(December 27, 2014 at 3:34 pm)Lambert Wrote:

(December 27, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Non-sequtuir. The existence of opposites doesn't mean one starts at X and then goes to anti-X. Consider the opposites happiness and sadness. One can start of as neither happy or sad but indifferent. Plus, we find opposites in nature like the electron vs the positron. The electron doesn't start as positron the latter becomes an electron. The exist as seperate entities that will annihilate each other when they meet.

Ok, so lets call happiness a human invention then, and I suppose pain would be the same? All illusion then, including life to make eternal life real maybe?

You provided no justification on why they would be illusions. So why should I take your statement as truth? Even if I grant you that, electrons and positrons are not inventions of human beings.

(December 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote: "Atheism," denotes a lack of theism, not a denial of theism. That's a non-trivial distinction.

Not true.

Like it or not, dictionaries still define the meaning to be "denial of" or "lacking belief in" god/ gods.

An individual atheist can pick either definition and still correctly claim to be atheist.

(December 27, 2014 at 2:53 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(December 26, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Lambert Wrote: Oh sorry, but Catholics are Catholics and not Christian.

I have yet to get through this thread and this may already have been brought to your attention, but ...

Chris·tian noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
: a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ

And

the·ism noun \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
: the belief that God exists or that many gods exist
: 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

Sorry, but I am not a dictionary boy, and as Catholic I do just what Catholics do and will believe anything you tell me for as long as you are talking to me, and from there I will deal with it on my own.

The nice thing about this is that I write only what I know.

And by the way, Jesus was the speaker in the Gospels and he just showed us how to do it either right or wrong (to say that Jesus Christ was never any part of it).

---

(December 27, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(December 27, 2014 at 3:34 pm)Lambert Wrote: Ok, so lets call happiness a human invention then, and I suppose pain would be the same? All illusion then, including life to make eternal life real maybe?

You provided no justification on why they would be illusions. So why should I take your statement as truth? Even if I grant you that, electrons and positrons are not inventions of human beings.

Sorry I forget to write that I will never ask anyone to believe what I write. That will be your choice to make.

And I understand that electrons and positrons are prior to human inventions as the basis of truth on which we can stand and even walk as water walker in our own right.

(December 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Lambert Wrote: Hi pocaracas, you are a good sport, and thank you for your reply.

My point was that a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other and so it is not possible to be an atheist without denying to be a theist first.

errr... ok, sort of...
A person that never hears about gods and beliefs of the sort never becomes a theist and is, by default, atheist.... although, I'd guess that person wouldn't be aware of such a label.

(December 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Lambert Wrote: And so then you can be a Catholic but you cannot be an acatholic without understanding what it means to be a Catholic. Of course you can be other than Catholic as generic protestant similar to those who walked away from the bread of life in John 6:66 as presented to them in John 6:56.

I'd say you can be acatholic just by not being catholic. And you can not be a catholic even if you never hear of catholicism.

(December 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Lambert Wrote: You bring up too many things here for me to respond to in one post. For one, it is not possible for a Christian to have faith and have the mind of Christ as Christian. That is just a paradox and cannot be true.

But a christian is simply a person who follows the teachings of Christ, or believes that said Christ died for their sins, or that he resurrected...

(December 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Lambert Wrote: And don't worry about my use of capitals. English is my second language and I use capitals for proper names.

huh?

(December 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Lambert Wrote: Ok, and I was born in the South of Netherland where it likely still is against the law to put a wagon wheel on a post to attract a stork.

Most everyone is catholic in the south of the Netherlands?... curious... I thought the proximity to Germany and the UK would have made you guys a bit more protestant.

Anyway... I'm from Portugal, so there... english is also my second language!

(December 27, 2014 at 3:14 pm)robvalue Wrote: People are born atheist, babies don't have a belief in a deity. You can't believe in something you've never heard of. The a- means lacking (or something similar) and you start out lacking belief in gods.

All atheist means is that you lack belief in any God, given the claims you have heard and the information you have. It's the default position.

That is how it is commonly used, even though some dictionaries vary slightly. What it does not mean is a positive claim that no gods could ever exist. You can use it how you want, but that is what atheists mean when they describe themselves.

I see now, have you ever thought that your idea of God may be wrong? . . . and in fact is the high horse that you are riding on once defrocked from all the ignorance you cling to now?

Wow. That's just plain rude. I think you should apologize, or else I will be blocking you.

(December 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 27, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Lambert Wrote: Ok, but does the a- prefix not specifically deny being a theist then?

No, and it never has. "Asymmetry," denotes a lack of symmetry, not a denial of symmetry. "Amoral," denotes a lack of morality, not a denial of morality. "Atheism," denotes a lack of theism, not a denial of theism. That's a non-trivial distinction.

Quote:You can be nothing or anything and everything except a theist when you declare yourself as atheist. And yes you can be a boy, a girl, a male female or anything in between but not a theist when you call yourself an atheist. So already you need to know what a theist is before to deny to be one yourself as atheist.

Not necessarily: you might not have a word to describe atheism without theists, but the actual content of the beliefs would still be definitely atheist, and having a name for a thing is not the sole qualifier for whether or not it exists.

Ok so now you are saying that just as amoral is a lack of morals so is atheism a lack of theism, that I called impoverished believers in another post. Ok I will accept that.

(December 27, 2014 at 3:34 pm)Lambert Wrote: Ok, so lets call happiness a human invention then, and I suppose pain would be the same? All illusion then, including life to make eternal life real maybe?

I have cats. One of them got taken out by a dog the other day and his brother obviously misses him. The cat will start looking for his brother and then come into my lap with a pitiful meow while looking at me. The cat is as sad as any human (or is that supposed to be huperson?).

(December 27, 2014 at 4:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: Wow. That's just plain rude. I think you should apologize, or else I will be blocking you.

Sorry I am just going by Paul who was a tax collector as 'running away' from God to show him the worth he really was, and that was when he got knocked of his own high horse.

It so is legendary in becoming what humans are created to be, and that would be the same for all of us.

(December 27, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Lambert Wrote: Ok so now you are saying that just as amoral is a lack of morals so is atheism a lack of theism, that I called impoverished believers in another post. Ok I will accept that.

You're basically making the same errors as the apologist Ray Comfort when it comes to defining atheism. For an atheist there is no god, since there is no evidence pointing to the existence of any higher being. It's just the absence of any kind of belief, not an impoverished belief.

And I find your explanations of Catholicism to be rather odd. It's certainly not what I have been tought when I was still going to church. It also seems to be at odds with what the pope and the bishops say. So I would ask you, where do you get your interpretation from?