It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by totallackey
And this is why it is important to agree on what constitutes "A," at the beginning. This is called shared contextual understanding. Once the shared context is agreed upon, there is no more changing of the horse midstream. It avoids the circle you find yourself in. I am merely trying to lead you out.
You are perfectly welcome to view things in grey, but this does not constitute atheism according to Oxford.
Funny but your the one that keeps going back to the meanings that I never agreed to.
I have no problem with that so lets look at what the Oxford dictionary says:
Definition of atheism noun [mass noun] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
A rather simple definition. I'm sure we can agree that beliefs can change so an atheist will only hold his disbelief until something convinces him that he is wrong.
Originally posted by totallackey
I am terribly sorry. I thought when you posted THIS:
I have no problem with that so lets look at what the Oxford dictionary says:
Definition of atheism noun [mass noun] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
A rather simple definition. I'm sure we can agree that beliefs can change so an atheist will only hold his disbelief until something convinces him that he is wrong.
you were AGREEING to utilize Oxford Dictionary as the baseline and authority for defining context. Forgive me for taking you at your word.
If you can demonstrate one time where I have misconstrued the terms "disbelief," or "atheist," outside of the definition provided by Oxford Dictionary, then I will retract all of my argument.
I did but, as I have already said, the Oxford dictionary does not claim that atheism as a "personal belief" must be fact-based, conform to scientific method, have a logical basis or anything else that you have used in your arguments.
I don't really care if you retract your argument or not since, I'm sure that my point is clear enough to anyone following the thread.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik
You do understand the atheist demands evidence for belief in a god or deity, correct? The reason they do this is because their supposed position of disbelief is based on the lack of factual evidence for a deity. Are you being purposefully obtuse? I already caught you in one lie. Are you continuing to lie?
If by the word, "point," you mean caught in a bald faced lie, then yes...it is clear to everyone...If by the word, "point," you mean in the corner with a cap on your head, then yes... it is clear to everyone...If by the word, "point," you have offered anything other than dishonest participation, then yes, that is clear also...
Originally posted by totallackey
The record here is clear enough. You were the one who offered to use Oxford Dictionary as the authority for defining terms. You then followed that up with a post stating you had never agreed to a definition.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik
And at any given point where I specifically utilized the Oxford, especially when I used it to define the word, "disbelief," you could have then issued your lack of agreement and spared us the ass hattery you are now attempting to engage in...
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
I think i get what your "opponent is arguing.,,..,
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
in order to be an atheist you must define the exact god you do not believe in,,, because agnostically you do not have proof as to whether a god created the universe.....
atheism is mainly born from the non belief in mans religious gods ( which have nothing to do with the potential of there truly being an intelligent creator responsible for the initiation of the universe),,, of course mans guesses are probably wrong we can all be atheists to zeus,,, but the problem of did a creator create this universe does not go away in my book once we eliminate earth is the center of the universe and zeus watches us from a mountain in the clouds,.,...,
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
Originally posted by miniatus
It's well understood, well not exactly, but understood at least.. that our thoughts, senses, emotions.. and everything that makes us "us" .. is driven by our brian.. that jello up in your skull.. it drives everything that we do and sometimes it malfunctions of course.. but it's the pilot and our bodies are the machine that it controls.
It's also firmly believed as fact by those of us that are science minded.. that when your brain ceases to function, you are no more.. fade to black.. existance is gone for you.. Well this is where I allowed myself to break out of my logic restraints ever so briefly and think... what if that isn't true? .. what if we really are some being of energy that is simply locked in our physical form? much like a cocoon for a butterfly, and what if it's not the mind that informs the body, but that energy that informs the mind merely to drive the body.. energy never goes away it merely transforms...
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
I understand your speaking for your self and you must understand that as well,,, because there are hard core ( dare i say extremist) atheists...
you can use that line to muslims and christians and whatever,,,, and its a nice zinger,,,, but mans religion has no effect on whether or not a creator created the universe..
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
ok then so we see that we agree to disagree but agree that we cant know the original cause of what we see?