this being in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  25. A little bit of dealing with this presup bullshit in this comment, though it's about a different topic in a different post.

    ReplyDelete
  26. D.A.N. said... (to The Mandatory Chaos),

    You see, as a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.

    Of course you've singularly failed to demonstrate that your position is valid.

    Care to try Dan?

    Care to explain exactly how you can be certain of either the source or the veracity of the revelation you claim to have received when you admit that you are not omniscient?

    Or are you simply going to stick to your claim that God told you that He was God and that He was definitely the one giving you the revelation that He was God?

    Your claim to revelation is so viciously circular you probably go through life suffering a permanent case of whiplash as you spin round trying to see the back of your own head.

    ReplyDelete
  27.      "Let’s put aside the definition of atheism in the dictionary for an awhile. Let’s go the etymology.
         "Atheism comes from the word atheos.
         "The prefix a means: no, absence, lack of.
    The suffix theos means god.
         "So, the term atheos means: no god; lack of god; absence of god. Therefore, atheism means the [belief in no] gods."
         Fixed it for you.

    Dan:

         I can assure you that I have received no such revelation. As for your daughter, I am sure that her belief stemmed from your instruction.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Lack of belief" sure does cause a great deal of motivation to attack, malign, ridicule, disunderstand and simply hate. Someone who lacks believe in God attacks those who believe in God, and then God exists at their convenience so they can hate him. Then he blinks out of existence again because they "lack belief". Hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No Stormy, internet trolls like you draw attacks because you've started out by attacking. Obviously your experience of atheists is based entirely on how they've responded to your constant rage, insults, blatant denial of reality, dishonesty, failure to understand even the basics of logic, and your general attitude as a douche.

    I think every single person posting here has experienced the pointy end of your seemingly endless anger, with only people like D.A.N. and your sockpuppet accounts (which don't count, as they're you) thinking you're anything other than a massive prick.

    If you do receive any hatred, it's purely because you've given out such a huge amount.

    Want people to stop thinking you're a dick? Simple: stop acting like one.

    ReplyDelete
  30. >> Lack of belief" sure does cause a great deal of motivation to attack, malign, ridicule, disunderstand and simply hate. Someone who lacks believe in God attacks those who believe in God, and then God exists at their convenience so they can hate him. Then he blinks out of existence again because they "lack belief".

    We have ideological differences and I don’t agree with their faith/religion, but I don’t hate religious people and I don’t attack them because we have opposing ideological positions. I have my ideological positions, but I don’t act like my ideas/opinions/ideologies are untouchable and immune to criticism like you do. You guys think we are attacking you by simply criticizing your faith/your religion/your god and you feel personally offended by it; but that’s your problem…not ours.

    If I – in the end – become hostile to someone is because that person started acting like an idiot; if you don’t want to be treated like an asshole and called an asshole, it’s easy…stop acting like one.


    PS: Is it something common between the extremist christians who post here to change the English language?
    - D..A.N changes the meaning of the words to better suit himself and his distorted viewpoint;
    - Gary H is the same as D.A.N at changing the meaning of the words to better suit himself and his distorted viewpoint (he thinks pedophilia is a sexual orientation and considers science, atheism and Darwinism to be religions), besides of coming up with the word “scientism” which he uses to define any kind of science he doesn’t like because it contradicts – with facts – his belief.
    - Now, we have Stormbringer with “disunterstand”

    That’s funny…lmao

    ReplyDelete
  31. Reynold,

    >>If that was the case, then what the hell were missionaries ever useful for?

    Aid against denial and work toward acknowledgement, you know, honoring God.

    >>No, it "reveals" our lack of belief in this being in the first place.

    Erm no. More like: You are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING.

    ReplyDelete
  32. freddies_dead ,

    >>Of course you've singularly failed to demonstrate that your position is valid.

    The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

    >>Care to explain exactly how you can be certain of either the source or the veracity of the revelation you claim to have received when you admit that you are not omniscient?

    The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. (enter that omniscient thingy) It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

    Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?

    >>Or are you simply going to stick to your claim that God told you that He was God and that He was definitely the one giving you the revelation that He was God?

    I reject the premise of your question. It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?

    >>Your claim to revelation is so viciously circular you probably go through life suffering a permanent case of whiplash as you spin round trying to see the back of your own head.

    Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is. Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh dear, DAN is reading the presup autocue again.

    If only you could multi-task, DAN.

    ReplyDelete
  34. But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Paul? :7)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Michelle,

    >>D.A.N changes the meaning of the words to better suit himself and his distorted viewpoint;

    SO its now your claim that I changed the dictionaries? Really?

    That’s funny…indeed

    ReplyDelete
  36. "It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists."

    Then your position is completely wrong.

    D.A.N., care to tell us all where this presup stuff is in the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  37. D.A.N,

    For fuck's sake, where did I say you are changing the dictionaries? I said you change the meaning of the words to better suit yourself and your distorted viewpoint, not that you change the dictionary itself.

    You quote the dictionaries and I really don't understand why do it, because you interpret the definition of the words the way you want, no matter what the dictionary says.

    So - since you always do that - you might as well throw the conventional dictionary away, burn it and write your own, like "Dictionary of D.A.N - Special Edition for Christian Fundies" where you going to give your own interpretation of the words. You could also write an encyclopedia where you will re-write world history and change scientific facts to fit in your christian fundie worldview. I bet Stormbringer, Gary H and other christian fundies out there who like to distort everything to suit their beliefs/viewpoints will buy it. It’s going to be a bestseller among the republicans/Teabaggers/and other conservatives; maybe Bill O’Reilly even calls you for an interview. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  38. D.A.N,

    If your god reveals himself to everyone, then he’s doing a lousy job; considering there are a lot of people around the world who believe in gods completely different of your god and a lot of people out there who don’t believe in god(s) at all.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan, you simply ignore reality in favor of making excuses for your beliefs and then pin a lack of understanding on us so you can claim your own version of reality as the only way.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Michelle,

    >>You quote the dictionaries and I really don't understand why do it, because you interpret the definition of the words the way you want, no matter what the dictionary says.

    Pot meet kettle. Is it not you who believe atheism is a "lack of belief" while the dictionary says no such thing? Hypocricy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The Mandatory Chaos,

    Funny how I can say the same thing about Atheists. In fact, I posted about it. (http://goo.gl/bSEI4)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Arguing definitions with someone as intellectually dishonest as Dan is an exercise in futility.

    Dan does it because he likes to pleasure himself.

    Don't be an enabler.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The only difference between D.A.N. and Stormbringer is that D.A.N. is able to be vaguely civil....all other traits are those of a conspiracy theorist loontard.

    ReplyDelete
  44. D.A.N,

    >> I said atheism is "lack of belief in gods/disbelief in gods" and the dictionaries say exactly, they just use different words. At least I’m not like you who says atheism is a religion and is also based on faith when I pointed out to you what defines religion, faith, disbelief and atheism. You just don’t accept it because it opposes your twisted viewpoint about facts and reality. It doesn’t matter what you think about atheism or how much you change the meaning of the words to suit yourself: atheism is – by definition – lacking of belief in gods/disbelief in gods. Period.

    According to Oxford: ( text )

    atheism:
    - disbelief in the existence of god or gods.
    - late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Funny how I can say the same thing about Atheists. In fact, I posted about it"

    I have no doubt, theists constantly chide others for the things they do themselves. Take the plank out of your own eye brother.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Wem,

    >>Dan does it because he likes to pleasure himself.


    Be quiet and hold that mirror still for me. :7p

    ReplyDelete
  47. Alex,

    >>all other traits are those of a conspiracy theorist loontard.

    Is this your "version" of civil? *pshaw

    ReplyDelete
  48. Michelle,

    >>I said atheism is "lack of belief in gods/disbelief in gods" and the dictionaries say exactly, they just use different words.

    Bwahahahahahha!!! You're too much.

    atheism:
    - disbelief in the existence of god or gods.

    So your assertion of "lack of" should be accepted then? On what grounds? Bare assertion.

    You're pure entertainment lately Michelle. You should take it on the road.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chaos,

    >>Take the plank out of your own eye brother.

    Do you even understand what that verse is talking about? From what I read, we are indeed to judge. The Bible is chalk full of judging, if not the ENTIRE theme of the Book.

    ReplyDelete
  50. D.A.N,

    As I said before, according to the Oxford Dictionary:

    Disbelief:

    Noun: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
    lack of faith in something (that definition fits the definition of atheism)

    As being intellectually dishonest as you are, you're just probably going to ignore it and just take something out of your arse that suits you (or probably just pay attention to the first definition and forget about the second because it opposes your misinformed view abot atheism).

    In case you only consider the first definition of disbelief as definition for atheism, you have to prove your god is real in the first place in order for atheism to be considered a refusal for his existence.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Do you even understand what that verse is talking about? From what I read, we are indeed to judge. The Bible is chalk full of judging, if not the ENTIRE theme of the Book."

    Clearly you missed the point. What I'm talking about is you doing the same thing you accuse others of doing. That my friend, is hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. D.A.N. said...

    freddies_dead ,

    >>Of course you've singularly failed to demonstrate that your position is valid.

    The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

    You do realise that simply repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true? Do you have anything to demonstrate the truth of your claim?

    >>Care to explain exactly how you can be certain of either the source or the veracity of the revelation you claim to have received when you admit that you are not omniscient?

    The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. (enter that omniscient thingy)

    Please backup this assertion with a reasoned argument. Note: simply asking me for another possibility does not constitute a reasoned argument even if it is the standard tactic in the presupp handbook.

    It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

    And there you go simply repeating the claim again. Stop telling and start showing Dan. If your knowledge is less than perfect please explain how you know that the true source and veracity of the claimed revelation isn't in the missing knowledge?

    Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?

    I haven't made any claim to certainty. My knowledge is provisional and subject to change pending new information.

    >>Or are you simply going to stick to your claim that God told you that He was God and that He was definitely the one giving you the revelation that He was God?

    I reject the premise of your question.

    I'm not surprised that you want to reject your own position, I wouldn't want to base my entire worldview on an infinite regress of revelations either, but I suspect you'll simply go back to claiming that your position is valid in just a few moments...

    It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    And there we are. You are, of course, wrong. I do not believe that God exists, so not everyone believes and if you want to continue with your claim you're going to have to produce a much more convincing argument than "because God told me so" to back it up.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  53. cont'd...

    Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?

    Back on the presupp merry-go-round I see. I've conceded many times that an omnipotent entity could grant you omniscience in order for you to have certainty. Are you claiming omniscience? If so a demonstration is in order. If not, I ask again, without having perfect knowledge how can you be certain of the source and veracity of the claimed revelation? Without being omniscient yourself, how can you be certain that you're not being a) tricked by an evil/trickster God (or other powerful being), b) misled by your own God (please note that you've been informed of several Bible backed instances of God being economical with the truth before now so it would be pointless you claiming God would never do such a thing) c) deluded into mistaking the feeling of certainy for actual certainty by your own mind.

    >>Your claim to revelation is so viciously circular you probably go through life suffering a permanent case of whiplash as you spin round trying to see the back of your own head.

    Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.

    And you have been shown that the presupp view is viciously circular but rather than answer the questions raised by your claims you simply revert to the script in the hopes that no-one will notice your inability to answer.

    Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain.

    I have conceded an omnipotent enitity's ability to grant you omniscience in order that you could be certain many times Dan (this is the second such concession in this post alone) and yet you continue to avoid answering the questions raised by your claim to revelation. How can anything less than the granting of omniscience lead to actual, honest-to-goodness, 100% certainty on your part?

    You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.

    Well so far I haven't needed one as you've not even come close to demonstrating that such an avenue exists, let alone demonstrating that you've actually taken this avenue and found said certainty at the end of it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Michelle,

    OK I concede that the ONE reference to "lack" in the, obscure, online oxford dictionary.

    So I investigated it more and found EVERYTHING ELSE entirely different. Look at these that I added to the post:

    merriam-webster.com defines it as:

    : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

    Synonyms: incredulity, nonbelief, unbelief

    ---
    Thesaurus.com has an interesting entry,

    disbelief
    Definition: doubt, skepticism

    Synonyms: atheism, distrust, dubiety, incredulity, mistrust, nihilism, rejection, repudiation, spurning, unbelief, unbelievingness, unfaith

    Antonyms: belief, trust

    atheism
    noun

    Definition: belief that no God exists
    Synonyms: disbelief, doubt, freethinking, godlessness, heresy, iconoclasm, impiety, infidelity, irreligion, irreverence, nihilism, nonbelief, paganism, skepticism, unbelief

    Antonyms: belief, godliness, piety, religion

    Atheism is iconoclasm no matter how you slice it. Its obvious. Just because ONE place off handily mentions the word "lack" and ALL OTHERS do not, makes it an anomaly or even a misrepresentation that needs changing.

    >>In case you only consider the first definition of disbelief as definition for atheism, you have to prove your god is real in the first place in order for atheism to be considered a refusal for his existence.

    Hehe, enter the proof of the claim, iconoclasm.

    ReplyDelete
  55. freddies_dead ,

    >>You do realise that simply repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true? Do you have anything to demonstrate the truth of your claim?

    Sure the Bible says plenty, its one of God's revelations and just some of the evidence that you are earnestly requiring. Remember assuming the Bible is not evidence for God...well you know the drill.

    >>Please backup this assertion with a reasoned argument.

    How about your claims, yourself. You say the ONLY way of knowing something, or anything, is through that omniscient thingy. OK I agree. We agree entirely on that part. Its my account for such knowledge that we get it from that omniscient thingy. How do YOU account for any knowledge?

    >>I haven't made any claim to certainty. My knowledge is provisional and subject to change pending new information.

    How do you KNOW that? So you don't know ANYTHING. You can NEVER KNOW the pending new information, even or more importantly, you cannot even KNOW if your knowledge is provisional. That knowledge, in itself, may be provisional. BTW, the claim "My knowledge is provisional" is a asserted claim that you have YET to back up with evidence. YET you accuse me of doing that very same thing. Irony meter is peaking.

    >>I wouldn't want to base my entire worldview on an infinite regress of revelations either

    But you would base said worldview on an infinite regress of "and how do you know that?" Wow

    It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    >>And there we are. You are, of course, wrong.

    How do you know that? Of course its provisional right? So you don't actually know that. Notice the absurdness of your claims yet? No? Moving on.

    >>I've conceded many times that an omnipotent entity could grant you omniscience in order for you to have certainty.

    Great. We love progress.

    >>Are you claiming omniscience?

    The avenue to one, yes. You? Oh that is right, you don't know, its provisional. BTW, how do you know that an omnipotent entity could grant you omniscience in order for you to have certainty? Moving on.

    >>If so a demonstration is in order.

    Sure, God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. This is due to the impossible to the contrary, as you readily admit.

    >>I ask again, without having perfect knowledge how can you be certain of the source and veracity of the claimed revelation?

    Right back atcha. In order to have certainty, i.e. knowledge, there must be a avenue to, or source of, omniscience as we both agree. God the revealed source. Your turn, how can you be certain of your knowledge sources?

    A,B, and C can be addressed with said Divine source of all knowledge. God cannot go against his own nature. His nature is what sets us with knowledge of right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, etc. Since murder and lying is wrong, as we all KNOW, then THAT comes from the nature of God.

    >>How can anything less than the granting of omniscience lead to actual, honest-to-goodness, 100% certainty on your part?

    Right back atcha. Do you feel you MUST have total omniscience to know anything? IF so, how did you come to this KNOWLEDGE? Your very claim is evidence for omniscience.

    >>Well so far I haven't needed one as you've not even come close to demonstrating that such an avenue exists, let alone demonstrating that you've actually taken this avenue and found said certainty at the end of it.

    *plays record...Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  56. D.A.N., enough with the presup nonsense - everyone on here thinks it's bullshit, so you're wasting your time with it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Alex,

    Is everyone tired of Argumentum ad populum too? Wasting time is a relative term. I still think souls are not merely waste. Although Atheists are wasting theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  58. D.A.N., really, stop it, it's boring (and I mean REALLY fucking boring) and convinces no-one.

    As for 'argumentum ad populum'...it's only a fallacy if it isn't true - prove to me that it isn't, find a single non-believer on here who wants to hear more about the TAG.

    ReplyDelete
  59. D.A.N

    Maybe I'm wrong here, but I guess the only reason you consider Oxford to be "an obscure dictionary" is because it shows a definition of atheism you don't agree with.

    I also consider Thesaurus and merriam-webster to be obscure dictionaries, but not because the definition they use for atheism, but because I never heard of them before.

    The only ones I know are the Oxford, Houaiss, Aurelio e Michaelis (these last three are Portuguese dictionaries, so it doesn’t concern you).

    You always say we are denying your god’s existence. People have to believe in something/or know that something exists in the first place in order to deny it. I’m not denying Odin’s existence by not believing him, the same way you are not denying Odin’s existence by not believing in him.

    Since I don’t believe in any supernatural/divine entities and I don’t know they exist, I’m not denying them.

    You say we are refusing to see god’s existence. If you KNOW your god exists, so prove it without giving links of your own blog (which I refuted before), without turning to the bible or giving viciously reasoning, without mentioning you personal experiences and so called revelations and without mentioning other people’s personal experiences and so called revelations, again.

    You think the reason why we don’t believe in your god (or in own words, deny the existence or refuse to see he exists) is because we want to continue to sin. Sure, the reason why decided not to believe in a god is because I want to continue my reckless life style, by doing a huge amount of drugs and being a bisexual whore, etc. (insert sarcasm here).

    Also because believing in a god (yours in particular) and being accountable to him has been very effective at keeping priests from raping children; from a religious nutjob at killing a 4 year old boy for having gay behavior (???), from some evangelical pastors taking advantage of emotionally/psychologically and sometimes physically fragile people by taking their hard-earned money to finance their pompous life-style instead of using that money to make improvements in the houses where the cults are performed in order to guarantee the safety of their followers (which didn’t happen, since 2 houses collapsed during the cults killing dozens of people and leaving some of the followers seriously injured); etc.

    Believing in a god doesn’t keep you from considering justifiable threatening your own kids of death by stoning in case they disobey you and it sure doesn’t keep you from considering genocide to be acceptable and justifiable when it’s about killing those who don’t believe in your god, right?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Alex,

    >>D.A.N., enough with the presup nonsense - everyone on here thinks it's bullshit, so you're wasting your time with it.

    You may not like the presuppositional argument, but please tell me how you know that your reasoning about anything, let alone presuppositional argumentation, is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Michelle,

    >>Maybe I'm wrong here, but I guess the only reason you consider Oxford to be "an obscure dictionary" is because it shows a definition of atheism you don't agree with.

    *sigh No because it does not agree with ANY other dictionary or source available. I even checked some of the student dictionaries available. Your bias is obvious. You know this Oxford being the ONLY, English, one you're using.

    As far as your rant, thanks for revealing your contempt for God. Creation fell when Adam fell, therefore sin, so to speak, killed creation. As a result, we live in an imperfect world, with the effects of sin running through it.

    Now if you want to blame God for giving us free will, you have something valid. Does not make any sense though. Because its that free will that allows you to complain, gripe, and blame.

    ReplyDelete
  62. D.A.N,

    >> No because it does not agree with ANY other dictionary or source available.

    No, D.A.N; it’s because is not the definition you agree with.

    There are Portuguese dictionaries who have exactly the same definition of Oxford’s by saying is atheism “is a lack of belief in gods”. You just chose to ignore and “attack” the dictionary itself calling it “obscure” because Oxford has a definition of atheism which opposes your viewpoint.

    It’s what you always do; it doesn’t matter how much you ignore facts/reality/definitions of the words and change them or cherry pick to suit yourself; it doesn’t matter if you bury your head in the sand or cover your ears and go out running shouting “LALALALA I can’t hear you”; reality, etymology, dictionaries, historical facts, whatever; are not going to change just because they oppose your viewpoint, opinions and religious creed. It’s you who have to adapt to them, not the other way around.

    You use the dictionaries whose definitions agree with your viewpoint about atheism. All I did was to show a dictionary with an extra definition for atheism. If you don’t agree with it, well…fuck it; it’s your problem, not Oxford’s. Oxford is not going to bend and change the definition of atheism mentioned in it to fit your agenda in order please you and your remarkable ignorance/intellectual dishonesty.

    >> Where is the contempt for god? Just because I compared a mythological creature with another mythological creature?

    >> Now if you want to blame God for giving us free will, you have something valid. Does not make any sense though. Because its that free will that allows you to complain, gripe, and blame.

    You see? There’s one thing about free will in christianity. If your god exists, he gives us free will for everything; including the free will to disobey him, to sin and even for some people to doubt his existence due the lack of evidence (considering he doesn’t show himself to everybody as you claim he does; because if you god shows himself to everyone, including non believers and those who believe in different gods; he’s doing a lousy job because millions of people around the world and myself didn’t get the memo, lol…but I digress).

    So, if he gives us free will even to doubt his existence, he can’t punish everyone for eternal torture in hell. But that’s what your god does. So, your god is giving us enough rope in order to hang us and that means one thing: the god you believe in is nothing more than a sadist who gets off with people suffering, being tortured and dying horrible/violent deaths.

    The proof of that is exactly in the myth of Adam and Eve. Your god is all-knowing.
    Since he’s omniscient, he knew a talking snake would appear to Eve and convince her to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge; he also knew Eve would offer the forbidden fruit to Adam and that Adam would eat it. Why he didn’t do anything to stop it?

    Besides, if your god knew Adam and Eve would give in to temptation, why he put the fucking tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden in the first place? If your god didn’t want mankind to have knowledge (because, if they did they would be like god and then – of course – eventually, mankind wouldn’t need him anymore and considering your god has big insecurity issues) it would be easy: just don’t put the tree in the Garden of Eden. Period. But, no! Your god did it knowing exactly what would happen, since he’s omniscient. And he did nothing to stop it because he likes to punish people for his own amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  63. link

    My comment is too long, tbh. Please check the link for Pt One of three or four posts I will be making about this page over the next few days.

    ReplyDelete
  64. >>You may not like the presuppositional argument, but please tell me how you know that your reasoning about anything, let alone presuppositional argumentation, is valid?

    Look. we've already shown you it's nothing but a word game that proves nothing. You've not answered my question - name a SINGLE non-believer who wants to hear more about the TAG.

    If you can't then you have to admit that no fallacy was committed

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dan:

         I can't speak for Alex. But I don't like Presuppositional Baloney because it is, at base, a lie. As one must use reason to account for anything, it is inappropriate to ask anyone to "account for his reasoning."

    ReplyDelete
  66. Mhich:

         The definition you want to insist on for the definition of "atheist" was deliberately invented to prevent it being simple to make general statements about atheists (the correct definition which implies a belief that gods do not exist.) It serves to transform it into a useless "catch-all" category. It just goes to show that Dan and his fellows don't hold a monopoly on dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Pvblivs,

    How come I am being dishonest? In anyway I dismissed the definitions about atheism D.A.N put here in order to fit in my opinions (like D.A.N does). All I did was to give an alternate definition of atheism mentioned in Oxford's dictionary. That's it. I even showed the etymology of the word (found in a book of etymology I borrowed from the public library), which is:

    - Atheism comes from the word atheos.
    The prefix a means: no, absence, lack of.
    The suffix theos means god.

    So, the term atheos means: no god; lack of god; absence of god. Therefore, atheism means the lack of belief in gods(according to the book I read). That's it.

    I even went to Thesaurus and merrian-webster and they indeed have those definitions of atheism and disbelief D.A.N showed. I don’t agree with the definition of atheism mentioned in these 2 dictionaries, but that’s my personal opinion. I don’t try to ignore it or even criticize the dictionaries just because I don’t agree with them, just like D.A.N did.

    But D.A.N chose to ignore it and even criticize the dictionary itself because the alternate definition of atheism doesn't agree with his viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Pvblivs,

    Besides D.A.N doesn't seem to make up his mind about it. All those definitions of atheism D.A.N posted: "the doctrine or belief that there is no god."; "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."; "belief that no God exists" and the alternate definition I brought "lack of belief in gods", the definition of atheism sums up with "no gods.

    And yet D.A.N says atheism is a religion when me (and some other person who commented on one of his previous posts) showed him religion is a doctrine which revolves around the belief in a supernatural/divine entity (ies) and the followers showing loyalty, obedience, commitment,etc, to supernatural/divine entity(ies) through religious rituals and ceremonies. D.A.N completely dismissed it because it goes against the distorted idea he has about what atheism is. Then he putting all those definitions about atheism opposes the view he has on atheism.

    I even said to him - for argument's sake - atheists worshipped a god called "self" (as he claims we do) atheism still wouldn't be a religion because "self" - by definition - is not a supernatural/divine entity.

    I guess D.A.N didn’t realize those definitions of atheism he posted in order of trying to show "atheists know his god is real but yet we deny/refuse to follow him because we don’t want to be accountable to his god” proved his own argument to be wrong when he says atheism is a religion.

    If I'm dishonest, D.A.N is way more dishonest than me because he ignores, changes, cherry pick, manipulate facts in order to fit in his viewpoint and he refuses any opposing argument that shows how wrong he is.

    I - on the other hand - might not agree with something (which is my right) but at least I don't try to bend facts in order to fit in my ideas/opinions/ideology. I just show alternate explanations in case of having one (or more than one) instead of making things up.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pvb,

    >>As one must use reason to account for anything, it is inappropriate to ask anyone to "account for his reasoning."

    Are you certain that one must use reason to account for anything? If so, how are you certain of this? Did you use your reasoning to test your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

    Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity. Wheee.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Pvb,

    >>The definition you want to insist on for the definition of "atheist" was deliberately invented to prevent it being simple to make general statements about atheists (the correct definition which implies a belief that gods do not exist.) It serves to transform it into a useless "catch-all" category.

    Yea Michelle, take that! Preach it brother!

    >>It just goes to show that Dan and his fellows don't hold a monopoly on dishonesty.

    Yea, you heard the man...no wait...what?

    ReplyDelete
  71. So, D.A.N., do you admit that no fallacy was committed?

    ReplyDelete
  72. D.A.N,

    (it's Mhich)

    All I did was to give an alternate definition of atheism found on a dictionary and showed to you - also using etymology - atheism can be defined as "lack of belief in gods", which is the definition I agree but I didn't dismiss the other definitions, I just don't agree with them (which is my right and personal opinion).

    At least I don't manipulate facts like you do to better suit myself like you did in that article about people refusing to fly with atheist ads; I wasn't the one who said Reynold values the life of child rapist instead of the child's and the he hates war veterans where he said that in nowhere; I wasn't the one who "confused" making a rapist pay for his crimes in jail with monetary setlement even after I told dozens of times it wasn't what I meant to say; I'm not the one who contradicts/ignores the definitions of atheism (that you brought up here) and religion by saying "atheism is a religion.". (read the comment I left to Pvblivs to see what I'm talking about

    If I'm dishonest, you are way more dishonest than me, because you lie to your teeth and refuse to accept it even when people catch you lying (by dodging the issue, by saying you didn't lie, by trying to divert people's attention by saying "how lying is wrong in your worldview" bullshit)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dan:

         I do not claim to test my reasoning. Indeed, I said that it was an unreasonable expectation on your part. But even if I had, that would make my position (in your words) "circular but not viciously circular." It is your position that is viciously circular.

    Mhich:

         I do not dispute that Dan is more dishonest than you. I only stated that he and his fellows do not have a monopoly on that dishonesty. If you really think that that is somehow defending Dan....

    ReplyDelete
  74.      Incidentally, Buddhism is generally considered to be a religion and yet worships no supernatural entities. If I remember correctly, Buddhists are atheists in that they believe there is no god.

    ReplyDelete
  75. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Pvblivs,

    (It's Mhich)

    I am not being dishonest by showing an alternate definition for atheism; it’s not something I made it up; it was a definition I found on a online dictionary (and also on portuguese dictionaries) and in an etymology book.

    Buddhism is considered to be an atheist religion, yet atheism itself is not a religion like D.A.N says it is because it doesn’t fit the criteria necessary to be considered one.

    ReplyDelete
  77. D.A.N. said...

    freddies_dead ,

    >>You do realise that simply repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true? Do you have anything to demonstrate the truth of your claim?

    Sure the Bible says plenty, its one of God's revelations and just some of the evidence that you are earnestly requiring. Remember assuming the Bible is not evidence for God...well you know the drill.

    I do know the drill, just remember that assuming the Bible is evidence for God simply because you believe God exists is also begging the question but I guess the chances of you answering that criticism are no better than you answering any of the other criticisms I have raised.

    >>Please backup this assertion with a reasoned argument.

    How about your claims, yourself. You say the ONLY way of knowing something, or anything, is through that omniscient thingy. OK I agree. We agree entirely on that part.

    It's not my claim Dan, that's your claim. I've asked you to answer a criticism of that claim i.e. that what follows logically is that you cannot actually be certain of the source or veracity of any claimed revelation without being omniscient yourself. Do you have an answer for that criticism?

    Its my account for such knowledge that we get it from that omniscient thingy.

    And I've asked you to demonstrate how. So far you've avoided the question and simply repeated your claim.

    How do YOU account for any knowledge?

    Experience. Observation. Inquiry. Evidence.

    >>I haven't made any claim to certainty. My knowledge is provisional and subject to change pending new information.

    How do you KNOW that?

    Experience. Observation. Inquiry. Evidence.

    So you don't know ANYTHING.

    I 'know' plenty of stuff. There's a lot more I freely admit to now 'knowing'.

    You can NEVER KNOW the pending new information, even or more importantly, you cannot even KNOW if your knowledge is provisional.

    Of course I can, you just seem to insist that use of the word 'know' == 'absolue certainty' which is, of course, not how it is generally used.

    know Verb
    1. Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. (this is the definition I am thinking of when I use the word).

    That knowledge, in itself, may be provisional. BTW, the claim "My knowledge is provisional" is a asserted claim that you have YET to back up with evidence. YET you accuse me of doing that very same thing. Irony meter is peaking.

    The claim is backed by observation and experience Dan. So far you've done nothing to back up your claim of divine revelation. When pressed on it you simply ask me if God couldn't reveal something such that you could be certain as if that's an answer.

    >>I wouldn't want to base my entire worldview on an infinite regress of revelations either

    But you would base said worldview on an infinite regress of "and how do you know that?" Wow

    Wow indeed, that only works if we take 'know' as == 'absolutely certain' which I have already shown isn't necessarily true.

    It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    >>And there we are. You are, of course, wrong.

    How do you know that?

    Because I know what I believe, so unless you are omniscient and can be absolutely certain that I am wrong (i.e. I'm mistaken or lying) then my statement, "I do not believe God exists", makes your claim, "It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.", incorrect.

    Of course its provisional right?

    Yes, you may yet answer the criticisms of your position or demonstrate that you're actually omniscient. I don't mind which one you go for.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  78. cont'd...

    So you don't actually know that.

    What? I can't know currently because there's a chance of it being shown to be otherwise in the future? That's absurd Dan.

    Notice the absurdness of your claims yet? No?

    Damned right no. Nothing I have claimed has yet been shown to be absurd, despite the linguistic gymnastics you're performing.

    Moving on.

    Without answering the criticisms of your position... what a shocker.

    >>I've conceded many times that an omnipotent entity could grant you omniscience in order for you to have certainty.

    Great. We love progress.

    If only you'd reciprocate...

    >>Are you claiming omniscience?

    The avenue to one, yes.

    So 'no' then. Is it so difficult to answer the question honestly?

    You? Oh that is right, you don't know, its provisional.

    And now you've resorted to jibberish. How do I know what? And what does it's provisionality have to do with anything? I'm asking you to demonstrate this route to omniscience. If you could do that, then your argument would be so much more convincing. I simply don't understand why you keep refusing to show everyone.

    BTW, how do you know that an omnipotent entity could grant you omniscience in order for you to have certainty? Moving on.

    It appears to be a logically valid argument Dan:
    1. Omniscience would allow you to have certainty
    2. Omnipotence would include the ability to grant omniscience
    Therefore an omnipotent entity would be able to grant you omniscience so you could be certain.

    Which bit do you disagree with?

    Also, am I not supposed to notice that you don't actually answer the criticism here? Care to try any time soom?

    >>If so a demonstration is in order.

    Sure, God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

    Repeating your claim is a demonstration of the truth of your claim? And you claim that your worldview isn't viciously circular, lol.

    This is due to the impossible to the contrary,

    Lol, the fabled "impossibility of the contrary", care to show this in principle Dan? Or will you resort to asking me for an alternative because you are unable to form an argument that supports your assertion?

    as you readily admit.

    Eh? Admit what? And where?

    >>I ask again, without having perfect knowledge how can you be certain of the source and veracity of the claimed revelation?

    Right back atcha.

    I do not know Dan, that is why I'm asking you.

    In order to have certainty, i.e. knowledge, there must be a avenue to, or source of, omniscience as we both agree.

    We don't agree Dan. It is your position, not mine. I have accepted, for the sake of argument, that certainty requires omniscience, but, when you accept that claim, a logical consequence is that it then requires you to be every bit as omniscient as the claimed source of revelation. Otherwise you cannot be certain that the revelation is a) from the actual claimed source, and b) truthful. You don't claim to be omniscient so your claim appears to boil down to "I have an omniscient friend, who told me he was omniscient and he says ". You then can't/won't explain how you can be certain of this claim.

    God the revealed source.

    According to you He also revealed that He was God and that He has all these attributes that we should accept. I'm still waiting for you to show how you can be certain of the truth of these claims.

    Your turn, how can you be certain of your knowledge sources?

    And we're back to where I have to say again that I don't claim to be certain. But of course it's not my certainty that's important here, it's yours and so far your argument to backup your claim to certainty is distinctly lacking.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  79. cont'd...

    A,B, and C can be addressed with said Divine source of all knowledge. God cannot go against his own nature. His nature is what sets us with knowledge of right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, etc. Since murder and lying is wrong, as we all KNOW, then THAT comes from the nature of God.

    Except of course that it's your claim that God revealed these things to you. So God told you He's God, He also told you He's the fount of all knowledge and that He could't lie. How do you back up your claim? Well, so far, all you've done is question my ability to know things and repeat your claim.

    >>How can anything less than the granting of omniscience lead to actual, honest-to-goodness, 100% certainty on your part?

    Right back atcha.

    I do not know Dan, that is why I'm asking you.

    Do you feel you MUST have total omniscience to know anything?

    That's your claim Dan - "The only way to know anything for certain is by divine Revelation from God" - are you now changing your mind? You don't need omniscience to be certain? Great for me, not so much for you.

    IF so, how did you come to this KNOWLEDGE? Your very claim is evidence for omniscience.

    There is no claim on my part Dan, despite you trying to make out there is.

    >>Well so far I haven't needed one as you've not even come close to demonstrating that such an avenue exists, let alone demonstrating that you've actually taken this avenue and found said certainty at the end of it.

    *plays record...Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.

    And yet I have given an account for knowledge - experience, inquiry, observation - and we can go back over the threads so that I can continue to 'know' that you haven't yet answered any of my questions.

    Your attempts to dodge the questions truly are pathetic Dan, it seems as if you realise the error in your claim but simply can't bring yourself to admit it and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Ayn Rand pointed out that the base level for human experience is what we sense, our sight, touch, hearing, etc...to try and argue that we can't trust this experience is a philosophical dead end. If we are to accept that reality, as we sense it, is what reality actually is, then we can build our knowledge and experience from there. There is no 'infinite regress' in a materialistic view.

    We have no reason to doubt that what we sense is real, so we have that baseline we need to build everything else on. No gods needed.

    ReplyDelete
  81. freddies_dead,

    >>I do know the drill, just remember that assuming the Bible is evidence for God simply because you believe God exists is also begging the question but I guess the chances of you answering that criticism are no better than you answering any of the other criticisms I have raised.

    The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proves itself internally. Its NOT an assumption. Your viewpoint IS.

    >>I've asked you to answer a criticism of that claim i.e. that what follows logically is that you cannot actually be certain of the source or veracity of any claimed revelation without being omniscient yourself. Do you have an answer for that criticism?

    If the ONLY way to knowledge is through omniscience then we agree. The thing you are disregarding is the avenue to that knowledge, to have knowledge, and that is an omnipotent God. God, being omnipotent, can reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Knowledge. To say otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty.

    >>And I've asked you to demonstrate how.

    You are asking the exact process that God gives us knowledge? How would I know that unless God gave us that knowledge? I certainly do not KNOW HOW Jesus was raised from the grave. I just KNOW that he did. The process how is quite irrelevant, don't you agree?

    >>Experience. Observation. Inquiry. Evidence.

    Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance. The problem is the unbeliever has no justification for saying the future will be like the past.

    >>Of course I can, you just seem to insist that use of the word 'know' == 'absolue certainty' which is, of course, not how it is generally used.

    O'rly? I am begining to really suspect this Oxford Dictionary that every Atheist is referencing to show their points. It seems to be UNLIKE any normal dictionary on the planet. I checked all my college dictionaries. I even checked my "Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English language" 1975, from the English language of America, Inc., which you would have to admit is no slouch in definitions of words. Its a thorough Dictionary. It says the same thing:

    knowledge (n)--the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

    know (v)--1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty. 2. To be cognizant or aware of.

    Knowledge, is certain by definition.

    If the ONE dictionary you are using, and referencing to, is an ANOMALY, why would you use it to make a point? It SHOWS your intellectual dishonesty. I verified it with OTHER sources, why WON'T you?

    Something is telling me this is a very important point I am making here. I would like to here what you have to say about it.

    To be Cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  82. freddies dead cont'd,

    >>What? I can't know currently because there's a chance of it being shown to be otherwise in the future? That's absurd Dan.

    As you claimed, you cannot be certain of, know, anything because evidence may reveal in the future that falsifies your current knowledge. You have NO way of knowing otherwise. That is why science makes no claims, BTW. If that is absurd to you then you're not even following the basic tenants of the scientific method in your claim of knowledge. The thingy you adhere to most. Now THAT is absurd.

    >>I'm asking you to demonstrate this route to omniscience.

    Route? I do not understand the question. Do you believe we do not have access to an omniscient, omnipotent being? It does not follow to make any sense.

    >>Therefore an omnipotent entity would be able to grant you omniscience so you could be certain.

    OK we agree. There are CERTAIN THINGS that we have omniscience about, like His existence, that was granted to us by an omnipotent being. Great.

    >> a logical consequence is that it then requires you to be every bit as omniscient as the claimed source of revelation.

    No that does not follow either. Yet, notice that you are making even THIS knowledge claim. A Omnipotent being can grant you knowledge to some things to His discretion. It would be issued in small parts especially after the fact Eve tried to botch the whole thing up, as she did. It follows that God did not grant us complete omniscience but to knowledge that we can be certain about, like His existence. It logically follows.

    Note that I bolded the “some things", because if He revealed ALL things then we would be omniscient. No need for us to have such omniscience. Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.

    >>And we're back to where I have to say again that I don't claim to be certain.

    Are you certain that you don't claim to be certain? If so, how are you certain?

    You see the absurdness yet?

    >>That's your claim Dan -

    It CERTAINLY is not.

    >>"The only way to know anything for certain is by divine Revelation from God" - are you now changing your mind?

    Yes God reveals "some things" to us that we can be certain about. Some things.

    >>You don't need omniscience to be certain? Great for me, not so much for you.

    You do need the AVENUE to omniscience, to KNOW anything. Otherwise you cannot know. Right?

    >>There is no claim on my part Dan, despite you trying to make out there is.

    So you don't know, if you know. Great. Now as to your Atheism? You don't know if God exists? Great, so is this your public announcement to Agnosticism?

    >>experience, inquiry, observation

    How do you KNOW for certain, this is the avenue to know things? Wheeee

    ReplyDelete
  83. Alex,

    >>Ayn Rand pointed out that the base level for human experience is what we sense, our sight, touch, hearing, etc...to try and argue that we can't trust this experience is a philosophical dead end.

    How do you know this though? Is all KNOWLEDGE by the senses? If so, how do you know this? Did you use your senses to know your senses are the avenue to knowledge? If so its viciously circular. Problem is Alex, you use your reasoning and senses to test your reasoning and senses which is viciously circular.

    With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid. A person with invalid reasoning could easily say the exact same things as you. "I sense my senses and reasoning are the avenue to knowledge. " But since his reasoning is invalid, he would obviously be wrong.

    "The laws of logic also cannot merely be descriptions of how the human mind works because then we would not need laws to correct faulty human thinking. ~Lisle J (2009) The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 54.

    "[I]f we are products of mechanistic and impersonal natural forces in a closed system, then our thoughts and rules of reasoning are also parts of that system. Any check against false conclusions would still be a part of the system which produced the false conclusions." ~Henry W. Middle | March 1st, 2010 | The Foundation of Logic in the Nature of God

    ReplyDelete
  84. D.A.N., we compare our experiences against others, this is pretty basic stuff.

    Jog on with your TAG rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Here's something for you D.A.N. - supply evidence that what I experience isn't reality.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  87. cont'd...

    The problem is the unbeliever has no justification for saying the future will be like the past.

    Continued experience confirms past success and gives me plenty of reason to think the future will continue to be like the past. Where's the believer's justification? After all, you believe a being capable of changing anything and everything, in an instant a) exists and b) has His own plan which you aren't intimately aware of. What's to stop your God from simply making 'blue' into 'red' and 'hot' into '73' for His own glory? Cue Bible quote, and the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God...

    O'rly?

    Yes rly.

    I am begining to really suspect this Oxford Dictionary that every Atheist is referencing to show their points.

    The definition I gave, that I use when referring to 'knowing', was from dictionary.com.

    It seems to be UNLIKE any normal dictionary on the planet. I checked all my college dictionaries. I even checked my "Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English language" 1975, from the English language of America, Inc., which you would have to admit is no slouch in definitions of words. Its a thorough Dictionary. It says the same thing:

    knowledge (n)--the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

    know (v)--1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty. 2. To be cognizant or aware of.

    Knowledge, is certain by definition.


    Except, of course, that there are other sources that disagree:

    dictionary.reference.com lists 8 defintions which have no need for certainty

    1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
    2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
    3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
    5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
    6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
    7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
    8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
    9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.

    and only 1 that does - the one that matches your defintion earlier:

    4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

    If the ONE dictionary you are using, and referencing to, is an ANOMALY, why would you use it to make a point? It SHOWS your intellectual dishonesty. I verified it with OTHER sources, why WON'T you?

    As demonstrated I'm not using an obscure dictionary to make a point so your accusation of intellectual dishonesty is unfounded. As for your claim of verification, it seems you need to try harder in future.

    As you claimed, you cannot be certain of, know, anything because evidence may reveal in the future that falsifies your current knowledge.

    And here you conflate 'know' with 'be certain of' when you know full well that I'm not using it in the same way. I've never made a claim to certainty, you have, and I'm trying to get you to back it up.

    You have NO way of knowing otherwise.

    If you could demonstrate that there is another way then I would. Go on Dan, give it a go for once.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  88. Apologies for the reposting but it missed a part in the middle...

    ReplyDelete
  89. D.A.N. said...

    freddies_dead,

    The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proves itself internally. Its NOT an assumption. Your viewpoint IS.


    Lol, viciously circular. Using the Bible to prove the Bible after first assuming that the Bible's claim to be true is indeed true.

    If the ONLY way to knowledge is through omniscience then we agree.

    No, I'm asking you to first confirm and then demonstrate your position. Are you saying that the only way you can know anything is through omniscience? If so, how can you know if you're not omniscient? I'm asking you to answer the criticisms raised by the logical implications of your stated position.

    The thing you are disregarding is the avenue to that knowledge, to have knowledge, and that is an omnipotent God.

    I haven't disregarded your avenue, I've asked you to demonstrate the truth of your claim ... so far I'm still waiting.

    God, being omnipotent, can reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Knowledge.

    And here we are, back round to you simply repeating your claim. How Dan? How can God reveal things such that you can be certain? If you don't know how He could do it, how do you know that He has? If you aren't omniscient yourself, how do you know the knowledge you claim has been revealed was a) actually revealed, b) revealed by God and c) actually true?

    To say otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty.

    I have already conceded a means by which an omnipotent entity could give you certainty - by granting you omnscience. You seem to be unable/unwilling to tell us how you can be certain without being omniscient.

    You are asking the exact process that God gives us knowledge?

    Pretty much, yes.

    How would I know that unless God gave us that knowledge?

    So I ask again, if you don't know how, then how do you know it's happened?

    I certainly do not KNOW HOW Jesus was raised from the grave.

    I'm not interested in the detail of the knowledge here, rather the means by which you get the knowledge in the first place

    I just KNOW that he did.

    How? You aren't omniscient, so how do you know the true source and veracity of the knowledge you claim to be absolutely certain about? There are gaps in your knowledge Dan (a logical implication of not being omniscient) stuff you simply don't know. Do you not see how there's a possibility that the true source and veracity of the claimed revelation could be part of the knowledge you don't have?

    The process how is quite irrelevant, don't you agree?

    Of course it's relevant Dan. If you don't know how it happens, how do you know it has happened?

    Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular.

    Nope, subsequent experience confirms the past success of reasoning removing the circularity. Not that denying the usefulness of reasoning helps your case Dan, you to have to first perceive and then reason about the knowledge you claim to have had revealed to you otherwise you wouldn't be able to determine if any knowledge had actually been revealed.

    Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

    I don't assume that Dan, it's a logical implication of reality - you first perceive through personal experience and then use reason to determine the content and meaning of the experience.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  90. cont'd...

    The problem is the unbeliever has no justification for saying the future will be like the past.

    Continued experience confirms past success and gives me plenty of reason to think the future will continue to be like the past. Where's the believer's justification? After all, you believe a being capable of changing anything and everything, in an instant a) exists and b) has His own plan which you aren't intimately aware of. What's to stop your God from simply making 'blue' into 'red' and 'hot' into '73' for His own glory? Cue Bible quote, and the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God...

    O'rly?

    Yes rly.

    I am begining to really suspect this Oxford Dictionary that every Atheist is referencing to show their points.

    The definition I gave, that I use when referring to 'knowing', was from dictionary.com.

    It seems to be UNLIKE any normal dictionary on the planet. I checked all my college dictionaries. I even checked my "Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English language" 1975, from the English language of America, Inc., which you would have to admit is no slouch in definitions of words. Its a thorough Dictionary. It says the same thing:

    knowledge (n)--the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

    know (v)--1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty. 2. To be cognizant or aware of.

    Knowledge, is certain by definition.


    Except, of course, that there are other sources that disagree:

    dictionary.reference.com lists 8 defintions which have no need for certainty

    1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
    2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
    3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
    5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
    6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
    7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
    8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
    9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.

    and only 1 that does - the one that matches your defintion earlier:

    4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

    If the ONE dictionary you are using, and referencing to, is an ANOMALY, why would you use it to make a point? It SHOWS your intellectual dishonesty. I verified it with OTHER sources, why WON'T you?

    As demonstrated I'm not using an obscure dictionary to make a point so your accusation of intellectual dishonesty is unfounded. As for your claim of verification, it seems you need to try harder in future.

    As you claimed, you cannot be certain of, know, anything because evidence may reveal in the future that falsifies your current knowledge.

    And here you conflate 'know' with 'be certain of' when you know full well that I'm not using it in the same way. I've never made a claim to certainty, you have, and I'm trying to get you to back it up.

    You have NO way of knowing otherwise.

    If you could demonstrate that there is another way then I would. Go on Dan, give it a go for once.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  91. cont'd...

    That is why science makes no claims, BTW. If that is absurd to you then you're not even following the basic tenants of the scientific method in your claim of knowledge. The thingy you adhere to most. Now THAT is absurd.

    The only absurdity here is your statement above. It makes no sense. I base my knowing something on, experience, observation, inquiry and evidence and you suggest that I'm not following the tenets of the scientific method? Which bit is not using the scientific method? I observe and experience something which allows me to formulate a hypothesis, predict something and then test it to see if it falsifies my provisional conclusion.

    Route? I do not understand the question.

    It was your claim to have an "avenue to omniscience" if you don't understand your own claim how can we hope you can explain how you came by it?

    Do you believe we do not have access to an omniscient, omnipotent being?

    And now you've resorted to linguistic gymnastics again. My whole point is that I do not claim to know. You have made the claim that one exists and furthermore has revealed things to you such that you are certain of them. I've asked you to back up these assertions with a coherent argument and so far you've done nothing but go round in circles and questioned my ability to know things when it's your ability that needs to be justified here.

    It does not follow to make any sense.

    Er, wut?

    OK we agree. There are CERTAIN THINGS that we have omniscience about, like His existence, that was granted to us by an omnipotent being. Great.

    Wtf? You can be omniscient about certain things but not others? Are you really making that claim? That's ... just ... nope, I've never seen a single defintion of omniscience such that you don't have either all knowledge (total omniscience) or, at the very least the ability to know anything you choose to know (inherent omniscience). Are you perhaps claiming to be inherently omniscient? If so a demonstration is in order.

    No that does not follow either.

    It follows from your claim that you require omniscience to be certain. You try and sidestep the logical implication by claiming an avenue to omniscience but the question is how do you know that you have access to omniscience without being omniscient yourself? I'm guessing God told you.

    Yet, notice that you are making even THIS knowledge claim.

    It's not a knowledge claim on my part, it's a logical consequence of your claim. Either show where it's possible for you to know with certainty when you aren't omniscient or concede the point.

    A Omnipotent being can grant you knowledge to some things to His discretion.

    How would you know this had happened?

    It would be issued in small parts especially after the fact Eve tried to botch the whole thing up, as she did.

    ROFLCOPTER, we can't cope with the big picture because we might fuck things up again? Except if we knew the big picture we wouldn't be able to fuck it up because then it wouldn't be the big picture.

    It follows that God did not grant us complete omniscience but to knowledge that we can be certain about, like His existence.

    How can you be certain of the source and veracity of the claimed revelation when you can't compare it to the set of total knowledge?

    It logically follows.

    It doesn't. This isn't really about God's abilities, it's about yours. I can even grant you the existence of your God for the sake of argument and it still doesn't get you any closer to demonstrating that you can have certainty without being omniscient yourself.

    Note that I bolded the “some things", because if He revealed ALL things then we would be omniscient.

    And certain.

    No need for us to have such omniscience.

    There appears to be if you're going to claim certainty based on divine revelation.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  92. cont'd...

    Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.

    In other words you're happy to make that leap of faith.

    Are you certain that you don't claim to be certain? If so, how are you certain?

    You see the absurdness yet?


    I see the absurdity of your little word games. It doesn't help you get any closer to making a coherent argument for your own claims of course.

    It CERTAINLY is not.

    Great. So, as I don't need to be omniscient to be certain, then I'm certain that you're wrong.

    Yes God reveals "some things" to us that we can be certain about. Some things.

    Lol, how are you certain of that? Did God tell you He was God and that whatever He told you was true? How do you know it was God Dan? Did He tell you he really, really was God? How do you know it wasn't a trickster God? A powerful being capable of implanting knowledge in your brain? A brain fart after some particularly strong cheese? How are you certain when you do not have total knowledge to compare the claims?

    You do need the AVENUE to omniscience, to KNOW anything. Otherwise you cannot know. Right?

    I'm asking you to explain this very claim Dan. Are you going to try at any point?

    So you don't know, if you know. Great.

    What is this gibberish? I pointed out that I didn't make a claim, as you had falsely accused me of making one, and this is supposed to be a valid response?

    Now as to your Atheism? You don't know if God exists? Great, so is this your public announcement to Agnosticism?

    I've made the statement several times on this blog in the past. I consider myself an agnostic atheist. As far as I am aware the two words are not mutually exclusive and they address two concepts - (a)theism concerns belief (or lack of it) in God(s) whilst (a)gnosticism deals with whether you know (or can know) of God(s) existence. I do not believe that God(s) exist but I do not claim to know for certain.

    How do you KNOW for certain, this is the avenue to know things? Wheeee

    And, as I've pointed out many times, I don't claim to. It is your claim that you are certain and I've asked over and over for you to demonstrate the truth of your claim. Are you going to? Or are you going to continue to dodge the questions? Question my ability to know things when it's your ability that counts? And simply repeat your claims as if this makes them somehow true?

    ReplyDelete
  93. f_d - D.A.N. is utterly incapable of telling the truth, or even answering a question without first citing his ludicrous TAG nonsense.

    I'm reaching the point where I think it's impossible to discuss anything with a man who repeatedly dodges answering.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Alex B said...

    f_d - D.A.N. is utterly incapable of telling the truth, or even answering a question without first citing his ludicrous TAG nonsense.

    I have seen Dan concede points before. Admittedly that was mostly before Sye turned up and Dan turned all presupp on us.

    I'm reaching the point where I think it's impossible to discuss anything with a man who repeatedly dodges answering.

    It may seem a fruitless task but tbh it's less about Dan as it is about people who might be reading and wondering about the questions. If I can show them the dishonesty and flaws inherent in the TAG argument then maybe they can move on to question their beliefs in a more honest manner.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Freddies dead,

    >>If I can show them the dishonesty and flaws inherent in the TAG argument then maybe they can move on to question their beliefs in a more honest manner.

    Thanks for giving evidence that Atheism is NOT a lack Of belief, but an agenda and dogma.

    Without disappointing, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  96. SHUT THE FUCKING FUCK UP ABOUT THE FUCKING TAG, FOR FUCKSAKE!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  97. You may not like the presuppositional argument, but please tell me how you know that your reasoning about anything, let alone presuppositional argumentation, is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  98. My goodness D.A.N! Stop dancing around it and answer the damned questions (if you have any answer that is)!

    ReplyDelete
  99. To Dan:

    You first. As I've pointed out before; you needed your senses to read and to hear the so-called "word of god" before you could even make up your mind to believe it or not.

    Your continual asking us if we think that "god could have revealed things to us such that we could be certain that we could know it" is meaningless until you answer and show how he did it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  100. D.A.N. said...

    Freddies dead,

    >>If I can show them the dishonesty and flaws inherent in the TAG argument then maybe they can move on to question their beliefs in a more honest manner.

    Thanks for giving evidence that Atheism is NOT a lack Of belief, but an agenda and dogma.

    Lol, that's evidence of MY agenda, nothing to do with atheism. In fact I've seen Christians asking proponents of TAG similar questions to my own.

    Without disappointing, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    As Reynold said, you first. Then explain how YOU can be certain of the source and veracity of the revelations you claim to have received when you're not omniscient yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  101. >>As Reynold said, you first.

    While the Christ the Word, is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for truths that are absolute, immaterial, universals like the laws of logic and reason.

    P1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as being in the military.
    P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination that I was in the military.
    P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine that I was in the military.
    C. Therefore I was in the military.
    QED

    Keep in mind that it is not at all my claim that your reasoning is faulty, I simply want to know your basis for assuming that it isn't. This is the crust of the questions here.

    Now, your turn.

    If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn't, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial. The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God. You are presupposing your reasoning is valid. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?

    Also, another problem is the unbeliever has no justification for saying the future will be like the past. The Christians would say that we have a sovereign God who controls the universe who allows us to do science and such.

    Do you wake up in the morning and assume that logic has changed? Of course not, so what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?

    The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  102. "If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as being in the military."

    This is great, eye exams and hearing exams are useless, because God tells you if your senses work. I guess if you ever have Alzheimer's there's no need for a doctor to diagnose it, God will instantly inform you that your memory is no longer completely reliable, correct Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  103. The Christian would say, "we have a sovereign God who can change any laws of physics on a whim, and perform miracles. No past experience or observation is useful, because God can simply change how the universe works. Its impossible to make any useful predictions if an omnipotent God exists."

    ReplyDelete
  104. "If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn't, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial."

    The color red is also immaterial, but for some reason nobody uses the universality of color as an argument for God. If you add red paint to blue paint you get purple paint. If you add a group of 2 apples to a group of 2 apples you get 4 apples. These are just observable and repeatable consequences of combining objects with certain properties. 2 by itself is nothing just as red by itself is nothing, they only exist as descriptions of other objects and groups.

    Just to be clear your argument is, "Objects and groups have properties, therefore God."

    ReplyDelete
  105. Also I'm a little confused about the argument about what sources to use to define these things. One of Dan's own sources refutes his argument.

    "atheism
    noun

    Definition: belief that no God exists
    Synonyms: disbelief, doubt, freethinking, godlessness, heresy, iconoclasm, impiety, infidelity, irreligion, irreverence, nihilism, nonbelief, paganism, skepticism, unbelief

    Antonyms: belief, godliness, piety, religion"

    For those of you not fluent in English, antonyms are words with opposite meanings. You'll notice Atheism is the opposite of Religion, as its listed as an antonym. I guess you'll just have to stop saying it is a religion now.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Max,

    >>You'll notice Atheism is the opposite of Religion, as its listed as an antonym. I guess you'll just have to stop saying it is a religion now.

    Erm um...Oh yea well, no you are!

    ...Yes, I concede that it says that. Good job.

    For the moment, off the top of my head, to save face here, antonyms do not DEFINE a word they are used as an example to understand the definition itself.

    Antonyms build on words or phrases that people already know. Its a lexical semantic.

    For example, if you say the word "gay" I could use as the antonyms: depressed, discouraged, sad, unhappy, upset, worried...colorless, dull, lifeless, plain, uncolorful

    And they all would be true. But that is when all the time you were looking for the word/antonym heterosexual, or straight. Its this narrow linguistic semantics instead of the general understood word that we are getting in trouble with.

    Lets look at the word "religion" if I am looking for what it means, I could use the Synonyms: cult, myth, mythology superstition.(I am sure most Atheists here do) But that does directly take away the entire definition of the word itself, belief in divinity; system of beliefs. It connotes a real distance to the actual definition. So definitions yes, synonyms and antonyms? Meh.

    Touché though. Well played.

    Where is my script? :7)

    Oh here it is, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  107. So, lacking evidence, the presupper as usual has to resort to his classic dodging....How the hell do you know, Dan, that your reasoning about anything is valid?

    Remember, you have to take into account that you already had to have use of and trusted your senses in order for you to have read the bible or heard someone speak of your god in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Wait! I take back the Touché, it may very well be an Equivocation Fallacy to claim "I guess you'll just have to stop saying it is a religion now." since Max was "glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time."

    You almost had me. Reason won though.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Since we're having fun with numbers and how "universal" they are, please feel free to tell me what you think the answer to 10 - 1 is. I'll help you out by making it multiple choice, so is it:

    a) 9
    b) 7
    c) F
    d) 1
    e) 0

    ReplyDelete
  110. D.A.N. said...

    >>As Reynold said, you first.

    While the Christ the Word, is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for truths that are absolute, immaterial, universals like the laws of logic and reason.

    I have, of course, asked you to give a law of logic and show that it is absolute, still waiting...

    P1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as being in the military.
    P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination that I was in the military.
    P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine that I was in the military.
    C. Therefore I was in the military.
    QED


    Premise 2 is the one I keep asking you to support. How do YOU know for certain that the revelation was a) from God and b) true. After all, you're not omniscient and until you've had chance to perceive and underastand the revelation you can't even trust the senses you use to perceive and understand the revelation.

    Keep in mind that it is not at all my claim that your reasoning is faulty, I simply want to know your basis for assuming that it isn't. This is the crust of the questions here.

    Now, your turn.


    I've told you my basis, experience.

    If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn't, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial.

    Incorrect, the number 2 is conceptual, it first requires a conciousness in order to have coherence. It's not absolute, no coinciousness would mean no concepts concieved. It also isn't necessarily universal, consider an intelligence that works in binary - zeroes and ones - the number 2 is actually 10. So 2 as a conceptual representation doesn't exist. Similarly, imagine an intelligence that uses a completely different symbol to represent the concept we know as '2'.

    The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God.

    You haven't demonstrated that universal things exist yet and you've been asked to account for a theory of concepts within a worldview that presupposes a being that has no need for them. As for immaterial, I'm not even sure that's valid either - concepts are the result of activity in the very material brain.

    You are presupposing your reasoning is valid.

    No, I'm concluding my reasoning is valid based on experience.

    How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?

    Concepts are simply the means by which we group items with similar characteristics to make it easier to communicate. Imagine if you had to describe, down to the last atom, everything you wanted to discuss with someone. Ridiculous, so instead we look at the characteristics and come up with a concept that represents a generalisation - "ball", "table", "house", "man" etc...

    Also, another problem is the unbeliever has no justification for saying the future will be like the past.

    We do, you just don't like that experience tells us that the future has been like the past every time we've experienced it.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  111. cont'd...

    The Christians would say that we have a sovereign God who controls the universe who allows us to do science and such.

    You would, of course you've yet to demonstrate that such a being exists and then there's the whole bit where the description of your God means He's a) capable of changing anything and everything whenever He chooses and b) He has a plan that you're not privvy too, meaning He could change it tomorrow and you wouldn't know it was going to happen.

    Do you wake up in the morning and assume that logic has changed?

    Well, this all depends on your definition of logic. The discipline has changed over time, to include such concepts as paraconsistency etc... but if we simply take it to mean the 3 standard laws (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) then I've got over 39 years of experience of it not changing.

    Of course not, so what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed?

    Over 39 years experince which suggests quite strongly that it's right to think that it's not going to change tomorrow.

    How would you know if logic changed if it had?

    Predictions made using the old system which you would expect to happen as predicted, wouldn't. You could compare the old experience with the new experience and recognise that they are different. Subsequent experiences would confirm the conclusion that logic had changed.

    Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?

    Logic is the description used to represent those observations. The fact that those laws could then be applied retroactively to experiences only reinforces that it's a good description.

    The laws of logic are universal,

    I've asked you to demonstrate this in principle

    how can an atheist know anything to be universally true?

    I do not know. I keep asking you how you know, but you've so far failed to demonstrate your claim.

    The laws of logic are invariant,

    And I've asked you to show this in principle too.

    how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe?

    They wouldn't appear to which is why I keep asking you to demonstrate that such things exist.

    The laws of logic are not made of matter,

    They were formulated by very material people.

    how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?

    Demonstrate that such things exist first Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I must say I am going through a great deal of clarity today.

    You see, I have been trying to show you the truth so that you can repent, but I was wrong, you will not be able to see the truth UNTIL you repent. Huge difference.

    Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26

    I am failing all of you, and God. I was NOT being Biblical. God revealed to me that I was wrong today. I understand now. I repent.

    ReplyDelete
  113. So you say that you're failing us because you're not advocating enough circular reasoning??

    Fuck, if we're not given evidence you're not going to convince us. You're going further in the wrong direction.

    ReplyDelete
  114. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Dan really likes presuppositional apologetics because it's a useful way of putting people on the defensive.

    Notice, however, that Dan himself refuses to live/behave as if PA were true. If logic is a trait of the Christian deity, Troo Chrisjuns would liken being illogical to blasphemy, and would probably study the field extensively.

    Instead, we have people like Dan who throw around claims of fallacies in the process of committing them. And they do it with no care for whether it imperil's their mortal souls or not.

    Presuppositional apologetics is simply a way to kill conversation. You all know it. Dan certainly knows it, and that's why he clings to it. It's the only line of defense he's got.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Dan:

         Did you knowledge that you were being unbiblical come before or after your repentance of it? I, of course, do not dispute your assertion that it is unbiblical. I only point out that truth is unbliblical. Knowledge alway comes before repentance because no one repents of something unless he knows of a reason why he should.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Pvb,

    >> Did you knowledge that you were being unbiblical come before or after your repentance of it?

    Wow, you're paying attention alright. I thought of that myself.

    My repentance came before. Something spoke to me, after listening to a debate, and I stopped. The comment was really for the DA group in Facebook. It was getting too hostile and I stopped it all. (but it related here too) THEN, I read 2 Timothy 2:24-26 again and realized I made the right choice...again.

    I also reflected that my original repentance was long ago though, and that is when I became a Christian. My knowledge increased a great deal back then. These things along the way, were part of my sanctification process, which is a lifetime of what I would say as, adjustments and corrections.

    I am surprised that someone noticed that point though. Some of you do have game.

    ReplyDelete
  118. wow, that is a pretty dishonest attempt at re-defining a term. In philosophy we call that a "strawman" attack. That is where you re-define your opponent's position and then attack your definition rather than you opponent's actual position.

    Here is a link to how the term is actually defined and why.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Dan
    While the Christ the Word, is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable...
    What was this "special revelation" and how can you perceive it if not with your senses? After all, you needed that "revelation" before you could trust your senses.

    And how did you get along in this world before this revelation? Where you not able to trust your senses then?

    ... and can account for truths that are absolute, immaterial, universals like the laws of logic and reason.
    What do the laws of logic have to do with your god? Care to desribe how your god is necessary for the rules of logic, given that the greeks had them before the first xians went over there?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Reynold,

    >>What was this "special revelation" and how can you perceive it if not with your senses?

    One was the Bible and the second was His existence to know that we can trust our senses.

    >>After all, you needed that "revelation" before you could trust your senses.

    Right! That is why its denial to say there is no God. You would not be able to come to that denial with out Him and His revelation about your reason and Him.

    >>And how did you get along in this world before this revelation? Where you not able to trust your senses then?

    Before existence? My conscience has been with me for a while now. Sorry, I do not remember exactly when I was aware of mine. Taken it for granted does not negate its existence though.

    >> Care to desribe how your god is necessary for the rules of logic, given that the greeks had them before the first xians went over there?

    Greeks did not exist before consciences, silly. Remember the requirement is God, not necessarily Christ. It is a human thingy, not a Christian thingy. Unless its your claim that Atheists do not have a conscience. Even how compelling of an argument that would be in light of some here, I would still argue against it. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  121. Dan quoting me:

    What was this "special revelation" and how can you perceive it if not with your senses?

    One was the Bible and the second was His existence to know that we can trust our senses.
    Dan...how can you perceive the bible in the first place, if not with your senses?? Good grief.

    And "god's existence"? Again, how can you perceive him if not with your senses? Didn't you have to read the bible first to be convinced that your god was the one that actually existed?

    After all, you needed that "revelation" before you could trust your senses.
    Right! That is why its denial to say there is no God. You would not be able to come to that denial with out Him and His revelation about your reason and Him.
    Ah, no. We come to that "denial" because there's no evidence of him existing...failed prophecies, etc and all that....Another problem is, Dan...you just said that this "revelation" was the bible, which you need your senses to read in the first place!!!

    As for "god's existence", where did you find that out? If it's the bible, then again, you needed your senses to find out about this "revelation" in the first place. If "god" revealed himself to you outside of the bible, kindly explain just how, and how it was able to be done without you having to rely on your senses.


    And how did you get along in this world before this revelation? Where you not able to trust your senses then?
    Before existence? My conscience has been with me for a while now. Sorry, I do not remember exactly when I was aware of mine. Taken it for granted does not negate its existence though.

    I think you're confusing "consciences" with "consciousness".

    So, are you saying that your sense of "right and wrong" (which is something that has to be bloody taught in the first damned place) is what's responsible for allowing you to trust your senses? Even though you can't remember that relationship being established in the first place??

    Care to explain just how that works?

    Have you any evidence at all that your god is the basis for logic, as opposed to logic being a set of rules/observations that people have devised to help explain the world around them? "Logic" are ideas, not physical things that need to be "created".

    ReplyDelete
  122. Reynold: I think you're confusing "consciences" with "consciousness".

    I used to get those words mixed up when I was a little kid, due in no small part to my religious education. The way they talk about conscience you'd think it was the petty much the same thing consciousness. But I did get the two words sorted out before I went to high school.



    So Dan if God tells you you can trust your senses, there's no need for eye exams or hearing exams, because God will instantly tell you your senses are failing, correct Dan? If you start suffering from hallucinations there's no need to see medical professionals to diagnose it, because God will tell you instantly, correct Dan? If you suffer from Alzheimer's God will tell you that your memory is failing, correct Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Atheism is a lack of belief in super human gods. The belief of atheists comes into play with what they DO believe about the nature of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Todd,

    >>Atheism is a lack of belief in super human gods.

    Appeal to popularity much? Fortunately, that is not how its defined, as shown. Your appeal, or claim, does not change the facts. I understand though, but that is a popular misconception of Atheists.

    Ostriches are like that too. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  125. Todd made no appeal to popularity there.

    ReplyDelete
  126. This is very simple. Someone who believes that God/s does not exist - Call these people strong atheists.

    Someone who says they have an absence of belief in God/s. - Call these people weak atheists.

    Or just let them call themselves what they want to call themselves and play along.

    For instance, if someone were to debate with me on the existence of God and refer to themselves as an atheist, I would declare that they need to also provide an argument for why their position is true. If they said they didn't have a position and that they were just merely lacking belief, I would argue with them as I would an agnostic(even though they call themselves atheist)

    In other words, the whole arguing over the meaning of the word takes up too much time. The person I debate could be a white person who says that he is not white, but a pickle. Ok, so I am debating a white guy who thinks he is a pickle. Whatev. At the end of the day, the theists position is going to be more reasonable and warranted. So they can at least have the satisfaction of redefining atheism to mean something else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reasonable and warranted? Ahahaha no, you can believe what you want about anything, but believing in a 2000 year old book that tells you that a supernatural being created the earth in 7 days, gave us the free will to sin, then killed his son to save us from those sins that he let us have and then resurrected him so he could fly up in the sky is most certainly not a reasonable opinion. That is the talk of the mentally ill, chap.

      Delete
    2. >>That is the talk of the mentally ill, chap.

      How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?

      Delete
  127. "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true." Is a contradiction.
    Inability means unable to accept, no ability to believe, which means one can't refuse because refuse means there is a choice to not to believe. Choose to believe means one has the ability to believe, so to choose to not believe means one can reject the belief because you don't want to believe something that is true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. False. Word definitions are contextual silly. How ironic you're possibly refusing to believe that. What you're intentionally, or intellectually have an inability of doing (see what I did there?), is missing the point that there are many definitions for a word. Such as this case. So, by attempting to narrow the definition of a term, to one meaning, is futile. Refusal IS a definition for the word, and it fits here. Your point is moot.

      Delete
    2. If it stated "the inability AND refusal..." You might have a point. But it says "the inability OR refusal..." as in either or, not both. But how arrogant of you to say the dictionary is "wrong". But I guess that is to be expected from someone who worships the god of "self". :)

      Delete

  128. Let me try:

    A True Christian literally believes everything the Bible says, therefore, you think the world is flat, the punishment for raping an unmarried girl should be marriage since rape is a property crime not a violation of a human being, and also you hate your entire family.

    Did I completely alter your brain by looking up the definitions I like rather than check what you yourself actually believe?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>