Re: The bible
 

RoundGuy -

I applaud your diligence in not confusing rational and spiritual categories.

But I have to agree that your "atheist" definition does not reflect common usage. For example, I am an atheist---yet I wish that there was something transcendent in the human spirit.

(Perhaps this desire is a bit contemptible [an implicit disaffirmation of life?], but nonetheless---there it is.)

In fact, I probably almost qualify as a Buddhist, but still reject the "agnostic" label because it assumes that the proposition "God exists" has a rational truth-value. But it doesn't, because the subject is beyond the limits of possible human rational experience.

Re: The bible
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well use whatever dfinitions you want...I just hope your realize that most people who call themselves atheists are not atheists by your definition...

[/ QUOTE ]
That is certainly possible. But I will continue to call them Agnostic2's.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. But the reason I specifically followed atheism with the parenthetical "a-theism" was to distinguish my use of the term from that used by yourself to imply a positive statement that there is no god. This is not what the term atheism (at least as commonly used here) strictly means.

Re: The bible
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe there is a possibility that God exists, then quit calling yourself an atheist -- you are agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is technically incorrect, RoundGuy. You can admit that one cannot know there is a God. This does not mean you cannot reject theism. Rejecting theism is the definition of "a-theism".

Webster's definition for theism: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" It is the part after "specifically" that defines the common use of the term theism. If one does not hold this belief, then they are "a-theist". Doesn't mean they believe there is no possibility of god.

Re: The bible
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was deceived.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not by God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then would you accept it is by man who wrote the bible that God let deceive me?

Are you saying that God really insists I believe biblical stories that go against my every waking day reality? That defy everything I and science knows to be true based on all observable evidence to date? This according to you, is not deceitful?

If it is not God trying to deceive me, then it is man who erred in writing the bible and so far, God has not corrected these errors. At least not to my knowledge. As a result, I am truly and thoroughly deceived.

Re: The bible
 

Subfallen,

I believe what I believe. As much as I disdain those who refuse to see the error of the "inerrant word of God" doctrine, I also disdain those who (just as passionately) refute that God exists.

We are dealing with spirituality. By definition, that which cannot by known by scientific method.

If you are telling me that atheists believe that God might exist, then I will change my personal definition of an atheist.

But, you must show me how an atheist would possibly believe in God without invoking scientific method.

Re: The bible
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you refuse to modify your (incorrect) opinion of what an atheist believes?

[/ QUOTE ]
See, this is the backlash, and 2nd front that I predicted.

I find most atheists as close-minded and block-headed as fundamentalist Christians. No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, they will never change their opinion.

If you believe there is a possibility that God exists, then quit calling yourself an atheist -- you are agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be appropriate for me to call you close-minded and block-headed because you can't open a dictionary or click a hotlink?

Re: The bible
 

<font color="blue"> I'm a conservative, evangelical, semi-Calvinist, Bible believing, old earth non-evolutionary Christian. </font>

When you say, "non-evolutionary" Christian...

I wonder if you've ever considered that over 99% of all organisms that ever lived on earth have gone extinct. This would appear to make God a pretty incompetent creator, wouldn't it?

Re: The bible
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm an atheist (agnostic actually)

[/ QUOTE ]
This does not compute.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, it does. See?

[/ QUOTE ]
Agnostic atheism. Congratulations, you're an Agnostic2.

[/ QUOTE ]

So....you are sole arbiter of the universe (Definitions Division) and pretty much refuse to admit you were speaking out of ignorance and were in fact very wrong?

I'm glad that our pointing this out to you is classified as "typical close-minded atheist stupidity" though.

Re: The bible
 

[ QUOTE ]
Subfallen,

I believe what I believe. As much as I disdain those who refuse to see the error of the "inerrant word of God" doctrine, I also disdain those who (just as passionately) refute that God exists.

We are dealing with spirituality. By definition, that which cannot by known by scientific method.

If you are telling me that atheists believe that God might exist, then I will change my personal definition of an atheist.

But, you must show me how an atheist would possibly believe in God without invoking scientific method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow....you are SERIOUSLY misinformed. I love that you think all atheists just run around worshipping the scientific method or something. The scientific method is for learning things about the material world. Atheists have a wide range of proclivites re: things that aren't of the material world. I, for one, could care less about them. Taraz is practically in love with the spiritual, immaterial world. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

And none of that has anything to do with whether I advance a firm belief in the non-existence of a god.

Re: The bible
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would it be appropriate for me to call you close-minded and block-headed because you can't open a dictionary or click a hotlink?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, we're talking about spirituality, dumb ass. What's your "definition"?