You claim that God does not exist, part 3

So? Being mythical is a valid part of a definition. It by no means you're entitled to not define unicorns or disregard existing definitions, which is what I argue against.

If you fail to agree on a definition, then you're not talking about the same thing. It isn't even possible to argue against the existence of something if you haven't defined it. That'd be like saying "unicorns don't exist", although you might actually use the word "unicorns" to refer to apples or mice.

 

Every definition is created by man. Definitions are a property of the word we use (not the object it describes) and our words are man made.

The fact that definitions are man made in no way relieves you from defining your terms.

 

That's a good way to start a post: Ask a bunch of rhetorical questions and come to a wrong conclusion.

Now you've moved from drawing incorrect conclusions to outright lying. No atheist defines god as any of the things in your list. I define god as nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings. That puts god into the same category as the entities in your list. But your list doesn't define anything. It is just a list of imaginary entities.

More or the same ridiculous nonsensical questions.

The real question is, where are you getting these nonsensical ideas. Quote one atheist who has said God is a "magical unicorn". Put up or shut up.

I'm an atheist. Why would I admit god exists? You believe god exists and you cannot even make a coherent argument. Why would I want to be like you?

 

The problems come when those who don't believe there is an "X" (whatever that might be) are asked to define "X".

The usual result is that the individual gets critiqued on their definition, not on the actual topic.

And, with the existence/nonexistence of "god" that makes no sense, since the issue really has VERY little to do with the definition.

It's highly unlikely that an atheist is going to choose a different answer depending on the exact definition.

 

u·ni·corn
ˈyo͞onəˌkôrn/
noun
plural noun: unicorns

1. 1.
   a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.

 

It relieves you when what they mean is obvious BS.

 

Actually, I do. There are definitions of gods that I know do not exist. There are definitions of gods I can have a reasonable belief do not exist. There are definitions of gods I cannot discount but, these are normally defined to occupy a position of philosophical ignorance along the lines of, 'something, somewhere that might have done something at some time'.

The definition is fundamental because it lays out the basis upon which I can assess a claim. As I have said before, if no claim is made then I have nothing to be atheistic about.

 

No. Definitions are a means of communicating a full description of anything. The words are abstract but, the meanings they convey are not. If you are using words without definition and intending to convey no meaning about what you are trying to communicate then you are probably a politician.

 

I agree. In fact, the reason why I am picky with the definitions is that I don't want to let religious people to get away with not defining their gods.

Really? Some of the more famous definitions of God or gods include Aquinas' first cause, which is anything which was the first thing to cause anything in (what came to be) the universe. This definition includes no intents, nature of being or things like that, and while we don't know the nature of the big bang, I see no obstacle to conceptualising the cause of it.

Other definitions are phrased to include Caesar, totem poles and the sun as gods. Now, I'm not certain I would accept those as gods, but the way I would counter it would be with a definition.

 

...yes? My point is that they have definitions even though that they are not real.

 

Well, I'm not arguing for my own relief, I want to either hear others' opinions, or make them think twice about their beliefs, and for that we need definitions.

 

Only a full description of what the word means, not a full description of the object which the word represents. Failing to treat definitions probably says nothing about the object in question, just the manner in which we discuss them.

 

The problem with definitions is that different people choose different definitions for the same thing, and insist that only they could be right. This totally effects their belief system, right or wrong.

 

Well, yeah, and I think we should stop letting them get away with that. Once you've defined God as whatever you want, like Aquinas' first mover, it's not at all hard to prove the existence of God.

If you have a dog and you name it "God", you could prove the existence of that God. The way to counter that argument relies in one way or another on the definition of God. Clearly many arguments rely directly on the definitions, so we should be careful with them and demand that others be careful.

 

It doesn't matter if atheists "claim" God doesn't exist. You PRESUME God does not exist, and I demand satisfaction! YOU are required to justify your presumption.

Tell that to your fellow atheists.

I doubt that's how most Theists would put it. As you already mentioned, you don't need to see something (God) in order for it to exist. Therefore Theists are right(eous) to put faith in Him.

Yet....that is the best counter that Atheists can come up with...it's pathetic.

"Wolverine" was/is a poster on these forums who I argued with, and won, a few years ago. Zionism is an ideology revolving around the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, especially regarding the Jewish and Israeli-Philistine relationship with God. Jews sometimes fall from grace with God. Episodes of this are evident throughout history. It usually means that Israel is conquered and routed, and that Jews flee from Israel into foreign countries (which draws hatred and "anti-semitism" against them), particularly speaking about Jewish incursions into European countries and culture.

 

Detail what you mean by "there is no evidence to back their claims".

There are countless, mountains of evidence to back righteous claims about God. This is what I'm talking about. What do you mean, "NO" evidence????????????

 

No..................you claim that God does not exist.

Because you don't know my relationship with God. You basically admitted as much.

 

It is a curse word.

 

A definition is a stake and claim that people put into ideas, solidifying them. It's a risk, a gamble, because definitions can expose people as either ingenuous or disingenuous. Definitions expose the simpletons, fools, liars, and charlatans. It forces the rabble to "show their (card) hand" so-to-speak. And they're bluffing. And I know it.

God is Divinity, Perfection, and Absolution. God refers to infinite moral power and immortality. God is the apex of Life, and represented by Lordship throughout humanity. Thus righteous men, throughout the ages, including the Original Authors of the Bible, were Godly and Lordly men. God = Lord = Christ. Christ is the manifestation of God into reality, "God made real".

 

And if you define gawd as non-existent, it is not that hard to prove your claim. The individual decides what definitions they want to accept. Does not make them correct in their choices.

 

Asa Oden exist.

But one I dislike is Lord.

Difficult with truble when it is Lord how gets them to my Life from a distance.

I hearing on Lord voices.

 

Pointless to provide "facts" to somebody who is close-minded and ignorant.

 

Why?

 

Or to attempt to provide facts when none exist.

 

Is anyone else struck by the fact that OP confuses "description of" with "definition of".

Seems when atheists describe the attributes of a theist's definition of god they are not defining what they think god is, they are describing to what extent "suspension of belief" is required for their descriptions to be correct.


Edit: didn't see swennson's post above. I agree with him.