does God exist in space?

Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
This is really straight forward, 'God' is a narrative many people use to help them get through life. No more, no less. :confused:

Is it?

That is a simple interpretation based on your assumed atheism, not a definitive conception of 'God'

And by your conception that God is a 'narrative', thus we can conclude that God is real.......or not as any 'narrative' can be factual or fictional in nature.

So ultimately your post is so ambivalent on the validity of a positive or negative conception as a basis for that 'narrative' as to be meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,950
Location
Bristol
The point is that God IS a narrative. Who cares if it's factual or fiction, that's irrelevant and impossible to ever prove. What we can say with certainty is that God is a narrative that many people use to help them get through life.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
The point is that God IS a narrative. Who cares if it's factual or fiction, that's irrelevant and impossible to ever prove. What we can say with certainty is that God is a narrative that many people use to help them get through life.

I quite agree, however you quoted me, which was in reference to another's claims regarding their being a definitive fictional basis to that narrative.

In fact on further thought, it is religion or more accurately the belief that is the narrative, rather than the conception of God itself.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Most good dictionaries?

I would have said "all", but I haven't checked every one. So I'll go through the ones that you have chosen as supposedly proving me, the OED, most atheists, etc, etc, wrong about what atheism is.


Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.


Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.


Agrees with me, not with you. They have reversed the order of the two possible meanings, but both meanings are still there.


Agrees with me, not with you. They're also using the reversed order and they've added a third meaning ("a godless person"), but the same point stands again - they don't agree with your position that there is only one possible meaning.


Agrees with you.


An unclear definition that is clearly wrong according to their own definition of "disbelief". Why are you citing that as an example of a good dictionary?

All seem to give the same definition and that includes the belief that God or a supreme being doesn't exist. [..]

They don't all give the same definition.

The fact that one of two or more definitions of a word exists does not prove that is the only possible meaning of the word. Many words can have more than one meaning - the existence of one does not negate the existence of the others. Including one meaning in the definitions does not exclude the other(s). You're familiar with English, so you must be aware of that fact.

Did you just assume I wouldn't check?

Some of them included in their definition of "atheist" all theists not of the Abrahamic religions. Which is accurate in the sense that some people think that way, but it's not what the word actually means.

It is possible for an atheist to believe in the non-existence of any and all gods.

It is not necessary for an atheist to do so and many don't.

In short, Agnosticism is not some kind of weakened atheism.

Why are you writing that in reply to me? Not only did I not make that claim, I explicitly stated what agnosticism is and that it is not limited to religion. It's a general approach to everything.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
I would have said "all", but I haven't checked every one. So I'll go through the ones that you have chosen as supposedly proving me, the OED, most atheists, etc, etc, wrong about what atheism is.



Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.



Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.



Agrees with me, not with you. They have reversed the order of the two possible meanings, but both meanings are still there.



Agrees with me, not with you. They're also using the reversed order and they've added a third meaning ("a godless person"), but the same point stands again - they don't agree with your position that there is only one possible meaning.



Agrees with you.



An unclear definition that is clearly wrong according to their own definition of "disbelief". Why are you citing that as an example of a good dictionary?



They don't all give the same definition.

The fact that one of two or more definitions of a word exists does not prove that is the only possible meaning of the word. Many words can have more than one meaning - the existence of one does not negate the existence of the others. Including one meaning in the definitions does not exclude the other(s). You're familiar with English, so you must be aware of that fact.

Did you just assume I wouldn't check?

Some of them included in their definition of "atheist" all theists not of the Abrahamic religions. Which is accurate in the sense that some people think that way, but it's not what the word actually means.

It is possible for an atheist to believe in the non-existence of any and all gods.

It is not necessary for an atheist to do so and many don't.



Why are you writing that in reply to me? Not only did I not make that claim, I explicitly stated what agnosticism is and that it is not limited to religion. It's a general approach to everything.

Did you read what I posted.....:confused:

I did not say there was one possible meaning, and ALL those links support my assertion that you were attempting to redefine atheism to include agnosticism. When they are distinct from each other.

Not one of those links states otherwise.

OED said:
atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

OED said:
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

two distinct definitions.




In fact they all contradict your erroneous etymology for the word Atheist as well.




Atheism is not Agnosticism and AcidHell2 is correct to point that out.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
16 Nov 2010
Posts
541
Location
Location: Location:
As far as i am aware God and the devil are said to exist based on our presence on earth but can they influence space?

If you die.in outer space can you be judged?

Yes God exists in space & yes you can be judged so put those porns to one side...I'm glad you asked this question here as we on here are all experts in the knowledges of the existence of god etc so can answer you wisely. & no....don't try & kill yerself for your god...you won't find any virgins...(in case the dark side ventures)
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I did not say there was one possible meaning,

Yes you did - belief in the non-existence of all gods.

and ALL those links support my assertion that you were attempting to redefine atheism to include agnosticism. When they are distinct from each other.
Atheism is not Agnosticism and AcidHell2 is correct to point that out.
I never claimed that atheism includes agnosticism and AcidHell2 did not point out that they're not the same. Only one of those links agrees with your redefinition of atheism and that just means it's wrong as well.

You posted links to 6 definitions that you claim prove your point when in fact 4 of them explicitly disprove it and 1 of them is unclear at best. I checked them. You got caught out. If you carry on claiming they say something else, I'll carry on pointing out that they don't.


You can't possibly think I'm trying to redefine atheism to include agnosticism when I'm not trying to redefine atheism (you are) and I have repeatedly explained the difference between atheism and agnosticism and that agnosticism has a much bigger scope (it's not just about religion). How can atheism include agnosticism when agnosticism is a different thing that covers a vastly bigger set of ideas?

Are you trying to troll me?

My etymology wasn't erroneous either - the 'a' in atheist is a prefix indicating a lack. It is not, as many people wrongly think, short for 'anti'.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Posts
4,878
Yes you did - belief in the non-existence of all gods.

Castiel is suspended so I'll pick up the baton.

No he didn't, he stated that Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same thing, at no point did he redefine anything

I never claimed that atheism includes agnosticism and AcidHell2 did not point out that they're not the same. Only one of those links agrees with your redefinition of atheism and that just means it's wrong as well.

You posted links to 6 definitions that you claim prove your point when in fact 4 of them explicitly disprove it and 1 of them is unclear at best. I checked them. You got caught out. If you carry on claiming they say something else, I'll carry on pointing out that they don't.

He posted links which defined atheism as meaning both, at no point did he say anything otherwise.

You claimed that Acidhell was wrong in pointing out agnosticism is not atheism and you are wrong as all those examples prove.


You can't possibly think I'm trying to redefine atheism to include agnosticism when I'm not trying to redefine atheism (you are) and I have repeatedly explained the difference between atheism and agnosticism and that agnosticism has a much bigger scope (it's not just about religion). How can atheism include agnosticism when agnosticism is a different thing that covers a vastly bigger set of ideas?

Then why did you state Acidhell was wrong to point that out?:confused:

Are you trying to troll me?

My etymology wasn't erroneous either - the 'a' in atheist is a prefix indicating a lack. It is not, as many people wrongly think, short for 'anti'.


Now in this you are most certainly wrong, I remember Dolph pointing this out many times.

The word Theist is derived from Atheist not the other way around. Atheist comes from the greek Atheos which means not God and is not as you state a prefix added to the word Theist. Theist didn't exist until at least a century after Atheism.

Castiel did not state it meant "anti" either.


I think you both have confused what the other was arguing about, it seems you think Castiel is arguing against a definition of Atheist when he is actually arguing against lumping in Agnostics with Atheists, and he thinks that you are arguing against a seperate definition of agnostic when you only has issue with the latter part of Acidhells post relating to his definition.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Castiel is suspended so I'll pick up the baton.

He posted links which defined atheism as meaning both, at no point did he say anything otherwise.

That is not true.

You claimed that Acidhell was wrong in pointing out agnosticism is not atheism

That is not true.

and you are wrong as all those examples prove.

That is not true.



I see no point in continuing. Please stick to things I've actually written.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I've seen more incorrect statements that annoy me, so I will go on.

The word Theist is derived from Atheist not the other way around.
Who's claiming it's the other way around? I didn't and I haven't seen anyone else doing so.

Atheist comes from the greek Atheos which means not God and is not as you state a prefix added to the word Theist. Theist didn't exist until at least a century after Atheism.
theos - gods
a - without/lacking/etc

atheos - without gods. You even state a roughly correct meaning yourself!

Castiel did not state it meant "anti" either.
He didn't and I didn't say he did.

He did state that it must always mean an explicitly and directly opposing position to theism, i.e. anti-theism. Some people who think that is true assume the eytmology follows their ideas about what the word means.

EDIT:

Hmm...actually, looking back he did at one point acknowledge the existence of atheists who did not fit the definition he was arguing in favour of.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Posts
4,878
That is not true.



That is not true.



That is not true.



I see no point in continuing. Please stick to things I've actually written.




That is extremely ironic considering that you are arguing against something he never said, and only you assumption of it.

He never stated a singular definition of Atheism, neither did he state it was simply anti-theism.

He did give an explanation and definition of Strong and Weak Atheism in his original post on the subject which clearly states otherwise, and indicates that you have obviously got the wrongvend of the stick here.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Posts
4,878
I've seen more incorrect statements that annoy me, so I will go on.

Why? You have already been shown that the positions both of you are arguing are confused and not the same.


Who's claiming it's the other way around? I didn't and I haven't seen anyone else doing so.

theos - gods
a - without/lacking/etc

atheos - without gods. You even state a roughly correct meaning yourself!

You originally stated this:

Angilion said:
"Atheism is simply a lack of theism. That's all the 'a' means."


My etymology wasn't erroneous either - the 'a' in atheist is a prefix indicating a lack. It is not, as many people wrongly think, short for 'anti'.

That is not strictly true, Theism is derived from Atheism, thus the 'a' is not a prefix to theist. It is derived from Atheos which is a singular word also meaning 'not god' or 'godless'.



He didn't and I didn't say he did.

It certainly sounds like you did.

He did state that it must always mean an explicitly and directly opposing position to theism, i.e. anti-theism. Some people who think that is true assume the eytmology follows their ideas about what the word means.


No he didn't:

But seriously, what you are saying is disingenuous, mainly because those who call themselves Atheists in the sense that they simply disbelieve are negative atheists, they do not make claims of falsehood they simply do not believe.

The majority of well known atheists fall into the Positive school of thought, where they hold the belief that God doesn't exist and denies that existence as factual.

That is what he said in his original post. He also gave references for everything in relation to that statement.


Hmm...actually, looking back he did at one point acknowledge the existence of atheists who did not fit the definition he was arguing in favour of.

That is because he wasn't arguing about that, but your contention that Acidhell was wrong about Agnosticism, hence this being posted in the original post he made also which clearly intimates that you are both arguing slightly different things which is causing some confusion.

In short, Agnosticism is not some kind of weakened atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical scepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.


I would suggest that it is not pertinent to continue a debate about 'who said what' when it is clear that both of you are confused over what each person is debating.
 
Back
Top Bottom