So, when Dawkins said "there is almost certainly no god" (PLease don't be a Yank, we Brits always tend ot say thign slike almost certianly) he was just jshing?
I don't read Dawkins or really care about him, dude. I responded only to the quotation provided by you, which made no assertion about any gods but yours. And here you are once again, providing a quote that makes no absolute claim at all, and telling me to just ignore the part where he acknowledges a lack of certainty. Pretty weak sauce.
I'm sorry but, the very point of Dawkisn Ultimate 747 Argument was to counter Theism in general, not just "MY" god. Dawkins does say, on moe than one occassion, that no gods exist or that they are all fictional, and I can quote him.
Great, then do so. And what you will have proven is that Dawkins, one specific atheists, believes that there is no such thing as any kind of god. But since Dawkins does not speak for me, or for anyone else for that matter, it's kind of irrelevant.
That said, for a bloke who wants to get angry that I somehow tell him what he beleives, dn't you think its hypocrtival to tell me that there are loads of gods I see a Fctional? I know the drill, I'm a CHristain so I see all other gods as oure fiction, right? Well, no, I dont.
But thanks for tellign me what I beleive.
The Truth is, I think many cultures have different ways to connect to the same god, and other gods, liej the Olympains, were personificatiosn of natural forces. In terms of the latter, this is, in fact, how the Ancient Greeks or ROmans understood them. NNeptune wasn't simply the god of the Sea, he was the Sea. Hadese wasn't merley the god of the Underworld, eh was its personification. Athena was not merely the goddess of Wisdom, she was Wisdom incarnate. The reason the gods were immortal is because the forces of natue they embodied were indestructable.
In that sense, then, the gods of the Greeks an ROmans are understood as real to me, I just don't see thm as gods.
So you don't see them as gods. That means you regard the claim that they are gods as a fictional one.
I also see thigns like "The Great Spirit" of Natuve Americans to be simply their term for the same God.
But I don't dismiss other peopels gods as mere fiction.
No, you just dismiss them as wrong, either attributing godlike qualities to natural forces, or referring to
your god. You're splitting hairs in order to make it seem like we're doing the same thing. You have just stated that these "gods" are either
not gods, or are actually referring to a different god. That is no different from dismissing the claims as fictional, but by all means, cling to that belief all you like
However, you felt completley comfortable tellign me what I beleive, and yet are upset when I do the same.
I'm not upset. I just have no interest in debating with someone who insists on misrepresenting my position. I do not believe in any particular gods. Nor do I make a general claim that none exist. I
do believe that your god is fictional, but that is a far cry from asserting that there is no such thing as any god. It's a big universe. There is no reason to assume that there isn't one out there, but in the absence of all evidence I will go ahead and proceed as if there's not. I have no reason to alter my behavior on the off chance that a god exists someplace in the cosmos. What difference does it make?
The difference is, I have reason to belive he Rhetoric that is pesented to me by COntemporary Ateit such as yoruself is not enturley True. It's just a gagle fo rpeated slogans that don't add up, and they ar eincongruous with the actual arguments. If I am worng, then show me, but don't just tell me I'm wrogn and tss out definitiosn or tell me how I'm tellign you what you beleive. I'm calling it what I see it as, and have no Reasin to change my Mind.
Yes, you are wrong. The only person who gets to decide what I believe is me. The only person who decides what anyone believes is that person himself. And since you will not accept any person's account of what he himself believes unless that account jives with what you have already decided, then you're wrong. You have been shown. Every time an atheist makes a belief statement that you disagree with, you HAVE BEEN SHOWN.
We're done here. You cannot have a discussion without telling me what I believe and defining the terms of my beliefs for me. You're a dishonest person and, as I said at the beginning, there is no point having a conversation with you if you're going to keep doing that. I have allowed ample opportunity for you to demonstrate any ability to do otherwise.
I am the sod-off shotgun.
reply
share
ZAROVE
10 years ago
You're trying way too hard ot maintain the status quo of the Arygkents you roefer.
When I say I sometiems see other peopels Deities as just thir exoression of the same god, soemhow I'm sayign tey are wrng. WHen I say soetiems the gods of old were personificatiosn of naturalforces, I'm still sayign their gods are fictional. Meanwhile, youhave the Right toi tell me what I beleive and what I'm saying, but heaven frbid I do the same for you.
This is really simple. I don't beleive that Atheism is a mere lack of beleif in gods ebcause that's not only not how the word is acually deined, but also because it makes no sense o define it that way. I also don't buy into the insistence that Atheism is a lakc of beeif because those who insist on it generlaly argue that gods din't exist. It's splittign hairs mroe to tll me that someen is saign "My" god doesnt exist but doenst say all gods dn't exist then it is for me to say itherwise, and frankly, its shallow of you.
We both know that popel can claim things that arent True and that peopel can get caught up in stock arguments and proaganda, I just realise that Atheists are liek that tooin rtegards to Atheism.
No, I'm not sayign all Athusts are alike, but lets face Reality, you haven't really even tried to convicne me I'm wrong, somuch as youve ust decided ot attack aythgi I say.
reply
share
hadmatter
10 years ago
I don't need to convince you that you are wrong, because all the evidence is in my favor, meaning that nothing will convince you. The only truth that matters regarding another person's belief is what that person claims to believe, and how they express that belief. Your refusal to accept an individual's personal testimony is not an argument, dude, it's just denial.
The idea of simply lacking a belief in something does not make sense to you. Fine. But that is merely your own shortcoming, and does not actually undermine the entire concept. You seem to fall short when it comes to the relatively simple idea of being unconvinced. If someone is unconvinced by evidence that has been presented, it does not mean that they are forced to pick a side anyway. They are completely within their rights to remain on the fence. To lack belief one way or the other.
The idea of gods is utterly unconvincing. But I certainly cannot claim absolute knowledge of the universe. I do not discount the possibility of gods as a concept because there may well be evidence out there. Somewhere. That neither I nor anyone else has ever encountered.
And there are plenty of people who feel the same way. But you discount them because you don't share their point of view.
All you have shown me is that some claim that there are no gods. You have not shown me why I should feel obliged to take that same position just because somebody else does.
You have also shown me that when an atheist makes the claim that your god doesn't exist, you someone extrapolate from that a claim that no gods exist. That is dishonest.
This is really simple. I don't beleive that Atheism is a mere lack of beleif in gods ebcause that's not only not how the word is acually deined
No. There are multiple definitions, because people who call themselves "atheists" are not all the same. You have chosen to only acknowledge
one definition, another example of your dishonesty.
but also because it makes no sense o define it that way
to you.
Obviously, many disagree, which is why you are forced to make this claim over and over again.
I also don't buy into the insistence that Atheism is a lakc of beeif because those who insist on it generlaly argue that gods din't exist
Even if this were true and unassailable, you yourself have been forced to add "generally" because
you know that it is not true of all who make this claim.It's splittign hairs mroe to tll me that someen is saign "My" god doesnt exist but doenst say all gods dn't exist then it is for me to say itherwise, and frankly, its shallow of you.
It is
accurate of me. When someone says that they believe
your god is fictional, it
makes no claim about the veracity of any other god. I can believe in Bigfoot but not the Loch Ness Monster. They are both cryptozoological animals, but some people still believe in one but not the other.
I am the sod-off shotgun.
reply
share