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.
OP's argument is much quicker as follows. "God" actually means "water". We all know water exists, therefore God exists.
That's the quick version of OP's not-quick non-proof.
Oh my.... Gldn old boy... in what way do you feel you've provided substantiated proof or definition of God? By using words of your own spiritual and self-extended definitions? By end-running the logical and accepted definitions of words?
Your proofs of God elude myself as well. Perhaps we are running in uniquely different circles of conceptual usage? Must be so; your definitions certainly do not provide any particularly high "coefficient of meaning" as far as I can see.
I'm thinking you've either inadvertently allowed yourself to be deflected by Christian shim-shammery, or you purposefully attempt to side-step the highly concise, yet valid arguments by Nozz here, whose simple one-liner statement very effectively sums up the concerns of most all curious and open-minded atheists.
To wit: No demonstrable evidence or repeatable "Proof" (as you re-define it here, one assumes...) of His existence, means, ergo, No God
I provided substantiated proof of the accurate, full, and complete definition of "G-O-D" rifle.
And based upon that definition...submit that there is that which exists that can logically, reasonably, and accurately, be called "G-O-D".
It wasn't my "own spiritual and self-extended definitions"...or "end-running the logical and accepted definitions of words". It was from the foremost expert source for the definition of words there is.
That expert definition showed that "G-O-D" is defined and conceptualized beyond just religious Deities...and is definitive of things that most certainly do exist.
If you don't feel that Merriam-Webster can provide a definition that has a "particularly high *coefficient of meaning*"...or that Nozz is more of an authority for defining words...that pretty much ends my end of the argument, except for my disagreement that Websters' definition isn't meritorious and/or doesn't reign.
I haven't been "deflected" by anything. Nozz hasn't put up any argument at all to my contention (and substantiated proof of that contention) that the full & complete definition of G-O-D goes beyond just Deities, and includes things that do unequivocally exist.
I agree with the Atheists that claim "No Deities"...but, not "No G-O-D". Based upon "G-O-D" being defined as beyond just religious Deities and inclusive of things that do, in fact, exist.
2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
There is nothing in here to make a distinction between a deity and a god. They are equivalent. In fact, they are defined to be the same. You have effectively contradicted yourself here.
So let's try again, since that failed. What word would you use? I argue that the common usage is perfectly good, because it is generally understood that the objection is not to metaphoric speech or figurative language, but to the belief in an actual extant god. It is this general usage that allows us to understand that, "I don't believe fairies exist." is not to say that the speaker does not believe that effeminate gay men exist. There are two meanings, one is rooted in metaphor, and the difference is generally clear in context.
Not what I said... I said a disbelief in definitions #1 and #2, not a belief in the nonexistence of deity.
But if we look up deity in your infallible word book, we get
[b]
There is nothing in here to make a distinction between a deity and a god. They are equivalent. In fact, they are defined to be the same. You have effectively contradicted yourself here.
So let's try again, since that failed. What word would you use? I argue that the common usage is perfectly good, because it is generally understood that the objection is not to metaphoric speech or figurative language, but to the belief in an actual extant god. It is this general usage that allows us to understand that, "I don't believe fairies exist." is not to say that the speaker does not believe that effeminate gay men exist. There are two meanings, one is rooted in metaphor, and the difference is generally clear in context.
-NoCapo
No, no contradiction. BUT!...I have been educated. And I thus change my position, based upon the knowledge I now have.
"D-E-I-T-Y" is defined (by the expert definer) to include: "one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful". Things that are exalted and revered as supremely good or powerful, most certainly exist. Thus: Deities most certainly exist.
I now submit: The Atheists cannot accurately claim that Deities and/or God don't exist. As proven and substantiated by the expert definitions of "D-E-I-T-Y" and "G-O-D".
No, no contradiction. BUT!...I have been educated. And I thus change my position, based upon the knowledge I now have.
"D-E-I-T-Y" is defined (by the expert definer) to include: "one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful". Things that are exalted and revered as supremely good or powerful, most certainly exist. Thus: Deities most certainly exist.
I now submit: The Atheists cannot accurately claim that Deities and/or God don't exist. As proven and substantiated by the expert definitions of "D-E-I-T-Y" and "G-O-D".
Thanx for the info NoCapo!
I must amend that.
~~The Atheists cannot claim that they are are accurate in their belief Deities and/or God don't exist~~
No, no contradiction. BUT!...I have been educated. And I thus change my position, based upon the knowledge I now have.
"D-E-I-T-Y" is defined (by the expert definer) to include: "one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful". Things that are exalted and revered as supremely good or powerful, most certainly exist. Thus: Deities most certainly exist.
I now submit: The Atheists cannot accurately claim that Deities and/or God don't exist. As proven and substantiated by the expert definitions of "D-E-I-T-Y" and "G-O-D".
Thanx for the info NoCapo!
So my question still stands... What word should be used, and why is it problematic to treat the words "god" and "deity" differently that we treat "wizard", "fairy", "magic", or "devil"?
Also, I question your absolute reliance on the "expert definer". You do realize that it is incomplete, changes over time, and has ideological biases, right? Words are mutable things, and treating the dictionary as prescriptive, rather than a descriptive guide to language is a pretty fundamental mistake. Ultimately words mean what we agree they mean, and the meanings can change. The point is not the semantics but the meaning. You know quite well by this point what us non-believer are trying to communicate, but you are clearly trying to avoid communication by sticking your dictionary in your ears and chanting, "Mirriam-Webster". you are free to do that, but it doesn't have any bearing on me or my lack of belief, it only reflect on you and your inability to actually discuss the underlying ideas in a meaningful way. As the old lawyer joke goes, "When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither are on your side, pound the table!"
So my question still stands... What word should be used, and why is it problematic to treat the words "god" and "deity" differently that we treat "wizard", "fairy", "magic", or "devil"?
Also, I question your absolute reliance on the "expert definer". You do realize that it is incomplete, changes over time, and has ideological biases, right? Words are mutable things, and treating the dictionary as prescriptive, rather than a descriptive guide to language is a pretty fundamental mistake. Ultimately words mean what we agree they mean, and the meanings can change. The point is not the semantics but the meaning. You know quite well by this point what us non-believer are trying to communicate, but you are clearly trying to avoid communication by sticking your dictionary in your ears and chanting, "Mirriam-Webster". you are free to do that, but it doesn't have any bearing on me or my lack of belief, it only reflect on you and your inability to actually discuss the underlying ideas in a meaningful way. As the old lawyer joke goes, "When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither are on your side, pound the table!"
-NoCapo
YOU may question my "expert definer"...but it works great for ME, as rain on your parade and/or sand down your collar!
You can still be "Atheist". A lot of people are wrong about lots of different things. Just part of the long list.
I agree with the Atheists that claim "No Deities"...but, not "No G-O-D". Based upon "G-O-D" being defined as beyond just religious Deities and inclusive of things that do, in fact, exist.
I've never heard an atheist say they don't believe that some humans, animals or even objects/concepts (such as money) are worshipped as if they are like a God.
No..."pound the [current] facts". It may be inconsistent...but it is what it is at this time.
A source that is inconsistent, based on a specific religious bias, and which is inherently descriptive, rather than prescriptive (meaning it describes how words are used, as opposed to defining how they should or must be used) probably shouldn't be referred to as a "fact"... I mean, it is a fact that Webster's current contains that description of the word and its uses, but that doesn't make the definitions "factual" (whatever that means), and it certainly doesn't mean that those definitions, used with no regard for allusion, metaphor, and context have anything to do with how the words are used to communicate.
So, yes I did mean "pound the table".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Okay...Hmmmmmmm...relative to the subject matter, and my core view on it: "NonBeliever" works for me.
Ok, at least we have some common verbage. I think it is a little funny, becasue I tend to use "Atheist" as I feel like nonbeliever is way less accurate. I mean, nonbeliever in what? If I hold it to the same standards that you seem to want to apply to "atheist", I would be lying unless I had no beliefs whatsoever! I have a lot of beliefs, just not the belief that gods (in the #1 and #2 sense) exist. Actually, this seems like a worse idea, because without context, it would imply that I don't believe in a god in senses #3 and #4 as well.
It seems to me the issue is that you are willing to apply context for "nonbeliever" but not for "atheist". I understand where it is coming from, as you have a theological attachment to your specific interpretation. Doesn't seem like it is a problem with my use of the word at all, just with the intersection of your theology with the English language...
That being said, if using the word "nonbeliever" in future conversations will let us talk about the actual existence of a god (sense #1 and #2 (wow it is really annoying to have to clarify this constantly...)) and the evidence for it, I can do that.
So as a nonbeliever, I do not believe in a god ( #1 & #2). You claim to be a theist, but are you a theist only in the metaphoric (#3 & #4) sense of the word, or do you believe in some transcendent being, force or energy? If so is this a belief you have objective evidence for or a subjective experience? Can you prove that god (#1 & #2) exists or is semantic juggling your primary evidence?
I've never heard an atheist say they don't believe that some humans, animals or even objects/concepts (such as money) are worshipped as if they are like a God.
Of course you haven't. I have never run in to an atheist who denies the existence of gods as concepts, ideas, metaphors, or figure of speech. We just think they are exactly as real as... wait for it... Gandalf! (GldnRule thought I was going to say Harry Potter )
-NoCapo
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.
). You claim to be a theist, but are you a theist only in the metaphoric (#3 & #4) sense of the word, or do you believe in some transcendent being, force or energy? If so is this a belief you have objective evidence for or a subjective experience? Can you prove that god (#1 & #2) exists or is semantic juggling your primary evidence?
)
