(September 30, 2011 at 5:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 5:04 am)aleialoura Wrote: atheism is simply a disbelief in [gods and] the supernatural.

atheism is not by anyones definition, disbelief in the supernatural.

I'll give you that. I wonder if there are atheists who believe in the supernatural? I've never come across one, personally, but I agree with you that for me to state that atheism is a disbelief in gods and the supernatural was technically erroneous.

Forgiveness?

(September 30, 2011 at 4:04 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 3:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 3:21 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: The point is "God" and "god" are defined in the dictionary as two very different things. That's just a fact! We should all at least show some respect for the language otherwise how can we communicate with each other?

To an atheist that's like asking them to poke thier own eyes out. Ain't gonna happen.

Atheism is a dictionary bending religion. Wow.

It certainly seems to be. All its tenets seem to be based on distortions of the language. Even the definition of "Atheism" itself is distorted by them. Here's how the dictionary defines it:

Definition of ATHEISM

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheists reject this definition outright and have their own counterfeit definition. That is linguistic anarchy and terrorism!

Bullshit. The first definition in 2) is what I use, and what I think most of us here use.

Where is my definition Zaki??

(September 30, 2011 at 5:14 am)aleialoura Wrote: Forgiveness?

Completely of course

Yeah there have been some here. Buddhists can be atheists.

(September 30, 2011 at 5:22 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 5:14 am)aleialoura Wrote: Forgiveness?

Completely of course

Yeah there have been some here. Buddhists can be atheists.

I recently watched a documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unmis.../film.html

It even had me tripping on reincarnation.. for like 26 seconds... maybe I get it.

(September 30, 2011 at 4:50 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Define : wickedness

By YOUR definition please

Being "ungodly" aka sans a god is not a crime. That is the core of a-theism is it not??

So are you accepting the dictionary definition of "Atheism" or not? Yes or no.

---

(September 30, 2011 at 5:18 am)I_Blaspheme Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 4:04 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 3:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 3:21 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: The point is "God" and "god" are defined in the dictionary as two very different things. That's just a fact! We should all at least show some respect for the language otherwise how can we communicate with each other?

To an atheist that's like asking them to poke thier own eyes out. Ain't gonna happen.

Atheism is a dictionary bending religion. Wow.

It certainly seems to be. All its tenets seem to be based on distortions of the language. Even the definition of "Atheism" itself is distorted by them. Here's how the dictionary defines it:

Definition of ATHEISM

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheists reject this definition outright and have their own counterfeit definition. That is linguistic anarchy and terrorism!

Bullshit. The first definition in 2) is what I use, and what I think most of us here use.

Right. And this is a disbelief not based on conclusive evidence that no deity exists, is it not? That's exactly my point. That's for helping me make that clear.

I accept the definitions I referenced. I still haven't seen your reference. waiting ...

Just because it's wicked or shameful to you to disbelieve in gods doesn't make it remotely righteous in general. I want to know what dictionary you're seeing the word "wicked" next to the word Atheist/atheism, please.

(September 30, 2011 at 5:44 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 4:50 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Define : wickedness

By YOUR definition please

Being "ungodly" aka sans a god is not a crime. That is the core of a-theism is it not??

So are you accepting the dictionary definition of "Atheism" or not? Yes or no.

I am asking VERY POLITELY what your definition is

(September 30, 2011 at 6:54 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 5:44 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 4:50 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Define : wickedness

By YOUR definition please

Being "ungodly" aka sans a god is not a crime. That is the core of a-theism is it not??

So are you accepting the dictionary definition of "Atheism" or not? Yes or no.

I am asking VERY POLITELY what your definition is

I've quoted it - from the dictionary. Unlike you and your friends, I refrain from making up my own definitions of words. Here it is again:

Definition of WICKED

1 : morally very bad : evil.....etc.

Why do you need a definition from me anyway?

Does it go something like this??

Zaki Aminu/ Aminu Zaki / etc from Nigeria Wrote:Atheists – ALL atheists HAVE TO avoid the application of the strict rules of logic and the demands of facts in ALL their arguments to appear even minimally credible. After all what is Atheism arguing for but the absurdity that EFFECTS can manifest – WITHOUT CAUSES! All you have to do is wait long enough! Or, in a different version, they think that the ridiculous of “cyclic causation” – such as Hawking’s idea of a universe which “creates itself from nothing” is a viable explanation for how things fundamentally come to be and continue to exist.

These are such absurd and utterly dense ideas that only the most strenuous efforts at mental contortion-ism and gymnastics can succeed in disguising – at least partially – their utter vacuity as a logical premises. Unless it is intellectual and moral depravity that leads one to believe such notions make eminent sense.

Atheism is defeated – and EASILY defeated with simple commonsense! Insist on commonsense in ANY debate with atheists and you will EASILY put them to the sword intellectually. Concede even the slightest ground to them – such as like tolerating the idiotic concept of “Chance” as a genuine causal agent and you will have them buzzing incessantly around you like invisible and invulnerable mosquitoes.

Comment by Zaki Aminu — April 30, 2011 @ 4:11 am