Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheism (or godlessness) connotes and denotes reflexively to God. It is a bit ironical that by doing so it affirms that Brhman exists, exists everywhere, and there is no place it does not exist, even in the minds of the Godless. Atheism cannot exist without the belief in God, in Brhman, in “something else out there. “ Every argument atheists make refers to god and religion. Their obsession with religion and god is endless, deeper than a believer’s.
Yes language can denote actively against something. Against wars. Because wars exist. Against capital punishment because murder by state exists. Against love, because love exists. Against god, because god exists.
You still know nothing about atheists or atheism. Every post of yours telling us about what atheism means shows a willful ignorance or straight out bigotry.
Atheism does not mean against God. Same as ammoral does not mean against morals. Or assexual does not mean against sex.
Therefore you claim that atheists believe in a God and that atheism proves that God exist is simply a combination of wishful thinking and your own willful ignorance.
If most of what you learnt about atheists is from posters on this forum that shows that you are not here to learn but only to preach and lecture.
Read the sticky about the definitions for atheism and agnosticism. Atheists are not posting what Hindu means and believes as you are in a far greater position to explain it than we are. Not sure why someone who claims to not know many atheists thinks it is their role to describe atheists and atheism to atheists. Stop pretending to be an expert in subjects you know little about
Atheism (or godlessness) connotes and denotes reflexively to God. It is a bit ironical that by doing so it affirms that Brhman exists, exists everywhere, and there is no place it does not exist, even in the minds of the Godless. Atheism cannot exist without the belief in God, in Brhman, in “something else out there. “ Every argument atheists make refers to god and religion. Their obsession with religion and god is endless, deeper than a believer’s.
Yes language can denote actively against something. Against wars. Because wars exist. Against capital punishment because murder by state exists. Against love, because love exists. Against god, because god exists.
That's just plain dumb.
Our position is that god does not exist and then we explain why we feel that way.
I disagree. Cb aint perfect and I don't agree with a lot of what he says. But I am atheist that understands atheism. I don't understand how some atheist think this "war" on religion has a place in this site, I guess I can agree to that. Or that this place is therapy. I definitely understand that.
We have fundy think type atheism here. They do not want to listen either.
"I don't know" is fine for a hundred or so posts. But 10's thousands over years? But at some point we have to step up. You don't have to offer a counter claim. Then don't.
Otherwise this is simple. In a belief forum. Not a political one.
The belief in something more is more reliable than the reverse".
starting at "stop religion" and using that as the base for a line logic is not reliable.
ignoring how to unpack beliefs because they don't help an agenda or start to look like they don't support your views/agenda is deceitful. In this site.
Atheism (or godlessness) connotes and denotes reflexively to God. It is a bit ironical that by doing so it affirms that Brhman exists, exists everywhere, and there is no place it does not exist, even in the minds of the Godless. Atheism cannot exist without the belief in God, in Brhman, in “something else out there. “ Every argument atheists make refers to god and religion. Their obsession with religion and god is endless, deeper than a believer’s.
Yes language can denote actively against something. Against wars. Because wars exist. Against capital punishment because murder by state exists. Against love, because love exists. Against god, because god exists.
Brhman may mean exists or exists everywhere, but the denotation of God is more defined. I understand the effort behind trying to equate Brhman to God because there seems to be a relationship, but me pointing out the difference is not the behavior of an atheist.
Denotation informs of the base word. Connotation means other meanings associated with that word that can have negative or positive associations. Those would be today's use of the word. For example, spirituality has a different sense than spirit and even religion. I won't deny that atheism has a negative connotation. How that came about would be of interest to me.
Atheism (or godlessness) connotes and denotes reflexively to God.
Gods, plural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
It is a bit ironical that by doing so it affirms that Brhman exists, exists everywhere, and there is no place it does not exist, even in the minds of the Godless.
Non sequiturs are irrational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Atheism cannot exist without the belief in God, in Brhman, in “something else out there. “ Every argument atheists make refers to god and religion.
Of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Their obsession with religion and god is endless, deeper than a believer’s.
No, once I log off here, I rarely think of religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Yes language can denote actively against something. Against wars. Because wars exist. Against capital punishment because murder by state exists. Against love, because love exists. Against god, because god exists.
Against anything that does not exist, therefore it exists. Against lies, therefore lies are truth.
I disagree. Cb aint perfect and I don't agree with a lot of what he says. But I am atheist that understands atheism. I don't understand how some atheist think this "war" on religion has a place in this site, I guess I can agree to that. Or that this place is therapy. I definitely understand that.
We have fundy think type atheism here. They do not want to listen either.
"I don't know" is fine for a hundred or so posts. But 10's thousands over years? But at some point we have to step up. You don't have to offer a counter claim. Then don't.
Otherwise this is simple. In a belief forum. Not a political one.
The belief in something more is more reliable than the reverse".
starting at "stop religion" and using that as the base for a line logic is not reliable.
ignoring how to unpack beliefs because they don't help an agenda or start to look like they don't support your views/agenda is deceitful. In this site.
Are there actually militant anti God anti religion atheists on this site or are they just an excuse for you to post your regular meaningless rant?
And you are correct that this is not a political forum however you too seem to slip a political rant where you can. An example stating about overtaxed societiest
Brhman may mean exists or exists everywhere, but the denotation of God is more defined. I understand the effort behind trying to equate Brhman to God because there seems to be a relationship, but me pointing out the difference is not the behavior of an atheist.
Denotation informs of the base word. Connotation means other meanings associated with that word that can have negative or positive associations. Those would be today's use of the word. For example, spirituality has a different sense than spirit and even religion. I won't deny that atheism has a negative connotation. How that came about would be of interest to me.
Clarification : I am not trying to equate Brhman and God. God is an English word for a Creator of the universe. Brahman does not create, it is existence. There may or may not be a relationship but I don't know if this line of discussion has any relevance to atheism. At least I don't believe there is one.
If you saying atheism is against and denies God, and only God as in the dictionary we are having an entirely different conversation. (Actually many American atheists also a have pet aversion to Allah and Islam even if their knowledge of it is shallow) In that case Atheism denies only the western christian God. But God, the concept, still exists in different forms, names, religions, cultures all over the entire world.
In that case Atheism is even less logical if that is possible.
Clarification : I am not trying to equate Brhman and God. God is an English word for a Creator of the universe. Brahman does not create, it is existence. There may or may not be a relationship but I don't know if this line of discussion has any relevance to atheism. At least I don't believe there is one.
If you saying atheism is against and denies God, and only God as in the dictionary we are having an entirely different conversation. (Actually many American atheists also a have pet aversion to Allah and Islam even if their knowledge of it is shallow) In that case Atheism denies only the western christian God. But God, the concept, still exists in different forms, names, religions, cultures all over the entire world.
In that case Atheism is even less logical if that is possible.
Thank you for the clarification. It definitely helps. In that case, there really isn't any concept that I can think of that is against existence unless somebody wants to argue about the cycle of life or of natural processes that may have examples of non-existence.
I am not denying the negative connotation of the word "against" being applied in the context of theism and atheism. What I am referring to is atheism contrasting with theism. It is in the structure of the word.
Thank you for the clarification. It definitely helps. In that case, there really isn't any concept that I can think of that is against existence unless somebody wants to argue about the cycle of life or of natural processes that may have examples of non-existence.
I am not denying the negative connotation of the word "against" being applied in the context of theism and atheism. What I am referring to is atheism contrasting with theism. It is in the structure of the word.
I agree there is logic in the structure of language. Just no logic in what atheists are fighting against.
I agree there is logic in the structure of language. Just no logic in what atheists are fighting against.
And just what are atheists fighting against? Or for?
And imagine how you would react of I made a broad and inaccurate statement about Brown or Hindu or Asian people based on a number of internet interactions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
